Saturday, December 22, 2012

2012 - The Year of Political Constipation......










2012 began ice cold.......... America in a bitter political fracas over debt, debt limits and the economy. Washington power politics and partisan pressures allow America's credit rating to be downgraded. President Obama is rendered powerless in the face of a staunchly raucous Tea Party spirited conservative majority in the House and a filibuster savvy conservative minority in the Senate is unable to pass any serious legislation prior to the impending Presidential Election. Money.... Money as the primary source of all our political frustrations, personal problems and societal woes. Who has it, who controls it and who gets to spend it! Americans, nationwide, are struggling to make ends meet, foreclosures are decimating communities like plagues, hunger is equally rampant in urban areas and suburbs.

 The term food stamp president is affixed to a millionaire president for political gain, while millions of people nationwide are displaced daily by banks, billionaires and their government. Who speaks for the poor? who speaks for the marginalized? America is battling itself for an identity, a collective consciousness, a dispirited battle for control over America's future ensues and yet, the poor have no voice. Noted American cleric, William Sloane Coffin once said, When the rich take from the poor, it's called an economic plan. When the poor take from the rich, it’s called class warfare. Coffin's words prophetically forecasted the Presidential Election's main issue. The Poor vs. The Rich! Governor Romney's 47% quote was named the comment of the year, not because the comment was simply insensitive, nonsensical and politically tragic, it’s because Romney put words to a belief privately held by conservatives nationwide. The poor simply vote democratic without question. Governor Romney, like his republican counterparts, Rupert Murdoch, The Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson, Karl Rove's long list of Billionaire Buddies, Wall Street and K street cronies all put their money where their politics resided. They bet against American ingenuity, they bet against the American public's resolve to have a voice. 
They (Romney cohorts, campaigners and defenders) all believed that their money would decide the election. They purchased candidates who ignored the issues facing minorities, used repulsive religious rhetoric to silence women, gays and the poor. Money was their weapon, finances were their virtue. They had airtime, had purchased commercials, but were not able to galvanize the attention of the American public, whose cultural dynamics had changed. Bill Morris, Dick Armey all bet on this angry white male and lost....They appealed to "middle America"; focused on the angry white male. One could suggest that they believed that if they could make this white male angry enough, he would "take back" America. This male would vote his financial interests and vote against this illegitimate, Kenyan president, whose vision for America was different than the America that our forefathers believed in. You would think that in all of this, they would have sought to bring a candidate that offered distinct differences and a credible record. They didn't! They bet against the same American ingenuity that catapulted President Obama into office in November of 2008. They lost their bet, because not only had the angry white male lost his job, he received unemployment insurance, he received food stamps and he too, like the rest of America realized that they were a part of this 47%. No longer can America continue to ignore the poor. The poor people’s movement of the 60's commanded Martin Luther King's attention. The Poor Peoples movement of the present requires our attention. Poor people finance America’s wars, pay for congressional inactivity and support the very programs conservatives are attempting to cut. Often, they don't get a voice in the public sphere, because they are too busy using public transit to shuttle between multiple jobs and feeding multiple mouths on mini budgets. Poor people in America have a much steeper hill to climb and politically the 2012 banter has discussed a poor persons' fiscal cliff. Deciding daily whether to walk to work, or to pay for prescriptions. Ignoring chest pains for fear of the hospital bills, having to decide whether to pay for food or for heat. These questions flow daily through the mind of our nations working poor and for once, America is a position where they have to discuss the same thing.... that's what happened in 2012, the poor came from under their broken tent cities, they emerged from their dilapidated communities and voted.... they voted their pocketbook, and in some cases they voted for a chance to have a pocketbook. Gov. Romney, the poor were not seeking handouts, they were seeking compassion and a chance to dream a sometimes impossible dream; Economic Independence!

Monday, March 26, 2012

Zeitgeist- The Spirit of the times (correct me if I screwed it up, scholars)

This weekend, in a random conversation with one of my friends, we discussed whether the modern church has positioned itself for vitality beyond this generation. Has the church become so loosely affiliated with the mission of Christ that it no longer has a spot in the future. With any organization or business, the initial foundation is always central to the core of the business. Now, Carlo, a 32 year old Assistant Professor of English and self actuated religious skeptic argued that because the modern church is based more on Doctrines articulated by Paul than the life/acts and love ethic of Christ; it was doomed to fail at some point anyhow.

My friend Carlo said, "Churches for the most part are missing the mark" I had to wonder, what mark? The modern churchs' mantra has focused on building bigger sanctuaries, but leaving education in its wake. Huge sanctuaries serve as the yearly goals of most Pastors. Although a generality, I had to consider this viewpoint. If we were honest about it, success often equated with satisfaction. This is true in business and more relevantly, its true in the church. Music, Message and Methodology are the three M's of the modern church. If you have the right music, people will come. If you have the right message, people will listen and your methodology of the aforementioned will spell out whether your church is a failure or success. Filling the pews in order to make budget is a painstakingly true reality of today's church, and maybe it has been. The message of the church is motivated by the attendee's right? A Pastor does not run a church for an audience of one. No one wants to admit it, but yes we are called to the numbers game. We preach, sweat and bleed in an effort to fill the pews. Some of us sacrifice common sense and good health in order to see a full sanctuary on a Sunday morning.Preacher's learn early on that their goal should be that each and every soul gets saved. So, we should admit that we wait for people to come down that aisle not just to give God their heart, but to become an active participant in the faith community, and if we are lucky, a tither. However, I must openly question whether our tactics serve us? Or serve this present age, our calling to fulfill. In this day and age, we are challenged to dilute some text, while altogether ignoring others. We engage in body politics, arguing whether God can love someone who is gay, or deciding for God who gets in and who does not. Make no mistake about it, I dont write this post with the intention of providing a answer but that we take this moment to answer some critical questions, Is this the church that Jesus envisioned? If yes, how,and if no, why not?

My Suggestion

If the modern church is to secure its stake in society it must be more than a house for sporadic encouragement. Every church community must decide what issues are of most importance to them, what social issues within society they can lay claim to. People dont only need to be encouraged, they need an answer. While answers are not plentiful, some do exist. How about using some of those funds, for new pulpit furniture to help pay the rent of some of your struggling congregants. I can openly admit, that I experienced this type of ministry and it made the purpose of church (community) all the more real for me. Jesus, if he is the archetype of the church did not major in committee formation, he did the work of the ministry. Feeding the hungry should not be a ministry that can be contracted out, its a function of the church. What is the modus operendi of the church?

I would argue that Jesus's statement of purpose would give us some much needed insight, he states in Luke 4:18,

The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed....

The church should major in working with the "least of these" and minor in church building, because I wholeheartedly believe that if the Church does the work, God will handle the numbers.....