Kick it Root Down!

"I kick it root down, I put my root down, I kick it root down, I put my foot down!" Sometimes, I gotta' kick it old school with some classic Beastie's. I love that song, because if you YouTube it, click on link to watch it, you will see New York (specifically Brooklyn) back in the late 1970's, early 1980's which was directly responsible for the foundation of break dancing. In a documentary entitled, The Freshest Kids, it details how the South Bronx and Brooklyn contributed to this new form of dance (break dancing) based upon "Dancing at breaks in the music, performed by DJ's spinning records." The DJ's would spin records which caused the music to break, over and over again, contributing to a beat which enabled people to dance in a more rhythmic form. Only New Yorker's could do something like that! JK of course. Kind of. The greatest part about the DJ's spinning records was that they used old time rhythm and blues artists. Mo-Town, James Brown, Disco...etc. There always needs to be the integration of the old, coupled with the new--feeling the classics, but keepin' up with the cultural milieu.

I, of course related this to the way that each generation in the United States thinks that it has been the first to develop a new concept. We would deny that our culture does this, but how many conversations do we have between the World War II generation, the Baby Boomers, Generation X, and now Generation Y? I know that there are some organizations and churches which have bonded the generations together, but for the most part, at least the people that I associate with have found that they are doing everything for themselves. Maybe this has to do with America's "rugged individualism", which is one of the core tenet's in the foundation of our country. Maybe it has to do too much with the modern quest to know the "true self." This is a funny identification, because the true self is whoever we actually are. We have heard the statement before, "Well, they were not really like that!" I am the first to say that blame is never completely on the shoulders of any one human being, even for their own choices, and the beginning of owning decisions starts with the premise that it is never one person's fault. But our true selves are sculpted by our history, our culture, other peoples judgments about us, societies labels of us, our associations, etc...the list could go on.

This leads to a radical restructuring of the centrality of discipleship. What does it truly mean to be "In Christ"? Is being In Christ integrally tied to being connected with my heritage and my roots? I started this blog by quoting from the song, "Root Down", because maybe something in us longs to truly know our roots, our heritage, our seeds. This is the reason that I truly identified with Black Liberation Theology, because its central message is the African-American experience, which believes in the incarnation of Jesus into the midst of our communities. This theological supposition does not need post-modernism to tell it that we should be living in community. It has been a part of the experience of Africans and African Americans for centuries. For the most part, my history has been color blind, but has our color blind-ness, really been a blindness to the depth's of the human story?

To truly know and be known is at the core of humanity and as Miroslav Volf has said in Exclusion and Embrace, post-modernity has a fascination with the self and deeply desires a "Liberated self", but in the process of liberation, have we lost our roots? I want to once again, "Kick it Root Down!" Peace!

Sacrifice of the gods?

Over the past week I have discovered a new vice, which is entitled Yahoo Answers.  (Click on the link and it will bring you to my Q & A section) It encapsulates a question and answer forum where people ask some poignant, but sometimes very random questions about life, spirituality, and  various non-sensical stuff. (I am not placing spirituality with non-sense) I usually frequent either the sociology section about "Culture and Groups" to write responses to peoples ignorance concerning the construction of race in the U.S., or the section concerning "religion and spirituality".  It is fascinating to read what Americans think about Christianity and to simply understand how Christians are perceived in the U.S. I realize that debate almost never changes people's minds, but I attempt to explain the reasons for certain "Christian" behavior from the perspective of religious traditions, mainly the Reformed ones. Although many people who ask questions are not familiar with Christianity there are some very angry questions directed towards Christianity and I have to think, "Is this fair?"

Many claim to be atheists, but it seems that there is a deep seated hatred for someone or something which has contributed to their overall bitterness.  Hey, I will be the first to attest to being from the Anger Tradition and projecting my anger onto an object, which I perceived to be lesser.  For many of the atheists, they perceive Christianity to be a blatantly ignorant tradition; caught in myths, spiritual story telling, ghouls, and ghosts, all surrounded by zombie like followers of a dead god.  Sounds interesting, eh?  I think though if one listened long enough to what they are saying it would be that, "Christianity is meant to be loving, it is meant to care for our needs, it is meant to display compassion, why does it not, why, why??"  The people want a loving God, they want a God who accepts their flaws, accepts their questions, accepts their weakness, but most of all accepts that THEY will not accept everything which Christianity is laying down.  Oh, wait, I was with you until that last part.

It seems as though God's grace has its limitations with people.  God will not accept people who doubt, people who question him, or Christians don't accept people who question God. I don't know why but this drew me to start thinking about the story of Abraham and his son Isaac, when Abraham was told to sacrifice his son.  If you know me, I am not one to usually relate something to a biblical story, so maybe this meant something. Abraham in the story seemed fairly ready and able to sacrifice his child at least from the perspective of the writer. From what we know about Mesopotamian culture, they had a fairly broad knowledge of the gods and this would not be a far stretch for a god to request a child sacrifice.  Abraham willingly went, but it seems as though we have always read this story from the vantage point of Abraham, because it is easier for us to identify with a "father and son".  If anyone else figured this out a long time ago, I apologize for my slowness, since I am just figuring this out, but the story is really about the unveiling of Yhwh to humanity.  It is about the unveiling of a god who is beginning the process of transforming how humans treated other humans.  Unveiling that Yhwh does not need the sacrifice to know the heart.  The unveiling that the earth belongs to Yhwh and he has concern about children, it is the start of the transformative way which humanity sees its God. Maybe I started to think about this because people in the Yahoo section see the god of the Old Testament as so angry, because we have not portrayed this god to be the god who unveils his compassion, kindness, and love, over against the gods who demand the sacrifice of humans.  It starts to make sense why the Lord would say, "Choose this day whom you will serve?" (My paraphrase)  There were actually many choices in that day.  How about in our day? Which god do we serve?

Which god do we serve?  The god of civil religion who demands our sacrifice to war? The god of consumerism who demands our money and allegiance?  The god of my anger?  (That is meant for me)  Without an inward critique of my own allegiance, I can not speak of any other allegiances.  I will end this by saying be blessed, God loves us.  

Subverting systems of power and domination

I started writing today about the economic practices of the Protestant Church, mainly taken from McLaren's book, Everything Must Change and Max Weber's, The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, but I did not get very far, because the more involved in society I am, the more I realize that our economic practices (U.S.) can not be separated from the social construction of;"White Privilege"!  Although Weber sees this "Spirit of Capitalism" coming from the Reformation and Protestants embracing the work ethic of secular society, I personally believe that that supposition alone will not have much influence in our current society, unless one identifies with whiteness in the U.S., since whites hold dominant control over the means of production.  Wow, that sounded a lot like Karl Marx, but unlike Marx, I do not believe that whites (dominant class, bourgeois) are the problem!  I believe the system of "whiteness" (bourgeoisie) is the problem.

I know many people who work hard, but are extremely poor. What a paradox, one can be a hard worker and be poor?  If those people were part of the system of whiteness, would their hard word be of greater benefit towards advancing in the workplace? Of course the definition of hard work also needs to be deeply examined within Protestant circles, so that we as Christians do not demonize another group, simply by the delineation of "hard work or lazy", as if those are the only two categories we can choose from.  As McLaren says, "Some people are actually people oriented, not task oriented," but in an ever developing technological society, how do we strive to move ahead by focusing on being relational? (My words)  I am being facetious in my question.

I have written a lot on what it means to be "white" in the U.S. and this morning as I took a minor detour by going to Noah's Bagels in South Pasadena, I suddenly understood the intricacies involved in this process of "becoming white".  Simply by going to Noah's Bagels, I feel my "white-ness" affirmed, yet I leave sensing that this privilege has drained people of their ability to be, dare I say, "Human".  The dominant characteristic of my writing stems from my belief that not everything is "alright", and by dominant culture ignoring one of the most controversial issues of our day is not, dare I say, "Christian".  Our assumption of privileges in the Christian community is a direct result of social programs in this country which have been specifically created to benefit the people in power.  It is not a dismantling of the system which needs to take place, but a reconfiguration to include all people, not just some people.

I should do an anthropological study of people who frequent Noah's Bagels, it would be very interesting to understand there are cultural distinctions which are unique to white culture. Noah's Bagels in South Pasadena on a Saturday or Sunday morning is in my opinion, "a bastion of elite-ness".  "What draws me to go to this Noah's Bagels"?  I must say that something inside me wants to identify with people who hold influence and power and it is comfortable.  So, could you say I am a hypocrite?  Depending on what one considers a hypocrite.  A hypocrite is a person who "plays a part, simply to have people acknowledge that they are something more than it appears."  I fit that category sometimes, other times I do not. Once again, simplification of a complex world, NEVER works.  This is a time that I will use an absolute.

People go to Noah's Bagels with their families, but interact very little with each other, but the question must be asked, "Why not make an egg sandwich at home?"  It would be much less expensive.  Expense, is of course not the reason for going to Noah's Bagels.  Community is the reason people go, yet very little interaction with others actually takes place, yet humans still have an innate desire to be around other people, even if they will not talk to those people, or acknowledge another's existence.

I know many who believe that having "White Privilege" can be a catalyst for change and their dominant issue is not, "having power as the problem, but what we (whites) do with this power that matters."  I might believe that the underlying premise of such a statement, spoken by a Fuller student in a class with Dr. Love Sechrest called, Race and Identity in Paul, is a dangerous configuration of many different paradigms. I wonder if people understood that this same idea was also prevalent during slavery, where the cross was not something which demonstrates the evil in humanity, but it became a symbol of power placed upon the backs of those deemed "evil". If not for the mere fact that I know my own tendencies toward power and I know how "all consuming power can be," I would probably not be were I am today.  The underlying issues of power in a police department were some of the reasons that I left. Power has a way, as does violence of remaking the one participating in its system into its very image. This is why being "white", of course is not the problem currently in our society, since these sociological constructions are as real as our sexes, meaning I can not change them, but yet "white-ness" is something which derives out of a system, in which I can choose to NOT participate.

Walter Wink has written about the issues of personal and systemic power in three different books entitled, Naming the Powers, Unmasking the Powers, and The Powers that Be.

Although it is not a new phenomenon that those who have identified with "white-ness" in the U.S. have been part of a dominant majority; this majority have aligned themselves with a power system which has slowly subverted their allegiance.  I am speaking of the allegiance the Christian majority, since they are the ones who "run" the churches in the U.S.  I guarantee that when most pastor's started they were concerned about power, but the structure and design of churches have allowed pastor's to gravitate towards holding the dominate ideology over the subjects. Therefore, if we understood the power system which underlay the identity forming supposition of this "white-ness" in the U.S., we might not so closely align ourselves with this dominant structure.  We desire as Christians to be followers of Christ and although the argument has been made for centuries about how Christ and Culture intersect, rarely are systems of power the basis of the discussion, but it is my firm believe that Jesus clearly understood "power systems" and spoke about them frequently.

A New Revolution

The more knowledge of certain issues that I acquire, sometimes it seems as though the angrier I become.  It is easy to assume in the "present evil age", to quote George Eldon Ladd, New Testament theologian, that we will all grow weary and tired of pursuing the fullness of being enveloped in love to some extent in our lives.  Normally in my blog posts, I would say something like; "We talk about the fullness of community, yet still live isolated, we talk about global crisis, yet still have bills to pay, we talk about the idealistic objectives of the "renewal of God's creation", yet pursue jobs which provide security and safety, remaking us into people who are satisfied with the status quo," but for some reason today, Jurgen Moltmann's article, "The Crucified God", has captured my attention.  Through my alleged pursuit of revolutionary activity, it seems to simply get me angry at others' apathy, yet being someone who naturally dislikes apathy, I feel very apathetic myself.  Moltmann talks about the coldness which the God of success gives to his people.  It is not the God of love found in the theology of the incarnation, cross, and resurrection.  When Moltmann went walking through a Concentration Camp in Poland, he said, "The shame I felt for what my country had done, I wished the earth swallow me up, if I didn't believe that they (the victims) will rise again."

This brings me back to the dominant underlying issue concerning my over-reaction against the Evangelical Church in the U.S..  In American Evangelicalism, the over-arching premise is its implicit stand with nothing, and yet everything, so I therefore, react. I react harshly and say, "You have no backbone, you talk about injustice, (and sometimes never talk about injustice) yet perpetuate injustice by your lifestyle, you are apathetic and do not understand systems of power, which are so clear in the way you operate."  The only problem is, "I am them!" 

I react against the John MacArthur's of the world, who say, "God is not concerned about slavery, because slavery is something 'of this world'"!  I do not need to give a rebuttle to this statement, since it is not deserving of my reaction, but I can not help myself.  John MacArthur went on Larry King and spoke these exact words and subsequently drives a wedge between those who already are disgruntled with Evangelical Christianity, and those who actually follow the words of MacArthur.  The followers of MacArthur, i.e. those who attend his church, actually believe that he is attesting to God's Word.  I would urge John MacArthur to "only live by the spiritual Word of God", which he claims is what humanity needs to live, because I am fairly confident that he enjoys some of the finest food, the nicest clothes, and lives a somewhat luxurious lifestyle. I do not like to harp on race, but once again, "Why is it so difficult for white Christians to understand that they have directly benefited from social programs in the U.S."? From the numerous conversations that I have been involved, most who identify with whiteness in the U.S., believe that they have "earned" what they have, coming the the next logical conclusion, that which is "earned", is then theirs to do with it whatever they desire. Why are we so ignorant?

Getting back to my own journey, I would quote Miroslav Volf at this point and say, "The exact evil that we are fighting against, robs us of our innocence towards violence and recreates us into the image of violence, making us violent ourselves," quoting Dorothy Suchocki.  I understood this perspective when I was a police officer as part of a governmental system which survived as great Leviathan, which feeds upon incarcerating poor people for addictions, but as a Christian leader, I do not want to survive upon others' misery! So, it is important to ask the question, "How vulnerable am I"?  How willing am I myself to stand beside others when no one else does?  Do I still want a "piece of the pie?"  I probably do, and I thank God that I have this recognition, so that I do not venture to acquire these opportunities at the expense of my brothers and sisters.  Are these opportunities wrong?  Not as long as others have equal access to the same opportunities, but until that time, we should not be pursuing them at the expense of others.  

The question now is, "But when will everyone have the same opportunities"?  Jesus said that we will always have the poor.  Dueteronomy 15:4 in regards to the canceling of debts affirms that, "There should be NO poor among you, for in the land the Lord God is giving you, he will richly bless you."  So, the earth has the natural ability to produce an abundance?  Why then do the poor not have access to this abundance?  Sin?  Laziness? Or do the wealthy hoard, pushing the poor farther into the fringes and taking the sweetness of the core for themselves? We have a somewhat abstract concept of unequal disparities between rich and poor and most Christians have a difficult time articulating what the disparities look like in "Real time and real language."

Doesn't everyone benefit from the systemic injustices, which are the natural forms of life in the U.S.? "Should not we all participate, attempting to gain what is rightfully ours?"  It is not that Christians do not participate with the abundance of the earth, but we participate in a new way. No longer do we participate in ways which identify with the elite classes who whore the land. I heard Dr. Michael Eric Dyson in a documentary called, Black in America talk about the prophetic voice, "Which stand outside the structures", calling these structures back to their intended vocation. (my words)  This documentary brought us to the ghettos of inner city Houston, which could be inner city U.S. to look at the blight and poverty.  I always have a difficult time allowing one side, predominantly white America projecting their own apathy

It is not difficult to understand my natural inclination towards revolution and here is what scares me though about veering away from my revolutionary tendencies.  I fear then people would not want to think about injustice and say, "See, really Jesus is not concerned with those "social" issues, he is concerned with simply lovin' up some people."  "After all, Jesus said nothing about social or political issues."  Once again, I want to tell those people that they are the DIRECT recipients of social programs which they have benefited from and have utilized for the past 200 years, which makes them socialists, but simply ignorant socialists.  Here is the most dangerous supposition about our lack of understanding regarding somewhat invisible social programs.  We perceive God in regards to the earth, since we are directly connected Read David Roediger's, Working Towards Whiteness; How America's Immigrants Became White; The Strange Journey from Ellis Island to the Suburbs.

Click Link for Amazon Books

Here then is the main issue in what I am discussing: Vulnerability.  I think that Moltmann knows about this process, since he also reacted against what he thought was Karl Barth's somewhat negative stance towards social action, in favor of a more existential Christianity and instead pursued Dietrich Bonhoeffer's writings to gain a more nuanced view towards a gospel of liberation.  Bonhoeffer wrote that the Nazi's did not care about Christian's preaching the gospel on Sunday, because it did not affect their programs, but it was only when Bonhoeffer realized that standing with the oppressed, i.e. the Jews, did the Nazi's take notice. Moltmann has also come out of the Enlightenment's, "Myth of human progress", whereby humanity could simply make more logical choices and change the earth.  

The theology of the cross completely debunks that myth, because if Yahweh was incarnate into Israel's story, then Yahweh was also found in death in Israel's hope, but hope is embodied in a cross of shame and the Enlightenment does not allow the cross to have an existence.  The embodiment of love then is found in suffering, through the death of Jesus on a cross, next to two criminals.  Therefore all the other programs and action must be found in Christ on the cross.  Too many times though the cross is separated from the incarnation.  The incarnation of Yahweh becoming Jewish flesh, is the affirmation of life, the affirmation of Yahweh's faithfulness to his covenant promises.  As I read the O.T. prophets, I can't help but think that all the harsh statements of the prophets towards Israel, Yahweh decided that he would actually bear the prophetic injunctions against his people into his own body, then afforded us the opportunity in which we now participate in the bearing of suffering for the sake of humanity, because when all is said and done, we believe that "they (the victims) will rise again" and in that age, again to quote George Eldon Ladds', "the age to come", the resurrection will vindicate the evil suffered and that is The New Revolution.

After writing this blog post, I have decided to write a book, which a certain friend has been suggesting to me.  Thanks.

The Neighborhood Marxist: Try and Deport Me!

It has been over a month since I last posted, so I will give quick update of what has happened over the past month. We had a baby named Paul, I graduated from Fuller, I am still designing a Conflict Resolution Program at the Western Justice Center, and I am continuously attempting to understand what makes me tick. (Obviously a long process) The other day as some friends were over, we started to discuss the implementation of this program at the Western Justice Center and someone happened to refer to me as "The neighborhood Marxist", a title which I happily embrace, since I would err on the side of being a revolutionary. To better explain this idea, I would say that we as Christians follow an "Upside down kingdom", to borrow from Donald Kraybill, who wrote that Jesus flipped the reality of life in the earth upside down, so that heaven, which has always been understood as "that which comes from above", is now overlapping the earth, which is more of a Hebraic understanding of Scripture, i.e. non-Greek. Please, any literalistic people, it is meant as a metaphor. This idea seems very Marxist, since Marx would want a complete dismantling of the hierarchical structures which cause and foster oppression to be 'torn asunder', since this is the only possibility for humans to even realize that they were being manipulated all along.

We must remember that the bourgeois are who Marx, as well as Bonhoeffer, Moltmann, and Cone would agree are the ones doing the manipulating, making the working classes and poor believe that they deserve what they have, or don't have, and whatever the poor receive, damnit they should be grateful! In Germany, Bonhoeffer had stated that the bourgeois, i.e. the elite classes had taken over the church and pushed the poor and working classes out. The apostle Paul had something to say about certain "elite" members of society taking over the fellowship in I Corinthians 11:17-34. Many members of the congregation were hoarding the food and drink from the communion of the saints and therefore the poor or working classes who showed up later, had nothing to eat. Wow, nothing ever seems to change. I do believe that the bourgeois is a large group of people in our society, but specifically who fits the category of bourgeois today?

The ruling class, i.e. the elite would definitely fit into that category. Who though in our churches would be bourgeois? I have been to a lot of churches, including for the first time, Lake Avenue Church for graduation from Fuller. I know some people who attend Lake Avenue and I do know that they are socially aware, care about the community of Pasadena, and invite some of the most "cutting edge" Christian speakers to bring a message of hope, but seriously, even at graduation, the "important people" sat up front, in front of all to see. I think it would benefit some people who are in front of the congregation every Sunday to sit with everyone else when they visit another church. Churches are not "Country Clubs", so they should start reflecting the reconciliatory ministry of Christ, not the "Who's Who of Pastordom". I am currently reading Brian McLaren's, Everything Must Change, but I still don't think our society will change at all until blacks and Hispanics have the opportunities to do what "whites" do.

David Roediger, professor of history at the University of Illinois-Urbana, wrote a book which I am reading entitled, Working Towards Whiteness, How America's Immigrants Became White, The Strange Journey from Ellis Island to the Suburbs, and it details the process by which the immigrant classes from approximately 1880-present, gained access to opportunities through an assimilation into whiteness, over against people of color. Books such as this deeply affect how we in Christianity view God and society, because if we live in the "upside down kingdom", that means that even if we DO NOT know this "kingdom" exists, the systems in the earth are the way towards our understanding of God, not vice-versa. That is why we can not "love God, but not our neighbor". Anyways, I am out of time, see ya'.

Conservative or Revolutionary??

This is a section of an article taken from Jurgen Moltmann's, The Crucified God and his critique from both sides, i.e. the Conservative and Revolutionary sides, whereby I identify with the second. His critique from both sides is what we in the church need to hear, since both sides have so closely identified with the structures of power, which makes and re-makes God into our image of strength, which will in turn suppress the qualities of Christianity which we perceive as weak, but are imperative to being a Christian.

Whether we are conservative or revolutionary, whether we are satisfied with our society or want to transform it, we all believe at bottom in action and success. We are convinced that we can solve all problems through right programs and actions. As Sidney Hook observes, western society is an officially optimistic society. The built-in values of our life and our system condemn us to activity, success, profit, and progress. If we experience failure, if we are frustrated, then we move on to another place, "where the action is." "What can, what must, we do? What next?" Those are our only questions, for we hate to admit and reflect upon what misery our optimism and our programs of action have inflicted upon other persons and upon nature. The conservatives are proud of the successes which they and their fathers have brought to pass. The revolutionaries want to see different and new successes. They look for "God's activity in history" and want to be "where things are happening most dynamically."
Both stem from the same stock and sit in the same boat. Who is their God? He is the God of action, the strong God ever on the side of the stronger battalions, the God who wins battles and leads his own to victory. He is the idol of mankind's "history of success." This God is power, and only successful faith makes an impression. What follows from the divinity of this God for the humanity of life? Life then means only acting and producing, making and prevailing. This one-sided orientation toward action and success, however, makes men inhuman and represses the other weaker and more sensitive side of life. From this perspective, those who suffer are sick; those who weep and mourn show no stamina. The world has nothing more to say to us. It does not touch us. One can do with the world what one wants. No despair need tear at our hearts. We become hard in the give and take of life. The suffering of others makes no impression on us. Love is no longer a passion, but only a sexual act.
The man of success does not weep, and he keeps smiling only out of courtesy. Coldness is his style. That which his activity demands he calls "good"; that which hinders his success is "bad." The other man is simply his competitor in the struggle for existence. "Survival of the fittest" is his eschatology. Just as he wants to control the world, so also he holds himself under self-control. In short, he who believes in the God of action and success becomes an apathetic man. He takes no more notice of the world, of other men, or of his emotions. He remains oblivious to the suffering his actions cause. He does not want to know about that and represses crucifying experiences from his life.
The God of success and the apathetic man of action completely contradict what we find at the core of Christianity: the suffering God and the loving, vulnerable man. On the other hand, the crucified God contradicts the God of success and his idol-worshippers all the more totally. He contradicts the officially optimistic society. He also contradicts the revolutionary activism of the sons of the old establishment. "The old rugged cross" contradicts the old and the new triumphal theology (theologia gloria) which we produce in the churches in order to keep pace with the transformations of an activistic and rapidly changing society.
We, too, find the memory of the crucified God discomforting. We gladly falsify it by changing the cross into an idol of our driving practical optimism in various crusades. As Douglas Hall has written: "The greatest misfortune would be if Christians used the Theology of Hope as just another religious aid for avoiding the experience of the cross that many in our sector of the battlefield can no longer avoid."In fact, there is no true theology of hope which is not first of all a theology of the cross. There will be no new hope for humanity, if it does not arise from the destruction of the apathetic "man of action" through a recognition of the suffering that he causes. Apathetic existence must be changed into its opposite: an existence of pathos leading to sympathy, sensitivity, and love. There will be no Christian, that is, no liberating theology without the life giving memory of the suffering of God on the cross.
Two hundred years ago, European society was already travelling the optimistic and erroneous path of active world improvement. For the Enlightenment period, the world of nature, principles, and ideas was a reflection of the power and glory of God. If man would only correspond morally to this glorious world of God, then the kingdom of God would be realized! Then in 1755 came the famous Lisbon earthquake, and optimism collapsed, reverting into pessimism and even nihilism.
The corresponding "earthquakes" of our time are not found in nature and physical evil, but rather in history and in inhuman evil. For my people, as executioners, and for the Jews, as victims, it is Auschwitz. As a German I do not have the right to say it, but for the American people, as executioners, and for the Vietnamese, as victims, it may be called Vietnam, not to mention the sad history of slavery between white and black in western civilization. For us who are white, rich, and dominant, it is the cry of the starving, oppressed, and racially victimized masses. For our technocratic society, it may become the silent death of nature, carrying us to destruction. At this point, too, our optimism collapses. What will take its place? Cynicism and apathy?
Allow me to become personal here for a moment. Ten years ago, I went through the remains of the concentration camp at Maidanek in Poland. With each step it became physically more difficult to go further and look at the thousands of children's shoes, clothing remnants, collected hair, and gold teeth. At that moment I would have preferred from shame to be swallowed up by the earth, if I had not believed: "God is with them. They will rise again." Later, I found in the visitors' book the inscriptions of others: "Never again can this be allowed to happen. We will fight to see that this never again comes to pass." I respect this answer, but it does not help the murdered ones. I also respect my own answer, which I gave at that time. But it is not sufficient.
How is faith in God, how is being human, possible after Auschwitz? I don't know. But it helps me to remember the story that Elie Wiesel reports in his book on Auschwitz called Night. Two Jewish men and a child were hanged. The prisoners were forced to watch. The men died quickly. The boy lived on in torture for a long while. "Then someone behind me said: "Where is God?' and I was silent. After half an hour he cried out again: 'Where is God? Where is he? And a voice in me answered: 'Where is God?. . . he hangs there from the gallows…. (Jurgen Moltmann: The Crucified God) Full article can be found on the blog face page.

Leviathan

This summer I will be participating in a Summer Fellowship at the Western Justice Center Foundation in Pasadena. The Western Justice Center was founded in 1996 and is actively involved in initiating, developing, and implementing programs in society aimed towards the dissemination of violence, through dialogue and teaching. The program that I will be engaged in developing this summer will be designing a Conflict Resolution Seminar for the Pasadena Police Department. Although I believe that I have a healthy critique of the overall function of the police in our society, this program is attempting to teach police officer's how to handle and re-direct conflict within their own department and on various calls for service.

My critique of the police is not necessarily the fault of the police themselves, but the fault of our culture in its individualistic mindset which has subsequently transferred control in society over to the government, who have taken that control and systematically created; Leviathan. In this sense, I am referring to the Enlightenment use of the word Leviathan, used by Thomas Hobbes' book in 1651 entitled: The Matter, Forme and Power of a Common Wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil, commonly called Leviathan, which has detailed the social contract which must be controlled by a "strong central government", which does not support any "right of rebellion," which was later supported by John Locke and Jean-Jacque Rousseau. This is in a sense Hobbes' own hermeneutic of biblical Revelation, in that Leviathan could be a metaphor for chaos in society, which must be put in order by God's instrument of divine order; the state.

This is a summary of Hobbes' Leviathan in his own words this describes his belief about the power of OUR state, please read carefully:

"The only way to erect such a common power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of foreigners, and the injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in such sort as that by their own industry and by the fruits of the earth they may nourish themselves and live contentedly, is to confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices, unto one will: which is as much as to say, to appoint one man, or assembly of men, to bear their person; and every one to own and acknowledge himself to be author of whatsoever he that so beareth their person shall act, or cause to be acted, in those things which concern the common peace and safety; and therein to submit their wills, every one to his will, and their judgements to his judgement. This is more than consent, or concord; it is a real unity of them all in one and the same person, made by covenant of every man with every man, in such manner as if every man should say to every man: I authorise and give up my right of governing myself to this man, or to this assembly of men, on this condition; that thou give up, thy right to him, and authorise all his actions in like manner. This done, the multitude so united in one person is called a COMMONWEALTH; in Latin, CIVITAS. This is the generation of that great LEVIATHAN, or rather, to speak more reverently, of that mortal god to which we owe, under the immortal God, our peace and defence. For by this authority, given him by every particular man in the Commonwealth, he hath the use of so much power and strength conferred on him that, by terror thereof, he is enabled to form the wills of them all, to peace at home, and mutual aid against their enemies abroad. And in him consisteth the essence of the Commonwealth; which, to define it, is: one person, of whose acts a great multitude, by mutual covenants one with another, have made themselves every one the author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all as he shall think expedient for their peace and common defence."

The goal of our understanding of Conflict Resolution then should come from the perspective of "the other". This "other" according to Hobbes should have their wills placed under the dominion of the Commonwealth because in essence, "humans can not be trusted". We then as Christians must acknowledge that out of this belief proceeded modernity and as we continue to move towards post-modernity we be careful to understand that we see "the other" through our worldview and the lens which has been created through the social structure of what Hobbes has detailed above. This "Commonwealth" which Hobbes created is in fact the Roman state wrapped in a new package and presented to humanity as that which will bring the "peace" which we desire. The very peace which we desire can in fact create another system which will justify the suppression of ideas based upon our belief in a "universal umbrella of logic" which will define how we act towards anyone who may disagree with us. To quote Dietrich Bonhoeffer he stated,

"The mistake of Anglo-Saxon thought is the subordination of truth and justice to the ideal of peace. Indeed, such a view assumes that the very existence of peace is proof that truth and justice have prevailed. Yet such a view is illusory just to the extent that the peace that is the reality of the Gospel is identified with the peace based on violence. No peace is peace but that which comes through the forgiveness of sins. Only the peace of God preserves truth and justice. So “neither a static concept of peace (Anglo-Saxon thought) nor even a static concept of truth (the interpretation put forward by Hirsch and Althaus) comprehends the Gospel concept of peace in its troubled relationship to the concepts of truth and righteousness.”

What can not be missed in this concept of peace as quoted by Bonhoeffer is the fact that it was developed on the system of Hobbes', Leviathan which in reality is always extremely violent. So, peace gained at the expense of violence is never the goal of peace. This is what Rev. Jeremiah Wright has said which caused so much controversy. Those who have participated in the system of peace brought by Leviathan have lived fairly comfortably, making the kingdom of God fit into this so-called, "structure of peace". But to those whom were on the receiving end of Leviathan, they were consumed by the "breath of his nostrils"!

Hobbes himself was reacting towards the wars created by "passionate man", his answer was to subvert passionate man with a dominant state. The whole point of the Enlightenment was the develope a "unifying scientific rationale which will allow everyone to agree", but when that didn't work, the state was created as; Leviathan.

So, here is the question, "How do we resolve conflicts?" Any responses are appreciated. Thanks, Love ya' all, Paul