Obama’s Biblical Budget

In politics and personal life, we often experience the tension between abundance and scarcity and community and individuality.  In his April 13 speech, President Barack Obama clearly aligned himself with an abundant and community-oriented approach to our current national debt crisis.   Budgets are moral statements; they reflect our personal and communal priorities and values.  President Obama’s speech was guided by moral principles, reminiscent of the Hebraic prophets and first-century Christians. President Obama clearly aligned himself with the vulnerable and elderly in contrast to those who believe reducing taxes is the ultimate moral ought. In times of crisis, there is a tendency to circle the wagons, separate ourselves from others, and focus on “me and mine.” This has been the approach of fiscal conservatives and the Tea Party Movement.  While tough decisions and sacrifices need to be made, President Obama signaled that the American values of community and care for the vulnerable will be essential to any debt reduction policy.

President Obama’s vision of America follows the spirit of the Hebraic prophets, who proclaimed that a famine of hearing the word of God is a result of our failure to hear the cries of the poor.  While the prophets did not focus explicitly on tax policy, it is clear that the prophetic tradition placed greater burdens on the wealthy then the impoverished.  The wealthy must be honest, justice-seeking, and civilly responsible, even if it isn’t always in their immediate financial interest.

The biblical tradition proclaims that we are connected with one another and that character is measured by our care for the vulnerable. Further, biblical ethics embraces individual behavior, but the ultimate emphasis of the prophetic tradition and the economic ethics of the early church is our care for one another.  Whether in the prophetic writings, the epistles of Paul and James, and the teachings of Jesus, scripture sees our care for the vulnerable, both young and old, as the heart of congregational, community, and, dare we say, governmental policy.

Nothing could be further from biblical ethics than the rugged individualism of Ayn Rand, the intellectual inspiration of many of today’s fiscal conservatives.  The “least of these” don’t deserve our consideration, either personally and politically, Rand and her followers assert.

From this perspective, tax policies should reward the wealthy with lower taxes and punish the poor with continued poverty and meager healthcare, while burdening the middle class with higher tax rates than their wealthier brothers and sisters.  Rather than seeing the existence of poverty as a moral blight on society and a reflection of our turning away from God’s vision of Shalom for all creation, such public policies imply a moral inferiority among the working poor, unemployed persons, and financially-strapped senior citizens.

No doubt, President Obama’s plan will be riddled with imperfections.  The President needs to stand more forthrightly with the poor and vulnerable, and frankly increase support for the “least of these.”  But, his vision is on the right track from both a moral and biblical perspective.  Sadly, fiscal conservatives can think of no better moral argument for their position than “it’s my money.”  Stewardship surely pertains to governmental tax policy, budget allocations, and debt reduction.  We need to spend wisely and effectively. But, biblical stewardship reminds us that our money is ultimately not our own; and that how we use it is a moral issue.  Biblical stewardship challenges us to see our well-being as relational, not individualistic, and asks each person to place a high priority on the well-being of her or his community.

We need a vision and a hope; scarcity and individualistic thinking will destroy our communities and nation, increase the gap between the wealthy and the poor and middle class, and stifle the innovation and creativity that has made the United States great.   President Obama presented a compelling ethical vision that should guide our attempts to lower the deficit and pay down the national debt.  We must be more fiscally responsible, but we cannot sacrifice the soul of the nation to reduce the deficit.  Obama rightly balances debt reduction with an ongoing commitment to the least of these, and this should be applauded by people of faith.

Bruce Epperly is a theologian, spiritual guide, healing companion, retreat leader and lecturer, and author of nineteen books including his most recent, Process Theology: A Guide for the Perplexed (May 2011). He blogs at Living A Holy Adventure and writes a regular column at Patheos here.

The Perversion of ‘Them’

Morpheus: “Do you want to know what it is? The matrix is everywhere, it is all around us. Even now in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window, or turn on your television set. You can feel it when you go to work, when you go to church, when you pay your taxes. It is the wool that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth. That you are a slave, Neo, like everyone else, you were born into a prison that you cannot see, that you cannot smell, or taste or touch. A prison for your mind.
“Unfortunately no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself. — The Matrix

Claire Colburn: Hey, you’re only 45 minutes away. You wanna meet
halfway and see the sunrise? At this point its probably easier to
stay up!

Drew Baylor: You think so?

Claire Colburn: I think thats what “they” say! — Elizabethtown

Once we ask the ominous question “Who are they?” by inherent contradiction we are then led to the question “Who am I without a ‘They’?’ That question is laced with enough trepidation that it keeps the bravest of people out of the light and deeper into the dark.

If you walk on a train in the UK most of the time no one talks to the person next to them or across from them or even acknowledge respiration. There is no contact. On public transportation, everyone is a leper with the most contagious strain. To ask a question about a proverbial them also would mean that at the end of that inquiry comes an anticipated response to this discarnate “They” who make the decisions for us. Responding to these questions means we would have to responsibly think for ourselves. It means we would have to actively engage in a world much better than the one we have now. When we start prodding systems in place and challenging historical maxims we then put ourselves in an almost visible firing line.

If we do nothing, they (whoever they are) will continuously and creatively find ways to make it seem that we are thinking for ourselves. That
even though the choices are pre-chosen for us, we ultimately are chosen for by the masqueraded entourage known as “They.”

Another social expectation in the UK is that it is a socially conventional practice to purchase Christmas cards for others, whether they be family
or friends. There is a silent social anticipation. And what’s not being said is being shouted the loudest. It’s as if someone does not send Christmas cards, then the whole order of social fabric is shred to pieces. But who says this? They do.

We listen to Them under the guise of freedom, but in reality are living for them rather than ourselves.

In America, most tourists visit with the expectation of the renowned customer service that is boasted about all over the virtual world and even in the real world. but who says customer service has to be measured against some objective form of public pleasuring? They do.

They are constituted by corrupt systems in place. They are the one’s who cry ‘render unto caesar’s what is caesar’s’. They are the
wizard behind the curtains. Their insight into things is our blindness and pre-contrived mechanistic response’s. They don’t want
us to think for ourselves.

Who says we have to buy into consumerism? They do. Buy the latest name brand. Be the first in line. Win. Win. Win.

But whatever you do, don’t question us. Don’t peek behind the curtain. If you do, the ordered illusion we have created will dismantle. The world as we know it will fall apart. We won’t know how to cope. Won’t question your government, they have the best intentions for you (aka, wikileaks). Don’t dig deeper into corporate corrupt systems (BP) or you might find what you’re not looking for. Trust us. We know what’s best for you. These are whispers that haunt our pseudo-relaxed reality.

This same ideology echoed the atmosphere of the religious systems entrenched in a systematic way of belief.  Then a rogue. An outsider steps onto the scene. Makes whips out of nearby items. Turns tables overs. Talks about cohesion between the jews and the greeks. The pagans and the Christians. Calls political leaders names, and not just for fun, but to make a point. Helps the outcast. Heals the broken which would have re-ordered the whole social structure. Challenges the corrupted religious systems in place. Walked into church and frustrated the listeners. He was an outcast himself. He died an outcast. He was such an outcast that a corrupt system of death couldn’t hold him down.

There was another guy who walked on the scene many years later. Called the systems out. Used non-violence. Sat naked in deserts. Inspired other mystics. Wore glasses. Transformed india.

A woman was tired. She didn’t want to walk all the way to the back of the bus, so she decided to take a seat at the front. A move so subversive her story is still being told.

People who didn’t listen to the discarnate voices of They. People who thought for themselves. Once we think we for ourselves then we can dream for ourselves then we can creatively work together. But as Morpheus told Neo, we must be willing to pull the wool from our eyes.

Thinking for ourselves is a dangerous thing.

When Jesus stands on a hill and gathers outsiders, the unclean, the diseased and tells them that They are the ‘salt of the earth, this is subversion against a system that says otherwise. Salt was one of the most valuable commodities in the ancient world. It would cost you a pretty penny to get a hold of some salt. Jesus tells a bunch of nobobidies that they are somebody. Jesus is being revolutionary here. We cannot mistake this for some Tony Robbins speech, but one that reaches to the soul. A message that they don’t want you to hear. A message that will numb you from the wells of illusion you have
been drinking from.

Psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan talks about perversion but not in its original sense, but rather in a sense of castration – powerlessness – perversion is when someone or something can’t accept its own powerlessness. Their power is an illusion. They are entrenched in their own perversion, but we have to choose whether we will continue encouraging such perversion. If we think for ourselves then we are the cracked mirrors who show them their fragmented existence(s). We are the existential investigators who dig much deeper then they say you should and begin working together, believing together, empowering one another toward a better world that they are afraid of.

So I think a step in the right direction is to begin asking ‘Who am I without a They?’

Let Go of Jesus

Jesus said to her “Do not hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”

Jesus had to leave in order for his friends to realize that ‘Lo, I am with you always till the end of the age’.

Jesus had to dematerialize for his movement to materialize. This is very much like belief, it too must dematerialize to materialize into its naturally maleable form. Mary’s desire to be close to Jesus is quite admirable. Here is someone who share her life with Jesus, who ate and drank with the Rabbi from Nazareth, they were friends in a society where this was a little more than taboo. For Mary to want to embrace the risen Jesus is an act of social change.

There is a symbiotic connection, a history that is present here. It’s tangible. The tension you could cut with a knife. Rather than turn and embrace her or even validate her feelings, Jesus pushes her away. In a sense, he rejects her. Jesus has to reject us so we can find him. Mary has arrived with the idea that Jesus has come to stay. She has arrived with her ideas that Jesus is still the same as he has been. I wonder if we do the same?

Sometimes we might enter into the Jesus narrative expecting Jesus to be the same person we learned about in Sunday School or the Jesus we talked about a week ago. But somehow he seems distant. He seems cold and calculated. He sees something we don’t, our inability or fear of change. He pushed the envelope with us. He walks away. He turns his back on us. He has things to do that are more important than us. This stings and has emotional consequences, yet Jesus stays the course. Why? Because if he stays we won’t go anywhere.

We will just follow. We will just listen.
We won’t act unless he acts.
We will believe what he tells us
and never challenge it.
We will become Jesus zombies.

Jesus doesn’t want zombies, he doesn’t want cognitive slaves, he wants people who are willing to use their freedom to subvert the empire, the social order and love the other. Jesus realizes if he stays that he is going to become a distraction from what he came to do – to show us how to transform the globe.

Sometime I think we want so badly to be just like Mary, wanting so passionately to hold Jesus and thinking that holding Jesus is going to make the world a better place, but Jesus has to leave the world for it to get better. He tells her to let him go.

Maybe one of the best things for Christianity to do is to let go of Jesus.

I am not saying we must reject what Jesus stands for, but maybe we need to overcome the inherent addiction to create theological kingdoms around the person of Jesus. In this light, we must be willing to invite the rejection of Jesus to come and deliver us from the need to make sense of Jesus. We want to keep Jesus right where he is and right where we think he should be. Jesus disagrees with this idea, this is why ultimately theology fails us, because if we commit to that, we will never get to know the Jesus who ‘is not here’, the

Jesus who transcends us.

In this moment, the Jesus who transends us, is the Jesus who becomes post-structural, post-identity. Jesus divorces himself from a moment where someone is trying to frame him into who he was prior to his death encounter. Jesus is more than who he was before his death, he makes that point clear in this liberating act of rejection. Jesus in this moment rejects the idea of identity in the philosophical sense. He ultimately infoms Mary that he is beyond it. The reference about the Father is a phrase of transcendence. Jesus is saying he is beyond this. I also think he was teaching her something (as well as us) about identity. That we can get too comfortable with what we know about someone else close to us. We must constantly look for opportunities to see the Jesus who lies beyond what we know. Once we invite his rejection we can realize that is always with us…

I think another key element in this narrative, is that Mary is the one who is truly rejecting Jesus. She is rejecting Jesus for who he could be, for all of who he is. Mary can’t seem to let go of the Jesus she loved and who loved him. Rejection is a hard thing, especially if the person you see in front of you has changed your life in a dramatic way. It’s like someone stabbing you in the back. We need Jesus to ‘stab us in the back’, I know this sounds harsh, but the longer we commit to fighting for our own versions of Jesus the longer he stays right where he shouldn’t be. Jesus obviously has a place, an idea, and a goal in mind. He subverts her desire for him to stay right where she thinks she needs him to be.

YouTube Preview Image

It is in her rejection that she finds the ability to move. To run. To tell others. In Jesus’ rejection of her, there is freedom. She finds it and it literally moves her. If we spend so much time in hollowed (not hallowed) discourse on the person of Jesus and try to keep him where we think he should be, then his rejection of us is inevitable and we should welcome and invite it. Because it is in his rejection that we find salvation from all the Jesus’ we’ve met.

In the cartoon Open Season 2
there is a German Daschund name ‘Weanie’. He gets lost along the way and finds himself in the wild, towards the end of the movie he discovers he is better settled at home. In his traditional environment. Mary thought Jesus belonged in his traditional environment, but, it seems Jesus thinks he belongs in the wild, where they roam. Where they uknown lives and breathes. It seems Jesus finds comfort in ‘not being here’, but rather in being everywhere.