I was on my way to political theory class this morning, to hear the wrap-up of a lecture on German post-marxist political theorist Jürgen Habermas. I flipped on the radio to NPR (National Public Radio) and immediately started to get pissed off.
There was a piece on the current housing market downturn and the possible crisis of Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae, mortgage lending institutions established by congress but publically owned by shareholders. Global markets are plunging based on fears of a financial collapse of these two mammoth institutions in which most of the risk is assumed by taxpayers and all the profit goes to private individuals. There is talk of a congressional bail-out, to protect the markets, but which ultimately would lead to lining the pockets of the executives running these two institutions at the expense of tax-payers and creating a precedent in which they will become reckless with risk since they will have a black check from the U.S. government to bail them out in the future.
In brief, Jürgen Habermas (1929-- ) believes that Marx’s concept of the driving economic base with a resulting but less powerful cultural superstructure is too simplistic for advanced capitalism. Habermas updates and alters Marxist theory by dividing human society into three semi-autonomous but overlapping spheres: the economic subsystem, the political subsystem (where the state is located) and a socio-cultural subsystem which he calls the “lifeworld” which is where people live, think and experience the effects of the other two subsystems.
In Advanced capitalism, similar to industrial capitalism, there is an inherent contradiction which results in periodic boom-bust cycle of system “crises” that can either be described as recession or depression. In Habermas’ theory, it is the job of the political-administrative subsystem to anticipate and “bail-out” these economic crises as they occur. This has meant a great strengthening and centralization of the political subsystem to the expense of the socio-cultural “lifeworld.” This leads inevitably to a “Legitimation crisis” or “rationality” crisis of the political subsystem with the socio-cultural lifeworld.
In others words, when a lot of people lose their jobs, go bankrupt, or lose their house through foreclosure while the government provides a welfare “bail-out” to guarantee the “welfare” of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac executives and share-holders, the people tend to get pissed and begin to have doubts about the system and to suspect it is rigged against them. Habermas believes that these tensions and crises in the advanced capitalist system will continue until people in the socio-cultural lifeworld come together to find a better way of running the whole system. Remember September 11? What did the government do in response to a security failure of the politico-administrative system? The advice was to “go shopping.” In the words of my esteemed professor, when there is a crisis, the government tells us not to worry, but just go to the “megachurch of your choice and have a Starbucks coffee.” He apologized for being a bit cynical.
I remember a popular Bible teacher that I admired saying in the mid-1980s that “God is a capitalist.” At the time, I was naïve enough to accept his statement at face value (I know, it is embarrassing) My response now? Please, do not pin this on God … he has enough problems!
I have heard several interviews on NPR about building troubles at Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae. One report detailed a large number of executives in both institutions that have been paid salaries in excess of a million dollars and huge bonuses. Today’s interview on NPR details the lobbyist role of both institutions in giving large donations to both the Republican and Democratic parties.
Fanny Mae is a corporation that is supposed to be the mortgage lender of last resort. It is private but was initially funded with public funds. The Federal Reserve has offered Fanny Mae a line of credit. There have been repeated calls for reform of Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae (see this article from 2005).
The logic is, “we have to do this or the crisis will spread.” In other words, the government tells us, “We are going to use your money as a tax-payer, to bail out these people whose job was to evaluate risk and help first-time home buyers, and we are doing it for your good.” What a croc of cow manure! A welfare system for wealthy mortgage bankers!
Yesterday on NPR, Peter Wallison, a former Treasury and White House counsel under Reagon, questioned whether congress controls Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae, or whether they actually control Congress.
According to former Rep. Richard Baker, a Republican from Louisiana and a longtime critic, "I noted that, of the top 20 officials of the company, none made less than $1 million a year," Baker says. "And during the course of a 5-year period, there were bonuses, not salaries ... bonuses paid out of $245 million. This, going to an entity that was supposed to be focused on helping first-time, low-income homebuyers getting access to housing credit."
Here is how Habermas describes the means that the political-administrative system of advanced capitalism uses to resolve these boom-bust cycles:
“In the decades since World War II the most advanced capitalist countries have succeeded in keeping class conflict latent in its decisive areas; in extending the business cycle and transforming the periodic phases of capital devaluation into a permanent inflationary crisis with milder business fluctuations; and in broadly filtering the dysfunctional secondary effects of the averted economic crisis and scattering them over quasi-groups (such as consumers, the sick, the elderly, etc.)”
(Habermas, 1975:39).
Check it out -- Miami-Dade County is in the process of laying off several hundred school teachers, including about 70 school psychologists. Consumers are paying $4.14 per gallon for gas, and cannot afford to live in a house, (or keep the house they already purchased). Don’t even talk to me about the sick and the elderly.
In my short and mostly uncomfortable lifetime, I have seen the anti-war riots of 1968-70, the oil crisis of the late 1970s, the economic downturn of the late 1980s, the dot.com boom and bust of the late 1990s, and now the boom and bust of the housing market. Somehow, through it all, the wealthy get wealthier and the poor get poorer…. The kingdoms of this world are being shaken, including the good ole U.S of A.
Makes me glad that my hope is not in U.S. nationalism, nor in storing up wealth that the thief can steal (mortgage bankers? oil companies?) or the moth corrupt (inflation? Cell phone companies?) but my treasures are in heaven … not a place of fluffy clouds but the dimension where absolute, incorruptible TRUTH reigns along with Divine Love.
-- Jurgen Habermas, Legitimation Crisis (Beacon Press, 1975)
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Monday, July 7, 2008
TOCQUEVILLE AND RELIGION - part 1
The Problematic Relationship Between Religion And Democracy
“Their mutual centrality is not surprising. Politics, after all, deals at the most general level with the organizing principles and symbols of the entire society. Religion, in turn, provides values which give meaning to human life, placing any given set of social or political events in a broader framework of significance.” – Daniel Levine
Alexis de Tocqueville astutely observed that the “spirit of religion” was an essential factor in the success of American democracy. Unlike other social observers of his time and since, Tocqueville did not trace American political culture and institutions solely back to the rational traditions of John Locke, John Stuart Mill and other Enlightenment philosophers. Tocqueville believed that it was essential to go back to the starting point of a civilization in order to best understand the normative framework or national character of a people. In most cases, these early beginnings of European nations are lost in the mists of time, but the United States, according to Tocqueville, offered a unique case in which the beginnings were relatively recent and well documented. Rather than only looking to the Scottish Enlightenment to explain the apparent success of democracy in the United States of the 1830s, Tocqueville carefully examines beliefs, mores, institutions and motivations of the early Puritans of New England to discover the normative framework that makes the U.S. a unique example of democracy and civil society.
Tocqueville believed that Puritan political culture provided a normative basis for American constitutional democracy. A key element of the Puritan influence on the American political system was the belief in popular sovereignty, which Tocqueville calls a “generative principle,” which spread from New England to the rest of the colonies. Early examples include the Mayflower Compact and other covenants which established the right the people under God to form a "civil body politic." Democracy at the level of the local township was predominant in New England by the mid-seventeenth century. Puritan political processes were very democratic and encouraged citizen participation. Despite Great Britain's overall jurisdiction, democracy prevailed in the local townships with the making of their own laws, raising taxes, and judicial accountability (Kessler:784). Due to the separation of church and state, along with the Puritan tradition, the spirit of freedom and the spirit of religion, in Tocqueville’s view, successfully co-existed in the United States and provided a religious fabric to social mores unlike France, where the spirit of freedom led to a strong current of anti-clericalism and even an attack on religion.
“Their mutual centrality is not surprising. Politics, after all, deals at the most general level with the organizing principles and symbols of the entire society. Religion, in turn, provides values which give meaning to human life, placing any given set of social or political events in a broader framework of significance.” – Daniel Levine
Alexis de Tocqueville astutely observed that the “spirit of religion” was an essential factor in the success of American democracy. Unlike other social observers of his time and since, Tocqueville did not trace American political culture and institutions solely back to the rational traditions of John Locke, John Stuart Mill and other Enlightenment philosophers. Tocqueville believed that it was essential to go back to the starting point of a civilization in order to best understand the normative framework or national character of a people. In most cases, these early beginnings of European nations are lost in the mists of time, but the United States, according to Tocqueville, offered a unique case in which the beginnings were relatively recent and well documented. Rather than only looking to the Scottish Enlightenment to explain the apparent success of democracy in the United States of the 1830s, Tocqueville carefully examines beliefs, mores, institutions and motivations of the early Puritans of New England to discover the normative framework that makes the U.S. a unique example of democracy and civil society.
Tocqueville believed that Puritan political culture provided a normative basis for American constitutional democracy. A key element of the Puritan influence on the American political system was the belief in popular sovereignty, which Tocqueville calls a “generative principle,” which spread from New England to the rest of the colonies. Early examples include the Mayflower Compact and other covenants which established the right the people under God to form a "civil body politic." Democracy at the level of the local township was predominant in New England by the mid-seventeenth century. Puritan political processes were very democratic and encouraged citizen participation. Despite Great Britain's overall jurisdiction, democracy prevailed in the local townships with the making of their own laws, raising taxes, and judicial accountability (Kessler:784). Due to the separation of church and state, along with the Puritan tradition, the spirit of freedom and the spirit of religion, in Tocqueville’s view, successfully co-existed in the United States and provided a religious fabric to social mores unlike France, where the spirit of freedom led to a strong current of anti-clericalism and even an attack on religion.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Revival or transformation?
This is a note that I wrote to a young friend who asked what I thought about the Lakeland revival with Todd Bentley. My friend expressed some mixed feelings: grateful for the possibility of some healings, but concerned about the “hype.” Below is my response.
Dear Friend,
I think your concern is a valid one. I too, have had mixed feelings about it.
I never want to be in a position of criticizing the work of God or the Holy Spirit. And it seems to me that God really is at work in the Lakeland revival at some level. Perhaps not everything, but some percentage is genuine -- perhaps a large percentage. This is because God loves to help people who are hurting and he will go to almost any length to minister to those who are in need. He will also use almost anyone who has faith, regardless of their personal merit or character. That is why the ‘charismas’ are ‘gifts of grace.’ We get no credit for our gifts, they come entirely from God. The true measure is character.
In my own opinion, revivals almost never build character. They do raise the level of faith, but rarely do they bring positive transformation, at the individual level or at the societal level. In face, revivals have occasionally done more harm than good in the long run.
In church history, many revivals (but not all) have created a ‘burned-over’ phenomenon. Charles Finney led a remarkable revival in upstate New York in the early nineteenth century. Some towns became so gripped in the presence of God that people passing through the towns on trains would fall down and weep with repentance when the train entered the city limits. Nevertheless today, those same towns are often described as spiritually dead.
Another example was the Welsh revival. I believe it began in 1903, more-or-less, and went all around the world. However, today Wales is economically and spiritual depressed – a ‘burned over’ area if there ever was one. There are not many biblical examples of revivals. What happened in the early chapters of Acts was not a revival -- in no way was Judaism or temple worship revived -- nor was it a 'reformation.' the Old Wineskin would no longer serve. It would be more accurate to describe the events in the book of Acts as a spiritual revolution.
There was a revival of national Judaism recorded in 2 Kings under Josiah that included reverence for the word of God and a re-consecration to biblical worship. Nevertheless, the "revival" only lasted as long as Josiah was king, and failed to turn the Jews outward toward the nations around them as a redemptive influence in order to be a "light to the nations." Judgment and the Diaspora was only postponed, not averted.
I see these revivals like wild fires, that burn out of control and draw the people’s attention to the gifts instead of the giver, to the power instead of the source, to the healinga instead of the divine healer. In my opinion, while God may be truly healing many people and refreshing others, hyping a “revival” often eventually does more harm than good by getting the people focused on the wrong things. Many people become ruined for long term obedience and spiritual formation and just go from revival to revival looking for their emotional “fix” -- their Holy Ghost buzz.
Jesus was faced with a similar dynamic in John 8 (7 or 8, I don’t have it in front of me). Crowds were flocking to his healings and his miracles. He DID NOT want a revival atmosphere … he wanted to attract true disciples who would apply themselves to learning his commands and being a transformative influence in the world. This was a real dilemma because HE DID have compassion for the sick and hurting and demonized, and he DID want to minister to their needs.
This explains for me why he tried to keep his miracles and healings quiet and private – behind the scenes -- the direct opposite of what one sees in Lakeland, and other similar recent revivals. Jesus tried, mostly unsuccessfully, to underplay the supernatural and to rather highlight his ‘hard sayings’ about discipleship and serving. He had the divine fire, but he tried to keep it in proper boundaries of spiritual formation and loving God and one's neighbor -- transformative. He specifically DID NOT want to hype the power of God to draw crowds. He said to those who would follow him: deny yourselves, take up your cross.
When he sent out the 70 to preach the kingdom and heal the sick (there is another difference—he didn’t keep the power in his personal hands—he gave it away), they returned to him ecstatic that “even the demons were subject to them in His name” … he actually gave them a gentle rebuke and said not to rejoice about the power over demons but to rejoice that their names were written in the book of life….
He didn’t launch a revival – the Jewish national religion could not be revived, just like contemporary American Christianity should not be revived – he launched a transformative revolution that changed the world. If you use Jesus as the standard by which to discern the Lakeland revival you will be fine. We must not be critical or cynical … thank God for those who are being healed! And yet, although it may be the genuine power of God, the “administration” of the power may not be wise, or may not be godly. Hold fast to that which is good, and ignore the rest.
There have been religious movements that have been socially and spiritually significant over the long-term. The U.S. Great Awakening is one example. The Methodist movement in England may have spared England from a bloody French-style revolution and possibly led to the ending of the slave trade through Wilberforce. The Pentecostal movement in Azuza street has changed the whole world. But we have to watch out for wild fire, avoid it whenever possible, and rather look for the nuclear power that quietly changes the world. And it begins in our own journey of spiritual transformation.
I hope this is helpful.
jh
Dear Friend,
I think your concern is a valid one. I too, have had mixed feelings about it.
I never want to be in a position of criticizing the work of God or the Holy Spirit. And it seems to me that God really is at work in the Lakeland revival at some level. Perhaps not everything, but some percentage is genuine -- perhaps a large percentage. This is because God loves to help people who are hurting and he will go to almost any length to minister to those who are in need. He will also use almost anyone who has faith, regardless of their personal merit or character. That is why the ‘charismas’ are ‘gifts of grace.’ We get no credit for our gifts, they come entirely from God. The true measure is character.
In my own opinion, revivals almost never build character. They do raise the level of faith, but rarely do they bring positive transformation, at the individual level or at the societal level. In face, revivals have occasionally done more harm than good in the long run.
In church history, many revivals (but not all) have created a ‘burned-over’ phenomenon. Charles Finney led a remarkable revival in upstate New York in the early nineteenth century. Some towns became so gripped in the presence of God that people passing through the towns on trains would fall down and weep with repentance when the train entered the city limits. Nevertheless today, those same towns are often described as spiritually dead.
Another example was the Welsh revival. I believe it began in 1903, more-or-less, and went all around the world. However, today Wales is economically and spiritual depressed – a ‘burned over’ area if there ever was one. There are not many biblical examples of revivals. What happened in the early chapters of Acts was not a revival -- in no way was Judaism or temple worship revived -- nor was it a 'reformation.' the Old Wineskin would no longer serve. It would be more accurate to describe the events in the book of Acts as a spiritual revolution.
There was a revival of national Judaism recorded in 2 Kings under Josiah that included reverence for the word of God and a re-consecration to biblical worship. Nevertheless, the "revival" only lasted as long as Josiah was king, and failed to turn the Jews outward toward the nations around them as a redemptive influence in order to be a "light to the nations." Judgment and the Diaspora was only postponed, not averted.
I see these revivals like wild fires, that burn out of control and draw the people’s attention to the gifts instead of the giver, to the power instead of the source, to the healinga instead of the divine healer. In my opinion, while God may be truly healing many people and refreshing others, hyping a “revival” often eventually does more harm than good by getting the people focused on the wrong things. Many people become ruined for long term obedience and spiritual formation and just go from revival to revival looking for their emotional “fix” -- their Holy Ghost buzz.
Jesus was faced with a similar dynamic in John 8 (7 or 8, I don’t have it in front of me). Crowds were flocking to his healings and his miracles. He DID NOT want a revival atmosphere … he wanted to attract true disciples who would apply themselves to learning his commands and being a transformative influence in the world. This was a real dilemma because HE DID have compassion for the sick and hurting and demonized, and he DID want to minister to their needs.
This explains for me why he tried to keep his miracles and healings quiet and private – behind the scenes -- the direct opposite of what one sees in Lakeland, and other similar recent revivals. Jesus tried, mostly unsuccessfully, to underplay the supernatural and to rather highlight his ‘hard sayings’ about discipleship and serving. He had the divine fire, but he tried to keep it in proper boundaries of spiritual formation and loving God and one's neighbor -- transformative. He specifically DID NOT want to hype the power of God to draw crowds. He said to those who would follow him: deny yourselves, take up your cross.
When he sent out the 70 to preach the kingdom and heal the sick (there is another difference—he didn’t keep the power in his personal hands—he gave it away), they returned to him ecstatic that “even the demons were subject to them in His name” … he actually gave them a gentle rebuke and said not to rejoice about the power over demons but to rejoice that their names were written in the book of life….
He didn’t launch a revival – the Jewish national religion could not be revived, just like contemporary American Christianity should not be revived – he launched a transformative revolution that changed the world. If you use Jesus as the standard by which to discern the Lakeland revival you will be fine. We must not be critical or cynical … thank God for those who are being healed! And yet, although it may be the genuine power of God, the “administration” of the power may not be wise, or may not be godly. Hold fast to that which is good, and ignore the rest.
There have been religious movements that have been socially and spiritually significant over the long-term. The U.S. Great Awakening is one example. The Methodist movement in England may have spared England from a bloody French-style revolution and possibly led to the ending of the slave trade through Wilberforce. The Pentecostal movement in Azuza street has changed the whole world. But we have to watch out for wild fire, avoid it whenever possible, and rather look for the nuclear power that quietly changes the world. And it begins in our own journey of spiritual transformation.
I hope this is helpful.
jh
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Ideology or integrity?
I wrote the following piece as a response to something a friend wrote in an email regarding the conservative dilemma in the post-Super Tuesday world. If you disagree with me, all the better for spirited conversation but let’s keep it civil.
Hi,
I take it from your email that you don't like McCain, or that you don't feel that he has good character or consistent positions? i would say that is precisely the reason I voted for him in the primary. I like the fact that he has not "pandered" to the conservative or the evangelical establishment and that he has consistently maintained convictions even when they are not popular or politically expedient with the left (anti-abortion, pro Iraq war) or politically expedient with the right (a fair and humane immigration plan, working proactively across the aisle with democrats).
I don't understand why the Limbaugh-Coulter-Dobson crowd hates him so much ...but I suspect it is because, despite actually being quite conservative on many issues, he refuses to cave in to conservatism as an ideology with its “scorched-earth” “take no prisoners” attitude toward all liberals and democrats.
I like Huckabee but I don’t trust him... there were too many ethics questions swirling around about his time as governor... I refuse to vote for another politician because they are "born again" only to be embarrassed and disappointed when they show themselves to be pragmatic politicians who use the “born again” vote for their own benefit. Nevertheless, I certainly liked him better as a candidate than Giuliani or Romney.
I really like Obama ... not so much because of his political positions but because of his seemingly sincere desire to move away from the politics of ”mutual assured destruction” ... 'ideology' on the left, and his attempt to raise the level of civility. Witness the flack he drew for affirming that Republicans occasionlly have good ideas. If Obama faces McCain, I will vote for McCain. If it had been Giuliani against Obama … I would have voted for Obama on the character and conviction issue that you mentioned. Anyone who is concerned with connecting young people to a spiritual life, needs to carefully observe Obama's message and his style.
Also, democracy (something I know that you have reservations about as a system) requires the sharing of power ... periodic alternations of political parties representing interest groups. One party or dominant ideology in power too long ... will almost inevitably become corrupt. In places like Colombia and Spain it has even led to destructive civil wars in the 20th century. If Limbaugh had his way, the democratic party would be totally destroyed and we would have a conservative Partocracy ... probably not a good thing in the long run (in case it does not come through, I am being 'ironic' here ... making a huge understatement of what I actually believe).
A Democratic system require three important values:
-The ability to exercise toleration of opposing beliefs without resorting to violence.
-The ability to peacefully alternate power (check out Kenya)
-Confidence in the overall fairness of democratic institutions.
probably a fourth thing is what is called a civic culture... informed citizens who take responsibility and participate in the electoral process.
What is happening in this election is very healthy and very good for our country and our civic culture... through Obama and Ron Paul, (and perhaps even Hilary) a lot of people who normally don't care about politics have become passionately involved in the political process, especially young people. Thanks to the splitting of the conservative bloc by Huckabee and Romney, the failure of Guiliani and the success of McCain... the conservative power block that was in danger of becoming arrogant bullies (they already are IMHO) and possibly suffering the corruption of power is being broken up and room is created for new ideas and fresh approaches....
my prayer is that the left-right stalemate and extreme ideological polarization in our country can be diminished by a spirited but civil election campaign between Obama and McCain which might help us move the public discourse to a higher more effective level. and may the best "person" win.... (too bad McCain is not a 71-year-old former P.O.W., maverick conservative AND a woman... but I guess we cannot have it all in one election!).
if the contest is between Clinton and McCain ... that’s another story for another day and another post.
In any case, it is time for us who call ourselves followers of Jesus to humble ourselves and pray and repent for putting our faith in faulty and incomplete political ideologies as the ultimate answer for our country and recommit to loving God and loving our neighbor and building bridges instead of walls. And whoever is elected, from whichever party...let us commit to pray for him or her before we begin to criticize.
j
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
We are told to "go"
here are friends of ours who are going in Costa Rica...they have a burden for helping poor disadvantaged kids ... recently a young prostitute who was nearing a spiritual commitment was killed.
Any thoughts or questions about this? What can you do?
Any thoughts or questions about this? What can you do?
Monday, December 3, 2007
Pope John XXIII: A Spiritual Biography
Christian Feldman profiles Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli (1881-1963) who became the 262nd pope of the Roman Catholic Church. He will forever be remembered as the man who humanized the role and opened the door to the renewal of the church. He explained: "We are not on earth to guard a museum, but to tend a blooming garden full of life."
One of my favorite anecdotes that demonstrates the humility and faith of Pope Roncalli is the following: On the evening when he announced the opening of the Ecumenical Council, the first one since 1870, he couldn't get to sleep. Finally, he called himself to order: "Angelo, why aren't you sleeping? Who's running the church, you or the Holy Spirit? So sleep." And he did.
Pope John XXIII began his mission by promising to be "a good shepherd." He was the first pope in history "to pay tribute to the part played by women in public life and to the growing awareness of their human dignity." Best of all with the convening of the Second Vatican Council, Pope John XXIII set in motion a spirit of reform that took seriously the wild abandon of the Holy Spirit. In September of 2000, this son of Italian peasants was beatified.
Jewish sociologist and political scientist, Hannah Arendt, dedicates a respectful chapter to Pope John. She recalls a Roman chambermaid who, when Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli lay on his deathbed, told her in stunned surprise: “Madame, this pope was a real Christian. How is that possible? And how could a real Christian ever get to sit on St. Peter’s chari? Didn’t he first have to be made a bishop, then an archbishop, then a cardinal, before he finally got elected pope? Didn’t anyone have any idea who he was?” (Feldman:115).
One of his favorite sayings (ahead of chaos theory) was, “Without a breath of holy madness the Church cannot grow” (Feldman:132). An example of this holy madness was the way in which he launched Vatican II. He was talking with some cardinals when suddenly he blurted out, “So why don’t we have a Council?” And when someone objected that a thing like that would be impossible to organize by 1963, as the pope had suggested, John laconically replied: “Good, then we’ll have it in 1962!” (Feldman:129).
And finally, this can’t be said often enough: He trusted the Holy Spirit. If it was God’s will, the bishops gathered in Rome would just take of the freedom that was theirs. “Who is actually organizing the Council?” the Belgian Cardinal Suenens, a “liberal” mentor, asked the pope, in some cnocern. “Nessuno,” answered John.ba “Nobody.” (Feldman:138).
On October 11, 1962, 2,540 Council Fathers marched across St. Peter’s Square to the opening of the Council. For the first time in history the Church Universal was actually gathering in Rome, with Africans, Asians, and Latin Americans from the young churches of the Third World (Feldman:139).
One of my favorite anecdotes that demonstrates the humility and faith of Pope Roncalli is the following: On the evening when he announced the opening of the Ecumenical Council, the first one since 1870, he couldn't get to sleep. Finally, he called himself to order: "Angelo, why aren't you sleeping? Who's running the church, you or the Holy Spirit? So sleep." And he did.
Pope John XXIII began his mission by promising to be "a good shepherd." He was the first pope in history "to pay tribute to the part played by women in public life and to the growing awareness of their human dignity." Best of all with the convening of the Second Vatican Council, Pope John XXIII set in motion a spirit of reform that took seriously the wild abandon of the Holy Spirit. In September of 2000, this son of Italian peasants was beatified.
Jewish sociologist and political scientist, Hannah Arendt, dedicates a respectful chapter to Pope John. She recalls a Roman chambermaid who, when Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli lay on his deathbed, told her in stunned surprise: “Madame, this pope was a real Christian. How is that possible? And how could a real Christian ever get to sit on St. Peter’s chari? Didn’t he first have to be made a bishop, then an archbishop, then a cardinal, before he finally got elected pope? Didn’t anyone have any idea who he was?” (Feldman:115).
One of his favorite sayings (ahead of chaos theory) was, “Without a breath of holy madness the Church cannot grow” (Feldman:132). An example of this holy madness was the way in which he launched Vatican II. He was talking with some cardinals when suddenly he blurted out, “So why don’t we have a Council?” And when someone objected that a thing like that would be impossible to organize by 1963, as the pope had suggested, John laconically replied: “Good, then we’ll have it in 1962!” (Feldman:129).
And finally, this can’t be said often enough: He trusted the Holy Spirit. If it was God’s will, the bishops gathered in Rome would just take of the freedom that was theirs. “Who is actually organizing the Council?” the Belgian Cardinal Suenens, a “liberal” mentor, asked the pope, in some cnocern. “Nessuno,” answered John.ba “Nobody.” (Feldman:138).
On October 11, 1962, 2,540 Council Fathers marched across St. Peter’s Square to the opening of the Council. For the first time in history the Church Universal was actually gathering in Rome, with Africans, Asians, and Latin Americans from the young churches of the Third World (Feldman:139).
Sunday, November 18, 2007
"Don't Know much about History" 1959 to 1962
Here is my current theme song: Don't much about history ... don't know much about the French I took...
The video below represents the period of time I am doing my Ph.D. research on: Catholicism from 1959 through the opening of Vatican II in October 1962 and the role of Castro and the Cuban revolution in influencing John XXIII and global Catholicism that they needed to come to terms with modernity. The main characters of this story? Fidel Castro, Pope John XXIII, John Kennedy, Nikita Kruschev...
...Cardenal Luis Concha Cordoba in Colombia, Cardenal Arteaga en Cuba, Archbiships Enrique Perez Serentes and others in Cuba... President Janio Quadros en Brasil was lurking in the background as was Vicepresident Joao Goulart. Enjoy Sam Cook's song and this historical video clips...
The video below represents the period of time I am doing my Ph.D. research on: Catholicism from 1959 through the opening of Vatican II in October 1962 and the role of Castro and the Cuban revolution in influencing John XXIII and global Catholicism that they needed to come to terms with modernity. The main characters of this story? Fidel Castro, Pope John XXIII, John Kennedy, Nikita Kruschev...
...Cardenal Luis Concha Cordoba in Colombia, Cardenal Arteaga en Cuba, Archbiships Enrique Perez Serentes and others in Cuba... President Janio Quadros en Brasil was lurking in the background as was Vicepresident Joao Goulart. Enjoy Sam Cook's song and this historical video clips...
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Revolution! 1968
hi friends,
this blog has been inactive for a while. I plan to come back to this, sometime in the future when I have more academic/spiritual friends who are interested in discussing Faith and Reason ... but for the moment, the theme does not seem sexy enough and I only use this blog for posting and storing some of my ideas.
Our conversation has moved over to my other blog (or at least one of them) and we are having a lively and stimulating conversation with a young crowd about what it means to get out of the fish bowl into the ocean ... we also have some cool Beatles music video's on there!
KAIROS REVOLUTION
Where Kairos represents the Greek word for "the decisive time" (or the fullness of time) and Revolution means a total, radical paradigm change.
join us to talk about the Agape Revolution!
this blog has been inactive for a while. I plan to come back to this, sometime in the future when I have more academic/spiritual friends who are interested in discussing Faith and Reason ... but for the moment, the theme does not seem sexy enough and I only use this blog for posting and storing some of my ideas.
Our conversation has moved over to my other blog (or at least one of them) and we are having a lively and stimulating conversation with a young crowd about what it means to get out of the fish bowl into the ocean ... we also have some cool Beatles music video's on there!
KAIROS REVOLUTION
Where Kairos represents the Greek word for "the decisive time" (or the fullness of time) and Revolution means a total, radical paradigm change.
join us to talk about the Agape Revolution!
New discussion blog
hi friends,
this blog has been inactive for a while. I plan to come back to this, sometime in the future when I have more academic/spiritual friends who are interested in discussing Faith and Reason ... but for the moment, the theme does not seem sexy enough and I only use this blog for posting and storing some of my ideas.
Our conversation has moved over to my other blog (or at least one of them) and we are having a lively and stimulating conversation with a young crowd about what it means to get out of the fish bowl into the ocean ... we also have some cool Beatles music video's on there!
KAIROS REVOLUTION
Where Kairos represents the Greek word for "the decisive time" (or the fullness of time) and Revolution means a total, radical paradigm change.
join us to talk about the Agape Revolution!
this blog has been inactive for a while. I plan to come back to this, sometime in the future when I have more academic/spiritual friends who are interested in discussing Faith and Reason ... but for the moment, the theme does not seem sexy enough and I only use this blog for posting and storing some of my ideas.
Our conversation has moved over to my other blog (or at least one of them) and we are having a lively and stimulating conversation with a young crowd about what it means to get out of the fish bowl into the ocean ... we also have some cool Beatles music video's on there!
KAIROS REVOLUTION
Where Kairos represents the Greek word for "the decisive time" (or the fullness of time) and Revolution means a total, radical paradigm change.
join us to talk about the Agape Revolution!
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
The People themselves become priests and kings
“Protestantism is a democratic-federative movement. The Christian Protestant world is a vast federation of churches, governed democratically in conformity with the model laid down by the primitive church. The life of the local congregation is intense and greatly contributing to the incorporation of evangelical ideals into the life of the community. It tends to the creation of a people who themselves become priests and kings. The people themselves exercise the ministry of the altar... Roman Catholicism, in its organization, follows the model of an absolute monarchy....”
Manuel Carlos Ferraz, distinguished Brazilian jurist and President of the Appellate Court of Brazil speaking in an interview in 1944.
cited in Penyak, Lee M., and Walter J Petry, eds. Religions in Latin America: A Documentary History. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2006: 227.
Manuel Carlos Ferraz, distinguished Brazilian jurist and President of the Appellate Court of Brazil speaking in an interview in 1944.
cited in Penyak, Lee M., and Walter J Petry, eds. Religions in Latin America: A Documentary History. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2006: 227.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
