Friday, February 26, 2016

Exposure of left wing establishment article


THE BLOG

The Exposure of the Vast Left-wing Establishment

02/26/2016 04:23 pm ET | Updated 4 hours ago

Ethan Miller via Getty Images

I have to admit that I have learned so much more about America and our political and social realities thanks to this election year and Bernie Sanders. It's almost like I am some teenager seeing things the way they are for the first time instead of a 55 year old man who should have known some of these realities a long time ago.

What my eyes have been opened to this election season in a way they have never been opened before is the depth of the truth in what Sanders says about our system being deeply rigged. Let's be clear, I am not saying as a black man originally from the South that I did not understand long ago that American society was definitely tilted in favor of whites, men, straights, the wealthy, the attractive and Christians for example. The reality of the privilege inherent to those groups has always been obvious. But I guess this year, as I have watched the way the entire system has piled on I have come to realize in a much deeper way that those in power, even those with a little bit of power, will do everything they can to maintain the system.

Of course we all know this was and is the reality when we are talking about the 1 percent who own and control mostly everything there is in our society. And we always knew the political ruling class would do what they could to stay on the side of power, including conspiring with the 1 percent when necessary, by taking their money and doing their bidding in order to curry favor. So there were no surprises there. But what jolted me the most from my previous misunderstanding about how powerful the whole system is and how wide it stretched was in not fully accepting the fact that even those on the Left could be part of that rigged system. Of course seeing it now it is obvious. Those in power, even when the power is on a side I support, will support actions that maintain power. The idea of an "establishment" in the women's movement, in the black and Hispanic communities, in the "liberal media," in the Left in general, is not one we typically think of. But that establishment is very real. And has it ever raised its ugly head during this primary season.

The Clinton campaign has pulled the lever unleashing, and maybe I should say, exposing, the depth of the Left Establishment in all its fury. First there was Clinton herself admonishing Sanders for daring to imply that she, a woman, was part of the establishment. Then there was the attack of the feminist icons to carry that mantle for her, Gloria Steinem and Madeline Albright. Once the primary race became more about race, when blacks and Hispanics were part of the conversation, Hilary's campaign has further unleashed a surrogate team of Latino and Black leaders to do their part in taking down Sanders. As with the feminist icons, the black surrogates have included many established black leaders such as Representatives John Lewis and Jim Clyburn.

By no means am I saying this surrogate game is not a standard part of politics. But what I am saying is that watching the lineup of these folks coming out for Clinton is like watching a who's who list of what makes up the establishment core of the Left. Sure these people, women and minorities that they are, have long battled the bigger establishment of power and money in our society. But let's not continue our naiveté by not realizing that all of them represent a different power structure, their own establishment. And be not mistaken, they will do whatever is necessary to remain a part of that power structure. Hillary Clinton is the next in line to the throne, at least so the Left Establishment has decided, and that includes the DNC. And those that want favor from her when and if she occupies the White House, again, are doing their part to make sure their position in the Left Establishment remains secure.

I can totally see why so many in that establishment are so caught off guard and so surprised by the sheer enthusiasm Sanders gets from young people, from young women, from even young blacks and Latinos. Young people are not as beholden to the old guard. They respect what they have done but young voters have made it clear they want to blow the system up. And to the horror of those in power, whether Left or Right, that includes them. It is why there was such outrage from the Left Establishment when Bernie called out the leaders of Planned Parenthood when they endorsed Mrs. Clinton. "So I have friends and supporters in the Human Rights [Campaign] Fund and Planned Parenthood," he said. "But you know what? Hillary Clinton has been around for a very, very long time. Some of these groups are, in fact, part of the establishment."

Despite the huffing and puffing from some feminists and the Clintons about his statement, Sanders was absolutely right. Planned Parenthood and any of those long-standing advocacy groups, including ones like the Congressional Black Caucus PAC, or other long time leaders, are indeed establishment. They may not like admitting it or accepting it. But at some point they have become a part of a system and structure of power. And they do not want to lose their place. Sanders threatens that place. So the establishment goes into survival mode. And watching it in action has not been pretty.

Even the liberal media is not immune and has been exposed as party to the structure of power that is fighting for its position and access. As someone who faithfully watches MSNBC as being the only place I felt I could get news and analysis with more of a liberal spin, I have been amazed at even them, for showing their bias in this election. Don't even let me get started on Chris Matthews in particular, who I can't even watch any more, for his open advocacy for Hillary Clinton. But he is not alone. The media, MSNBC, CNN and all the major networks and papers are definitely lined up as part of a structure of power that is beholden to those in power from whom they want access and from whom they expect to keep them in power.

As you can tell by now, yes I am a Sanders supporter, though to be clear, I didn't start out that way. But as the truth of what he has been saying, about our rigged system, become more and more obvious, the more and more I have decided the young people are right on this one. We do need to shake the system up. No real change is going to take place unless we do. And whether it is part of the Left or the Right, establishment ways of doing things are keeping the current structure intact. And I agree if we are going to be different, change things up, then let's do it. Even those who didn't start their fight being a part of any establishment, like the Steinem's, Albright's and Lewis's of the world, have found themselves now a part of a system that benefits from the power of the old guard. And while the Left Establishment is on the outside of the Right Establishment, their fights and differences often don't amount to much change in the long run.

I am afraid Sanders is going to have a real hard time winning when the fight against the establishment means fighting the Left and the Right. But it doesn't mean the fight isn't worth it and it doesn't mean his message of a rigged economy and rigged political system isn't getting through. And in that sense he has already won by waking up so many of us to the truth.



Wednesday, February 10, 2016

Confessions of a conservative in an uneasy election year

I have been a political conservative my whole life but the gospel of Christ challenges me in ways today like never before.  The Jewish politics of Jesus day supported temple nationalism and stirred Jesus own people against him while Rome chose a cautious pragmatism to conserve itself by executing anyone who was a threat to Roman exceptionalism.  Does any of this sound familiar today?  Now our American conservative icons support our military and secure our borders at all costs.  For thirty years I have not seen trickle down economics work, a growing willingness by conservatives to torture people, bomb civilians, and suspend human rights for the higher good of national security,

We have seen the economic ransacking of wall-street, unfettered corporate business run over the weak and the economic gap between the rich and poor widen as the middle class continues to shrink.  We have witnessed political corruption and wealthy elites manage our politics, media, and government.  Institutional greed and corporate imperialism runs amok and your next political leader is bought and sold by the highest bidding super-pac. 

As we all face another election year, my conservative beliefs and values are not being attacked by the outside as much as the inner struggle for my own soul.  Christ is calling me to something greater, bigger, and higher than the politics of the right or the left.  Christ is calling me to nothing less than the righteousness of Christ and the politics of the cross to challenge all worldly political structures in our fallen world we breath and live in.  My uneasy conscience has too often followed the politics that crucified my Lord and Savior rather than the politics of Jesus that wants to transform this world into a place where all people of all races and nationalities live with the hope of a unified world that extends shalom to all.


Tuesday, February 9, 2016

Enough of Sword Play - Luke 22:38


In the recent brouhaha on this blog about Christians and weapons and violence, more than once Luke 22.38 came up as a supposed justification for disciples using swords.  This is in fact a bad misreading of this text, based in part on a bad mistranslation of it.   In the forthcoming commentary on Luke A.J. Levine and I are doing for Cambridge U. Press, here is what is said about this verse——
Vs. 38 is heavy laden with bitter irony in light of the previous verse.  Jesus’ own disciples are not to act like thugs or transgressors, and yet here they are gearing up for ‘battle’.  Jesus has just used dramatic language to warn them that hard and hostile times are about to happen (hence the remark about selling their cloak and buying a sword).[1] But the disciples misunderstand the thrust of what he is saying and in fact they are already packing weapons!  They produce two swords, and will go on to use one of them (22.50).  In total exasperation at their thick-headedness Jesus terminates this discussion with ‘enough’ (hikanon estin)[2] just as he will quickly stop their violence with a sword by ‘enough of that’ (eate eos toutou).   Jesus is not here an advocate of carrying weapons, even for self protection, but he is warning of violent times ahead.[3] As Fitzmyer puts it “the irony concerns not the number of weapons, but the mentality of the apostles. Jesus will have nothing to do with swords, even for defense.”[4] Even better Craddock says: “In the battles facing the Twelve, swords will be useless [against the Devil]: a sword would not help Judas, a sword would not help Simon, a sword would not help frightened and fleeing disciples.  But they thought so.  Jesus knew they did not understand, and so he said, “Enough of this talk: drop this subject.”[5] From a grammatical point, it seems clear that this is the right interpretation of vs. 38 which simply says in the Greek “he said to them ‘Enough’!”  It does not read “Two swords are enough”. What we have here is an idiomatic expression used to close off a discussion.[6]

[1] That this is dramatic hyperbole is clear enough since the disciples would always need their cloaks if they were planning on going on living. They couldn’t go around in their underclothes all the time, especially not in winter or spring in Israel, particularly in Judea. Jesus is not actually counseling the purchase of weapons here, only making clear that hard and dangerous times will soon be upon them. It is true that short swords were the regular part of the gear of a traveler in Roman times who passed through dangerous territory, and they were always just for protection, not for offensive purposes. But the reference to the selling of the cloak, a much more essential item for the traveler  shows the real  rhetorical character of this saying.
[2] Note that the Greek has ‘it is enough’, not ‘they are enough’ which is what would be required if Jesus was approving of  the two swords they had produced and shown. See rightly Evans, Luke, p. 322.  Two swords would hardly be enough if Jesus were actually urging armed combat with the considerable collection of Temple police they were about to face.
[3] See the discussion in Johnson, Luke, p. 347; Fitzmyer, Luke X-XXIV, pp. 1432-34.  Cyril of Alexandria understood the Greek phrase to be sarcastic in its irony—‘you already have two swords?  Well that’s more than enough surely.’
[4] Fitzmyer, p. 1434.  Nolland, Luke 18.35-24.53, p. 1077 notes the interesting suggestion that what is meant here is—‘oh you have two swords already? Well that’s more than enough to make us look like bandits, and so fulfill the Scriptures.’ This too would be ironic or sarcastic, but it is less likely than the reading suggested above.
[5] Craddock, Luke, p. 260.
[6] See rightly Marshall,. Luke, p. 827;  Culy et al. Luke, p. 684.

Jesus was tortured to end all torture


Cross
I grieve as a Christian minister who hears brothers and sisters in Christ voicing support for torture, torturers and those in authority who sanctioned torture. And these are not just an isolated few. Polls show that at least half of Americans support torture at least in some circumstances.

The distribution of torture supporters among the population is not even. Considerably more Republicans support torture than Democrats, but the percentage of both groups is high. White people are more likely to be torture supporters than people of color. Religious people are more likely to support torture than the religiously non-affiliated. Those who are the very most likely to support torture are people who go to church the most, particularly white evangelicals, according to a Pew poll taken a few years ago.

Unfortunately, too many Christians in American listen more carefully to people like Bill O’Reilly than they do to Jesus. O’Reilly, who often announces that he is a Christian, boldly asserted that torture is “morally correct.” Why? “It is morally correct to protect innocent lives from barbarians.” No one disputes that innocent lives should be protected. At issue is how people are to be protected. A good end does not justify every means possible, at least not if Jesus matters.

But it seems that lifting up the ominous images of 9/11 and repeating warnings about the threatening nature of radical Islamists is a sufficient argument for torture. “We have to protect ourselves and do whatever it takes.” Forget Jesus. Forget, “Do not repay anyone evil for evil” (Romans 12:17-18; 1 Peter 3:9). Torture is acceptable because, as O’Reilly has said, “Bad things happen in war.” And in the war on terror, whatever bad is done by the U.S. is small potatoes compared to the evil of them.

Of course, among torture supporters the concern for protecting the innocent doesn’t extend to the many innocent ones who are caged in Guantanamo Bay (a majority of the detainees, by any credible account). Instead of Gitmo being filled with “the worst of the worst,” as President Bush once claimed, Army Major General Antonio Taguba’s investigation found otherwise. Years before the Senate report released this week, he discovered, “Numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees . . . systemic and illegal abuse.” His investigations led him to conclude that most who were locked away were innocent, picked up in sweeps.

But I have heard Christians heartlessly disregard any concern for these innocent people. Instead many of my brothers and sister in Christ have echoed the politicians’ and pundits’ weasle-worded quibbling over the definition of torture. Minimizing the suffering of others by those who have had no similar experience is shameful, utterly unworthy of those who claim to follow Jesus. It is noteworthy that one politician who has not indulged in this self-serving callousness of his colleagues is someone who actually has some personal experience, Senator John McCain.

I’m not interested in arguments about whether torture resulted in information that “made us safer.” There are good reasons to doubt those claims, claims mostly made by people who have vested. Regardless, as someone who is unwilling to put Jesus on the curb when the rubber hits the road, I believe torture must be condemned without qualification as unambiguously evil and utterly incompatible with following Jesus.

American Christians need to remember who we call Lord. I grieve because it seems many have forgotten. With Jesus, “whatever it takes” never meant whatever suffering and destruction inflicted on others. Rather “whatever it takes” meant suffering for the sake of others. Our Lord was a victim of torture. His torture was done to him in the name of “national security” (John 11:50). Security was not among the values Jesus extolled. Supporters of torture –then and now–deceive themselves about the nobility of the ends they seek and the effectiveness of the violent means they use.

Jesus was never one who pressed the point of nails into anyone else’s flesh. Jesus was on the receiving end of the nails. And we can’t legitimately claim to follow him if we insist on doing “whatever it takes” to someone else in order to avoid finding ourselves on the sharp end of the nails. As Jesus said, “Take up your cross and follow me” (Matthew 16:24).

Article written by Craig W. Watts