Tomorrow we have a special election here in California.  Very few voters will turn out and even fewer will really understand what it is about.  The Economist ran a great article about “The ungovernable state” in their May 16th-20th issue for the US market.  As they point out, the political system in our fair state is essentially designed to fail or to be able to deal with something like the current economic slump.  It barely functions in normal times so it is no surprise that it cannot handle the worst recession in my lifetime. 

The design flaws for failure are as follows:

·      We are the only state to require a two thirds majority for both tax and spending legislation

·      We have allowed severe Gerrymandering of our districts to insure that they are good for either Republican or Democratic incumbent

·      Our primary elections see very low voting turn-out so that factions on the far right and far left have much more influence than the bulk of rather moderate Californians

·      Our legislature is populated with highly partisan ideologues who tend to stand on “principle” rather than make any meaningful compromises

·      We have a “citizen-driven” initiative process which is very easily exploited by special interests and the dysfunction of our state legislature

·      We regularly pass initiatives that tie the hands of the state government in terms of spending or borrowing so that there is very little in the budget that is discretionary or which can be adjusted (up or down) to correspond to fiscal realities

 

So, when times are good we squander our money and make new commitments for spending.  When times are tough we don’t have the political rationality to make the best adjustments.  Our state does not work.

In a way we deserve better and some modifications to the state constitution would be desirable.  In a way we deserve what we have because the majority moderate middle does not participate as it should in the process.  Granted, there is not much incentive to do so because the available options are hyper-partisan.  What we need is what the entire nation needs, but we need it more urgently.  We need a third alternative which is not a party in the normal sense, but a grouping of moderate independents that can win at least some seats to change the current balance of power.

What we need is a form of moderate activism.  That seems like a contradiction in terms, but it is not.  Today far too many topics of civil discussion are dominated by extremist voices.  This has always been true, but it is easier for extreme voices to get out their message in the age of the Internet and of openly biased media sources.  For rational folk it is alarming to watch the disinformation that is so influential today.  What we need is a sort of “Modactivism” or “Radical Moderation” or “Centristism.”  We need a way to generate passion around reason and balance and informed opinion. 

Perhaps if California goes bankrupt it will open opportunities for this sort of change, but not if moderate, rational people continue to be disengaged.  People who see everything as black or white largely drive California politics, like national politics.  We who see the grey and the complexity and the need for experimentation need to step up to the plate.  Our schools, prisons and foster care system are a mess.  Our lack of functional public transit is a shameful thing.  Our water law is an anachronistic disaster and we have a huge problem with water in general that is only going to get worse with climate change.  We are living in gross hypocrisy with regard to immigration policy.  It may be a national dysfunction, but we are totally immersed in a system that is both morally and practically bankrupt. 

California is a remarkable place.  We have been blessed with some of the best growing conditions for high value crops in the world (wine grapes, fruit, vegetables, flowers…).  We have a diverse population, which can be at the forefront of rational change.  We have some of the best universities in the world and many of the most innovative companies.  We have tremendous natural beauty of more categories than almost anyone else.  We have really pleasant weather.  California is a great place.  It deserves better governance.

Tomorrow’s vote is almost guaranteed to be a failure by almost any standard.  Our state will be in big financial trouble either way it goes.  We won’t become a “failed state” like Somalia, but we will fail to achieve the tremendous potential that our blessings could allow. 

Tomorrow we have a special election here in California.  Very few voters will turn out and even fewer will really understand what it is about.  The Economist ran a great article about “The ungovernable state” in their May 16^th-20^th issue for the US market.  As they point out, the political system in our fair state is essentially designed to fail or to be able to deal with something like the current economic slump.  It barely functions in normal times so it is no surprise that it cannot handle the worst recession in my lifetime. 

The design flaws for failure are as follows:

• ·      We are the only state to require a two thirds majority for both tax and spending legislation
  
• ·      We have allowed severe Gerrymandering of our districts to insure that they are good for either Republican or Democratic incumbent
  
• ·      Our primary elections see very low voting turn-out so that factions on the far right and far left have much more influence than the bulk of rather moderate Californians
  
• ·      Our legislature is populated with highly partisan ideologues who tend to stand on “principle” rather than make any meaningful compromises
  
• ·      We have a “citizen-driven” initiative process which is very easily exploited by special interests and the dysfunction of our state legislature
  
• ·      We regularly pass initiatives that tie the hands of the state government in terms of spending or borrowing so that there is very little in the budget that is discretionary or which can be adjusted (up or down) to correspond to fiscal realities
  

 

So, when times are good we squander our money and make new commitments for spending.  When times are tough we don’t have the political rationality to make the best adjustments.  Our state does not work.

In a way we deserve better and some modifications to the state constitution would be desirable.  In a way we deserve what we have because the majority moderate middle does not participate as it should in the process.  Granted, there is not much incentive to do so because the available options are hyper-partisan.  What we need is what the entire nation needs, but we need it more urgently.  We need a third alternative which is not a party in the normal sense, but a grouping of moderate independents that can win at least some seats to change the current balance of power.

What we need is a form of moderate activism.  That seems like a contradiction in terms, but it is not.  Today far too many topics of civil discussion are dominated by extremist voices.  This has always been true, but it is easier for extreme voices to get out their message in the age of the Internet and of openly biased media sources.  For rational folk it is alarming to watch the disinformation that is so influential today.  What we need is a sort of “Modactivism” or “Radical Moderation” or “Centristism.”  We need a way to generate passion around reason and balance and informed opinion. 

Perhaps if California goes bankrupt it will open opportunities for this sort of change, but not if moderate, rational people continue to be disengaged.  People who see everything as black or white largely drive California politics, like national politics.  We who see the grey and the complexity and the need for experimentation need to step up to the plate.  Our schools, prisons and foster care system are a mess.  Our lack of functional public transit is a shameful thing.  Our water law is an anachronistic disaster and we have a huge problem with water in general that is only going to get worse with climate change.  We are living in gross hypocrisy with regard to immigration policy.  It may be a national dysfunction, but we are totally immersed in a system that is both morally and practically bankrupt. 

California is a remarkable place.  We have been blessed with some of the best growing conditions for high value crops in the world (wine grapes, fruit, vegetables, flowers…).  We have a diverse population, which can be at the forefront of rational change.  We have some of the best universities in the world and many of the most innovative companies.  We have tremendous natural beauty of more categories than almost anyone else.  We have really pleasant weather.  California is a great place.  It deserves better governance.

Tomorrow’s vote is almost guaranteed to be a failure by almost any standard.  Our state will be in big financial trouble either way it goes.  We won’t become a “failed state” like Somalia, but we will fail to achieve the tremendous potential that our blessings could allow.  

The Seven Most Dangerous Myths about “Organic” Farming

 I grew up helping my grandfather, an avid reader of "Organic Gardening" magazine in the mid 1960s, tend his garden and compost pile.  I have long-term friends among the founders of the commercial organic industry in the 1970s.  I have spent around half of my 30+ years working in agricultural technology on the sorts of things that fit with organic.  I don't have a problem with the actual ideals of the original "organic" movement, but I have serious concerns about what too many people in our non-farming society have come to believe about organic.

For people who are familiar with the actual practices of organic and non-organic farmers, it is alarming to watch how both systems are misrepresented in many marketing messages for Organic products, by some environmental advocacy groups and by some governmental and academic spokespeople.  Rather than presenting an accurate picture, these voices present a "mythic" version of farming in which Organic is presented as the ideal solution and all other types of farming are bad.  This distortion is distracting society from attention to real and critically needed solutions for feeding the world in an age of climate change.  The elements of the “Myth” are as follows: 

Myth 1: Organic food is grown without the use of pesticides

Myth 2: Organic food is the fastest growing segment of the food supply

Myth 3: Organic food is better for the environment because it does not use synthetic fertilizers

Myth 4: Organic food is not produced on “factory farms”

Myth 5: Organic food is more nutritious and healthy to eat

Myth 6: Organic production could be the answer to concerns about global climate change because it has a lower carbon footprint

Myth 7: Organic production could play a significant role in meeting the challenge of feeding the next 3 Billion people on the planet and doing so with reduced environmental impact

 

Myth 1: Organic food is grown without the use of pesticides

This claim is frequently seen and often implied.  In fact “natural” pesticides have always been allowed under organic rules and are generally needed for organic crops.  This includes some very “soft” products like Bt and spinosad, which are also widely used in “conventional” agriculture.  It also includes some materials that are more toxic and persistent than many of the modern, synthetic pesticide options.  The allowed organic options, Copper sulfate and copper hydroxide are pesticides that started being used in the late 1800s.  They are somewhat more toxic than most modern pesticides and the copper is a heavy metal, which persists in the environment where it is sprayed.  Sulfur is a good, cheap option for powdery mildew and mite control that was probably first used in ancient Egypt, but it is highly irritating to the eyes and skin of anyone that has to work in vineyards and other crops treated with this very high use-rate product.   Organic production does use pesticides and they are not all better for us or the environment than many of the “conventional” options by many objective measures.   A large proportion of the pesticides used in “conventional” agriculture today are every bit as safe as those used for organic and often safer.  Marketers and supporters of Organic often sell or advocate against the pesticide practices of 30-50 years ago and with the implication that Organic means no pesticides.  Pesticides are a complex issue, but there has been dramatic movement towards safety over the years.

 

Myth 2: Organic food is the fastest growing segment of the food supply

This is a classic case of the abuse of statistics.  If I start a new religion and in one year added one new convert, I could say that I have 100% growth in a year and thus the “fastest growing world religion” (on a percentage basis).  The very frequently claimed “fastest growing” statistic for Organic is also on a percentage basis.   The reality is that after more than 30 years of growth, the percentage of organic cropland in the US is 0.6% (US Census of Agriculture, 2007).  For pasture land the percentage is somewhat larger (2.4%).  What is remarkable about Organic is not how fast it is growing in real terms.  What is remarkable is how SMALL this segment is considering that it enjoys a substantial price premium, extensive marketing, wide-spread media and celebrity support, and the implied government endorsement of “USDA Organic” certification.   Considering the “buzz” around Organic it is remarkable how small it remains, but in practice it is very difficult to produce economically viable crops in many regions under the restrictions of the Organic guidelines.  At its historical growth rate, Organic will still only represent a small percentage of US cropland in 2050.  Organic is a niche and will remain so.

 

Myth 3: Organic food is better for the environment because it does not use synthetic fertilizers

In 1918, German scientist Fritz Haber received the Nobel Prize for his contribution to the new process by which a bit of the 80% nitrogen gas in the atmosphere is converted to forms of nitrogen that plants can use.  That technology has enabled vast increases in agricultural production and much higher protein diets for much of humanity. The process is energy intensive as it takes about 1 lb of fossil carbon emissions to make every lb of nitrogen for crops.  This is indeed one of the largest energy and carbon “footprints” of the modern agricultural system, but the world could not be fed without it.  A common claim for organic is that it avoids this greenhouse gas “footprint” by using legume crops and “natural” fertilizers based on animal manures and other animal by-products.  (“Conventional” agriculture also generates a significant portion of its nitrogen from rotations with legume crops, e.g the standard corn/soybean rotation of the American Midwest).  The problem is partly that there is only so much manure, but also that manure is a problematic fertilizer.  It tends to have more phosphate than needed relative to nitrogen so that the excess becomes a water pollution issue.  Manure also is a “slow release” form of nitrogen, which often means that nitrate (NO₃), a source of water pollution and a source for conversion to the very potent greenhouse gas, nitrous oxide, (N₂O, >300X the warming potential of CO₂) continues to be released long past the time when the crop needs it.  But the real problem with manure as a fertilizer is methane (CH₄).  When manure is stored for later use on fields, even as well as it can be, 1-2% of the biomass in it is converted to the potent greenhouse gas, methane (24X the warming potential of CO₂).  That means that manure ends up having ~12 times the greenhouse gas impact of synthetic nitrogen.  When manure is composted to make it safe to use as a fertilizer on food crops (to eliminate E. coli, Salmonella etc) more than 2% of the biomass is converted to methane.  To put this in perspective, if steer manure is composted and then used as a nitrogen fertilizer on an organic crop, the carbon footprint of that fertilization is ~17 times as large as that for a crop fertilized with synthetic nitrogen.   Judicious use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer is the best option from a climate perspective.  Manure would be better used as a fuel - by processing it in anaerobic digesters to generate clean, renewable energy. (for a detailed discussion of this issue see http://www.scribd.com/doc/14079589/Embedded-Carbon-in-Manure-and-compost )

Myth 4: Organic food is not produced on “factory farms”

The image of Organic that is most often communicated is small and local farms.  Actually, the bulk of organic produce now comes from very large farming operations.  Some, like Earthbound Farms were originally organic-only entities that were later bought by mainstream companies, in this case the very large vegetable grower/shipper, Tanimura & Antle.  Others are large mainstream entities like Grimmway or Stemilt that have developed organic subsets of their business.   This process started in the late 90-s as the definition of  “USDA Organic” began to become clear prior to the issue of the “final rule” in 2002.  On a percentage basis, most of the Organic produce in stores today comes from operations that activists would normally call “factory farms.”  In fact these are progressive, efficient, highly professional farms for both their  “organic” and “conventional” output.  “Factory Farm” is an emotive term, but it does not reflect anything accurate about the safety, quality or responsibility of the producer for either organic or non-organic food.

Myth 5: Organic food is more nutritious and healthy to eat

A great many studies have been done to compare organic and non-organic food for nutrient levels and taste with a wide range of results in both directions and most finding no consistent difference.  Marketers of Organic are quite selective in which studies they cite and ignore all the studies that fail to say that organic is better.  All fresh produce is highly variable in nutrient content and taste and most Americans would do well simply to eat more of it from any source.

 

Myth 6: Organic production could be the answer to concerns about global climate change because it has a lower carbon footprint

The single most important thing that farmers can do to help with climate change is to produce enough on the land already farmed to avoid the need for more and more farmland to feed the growing world population.  Starting to farm new land leads to a huge release of the carbon that had been sequestered in those soils.  Organic production typically leads to lower yields/acre so if it were ever to be a significant part of our food system it would increase the pressure to farm more land.  Misleading statistics about the carbon footprint of Organic tend to be expressed on a per-acre basis rather than per unit if output.  It is entirely possible for the per acre footprint to be smaller but the per-bushel or per-ton footprint to be larger and thus drive things in the direction of needing more land to produce the same amount of food.  Organic also has the problem with methane emissions from manures described above.  Organic row crop farmers don’t have the option to do “no-till” production which has many advantages with regard to climate change and other environmental issues (carbon sequestration, erosion control, biodiversity, water retention…).  That desirable practice is now employed on over 70MM acres of conventional farmland in the US.  There is one practice that is more common in Organic and it would be highly desirable for more conventional farmers to use it as well.  This is the planting of winter “cover crops” that extend the period each year when organic matter is being built-up in the soil.  That practice combined with no-till and very careful use of synthetic nitrogen is the way that agriculture can best help to counteract climate change.  Climate change itself is already making farming more challenging with weather extremes and shifts in the range of pests.  Conventional agriculture has many more tools to deal with these challenges.

 

Myth 7: Organic production could be a significant part of the challenge of feeding the next 3 Billion people on the planet and doing so with reduced environmental impact

“Organic” is often presented as a viable option to meet these extremely critical challenges, but for all the reasons listed above, it is not rational to expect that organic production could be scaled-up enough, and if it were it would actually make matters worse.  What is needed is a focus on the best ways to continue improving the 99+% of agriculture, which has already come a very long way over recent decades.

 

 

 

 

Thoughts on Obama's Inauguration

I’m sure that today, January 20, 2009, will turn out to have been a peak day for blogging.  After all, we watched the inauguration of the first American President to have Afro-American heritage and some nearly uncountable number of people made the effort to be there.  Many of us also celebrated the end of an administration that to we believed to have taken us in horribly wrong directions on many fronts.  The world as a whole seemed to breath a sigh of relief that there was a new possibility from the Super Power who had fallen so far in their view.  We heard a speech from Obama that was much colored by realism about the very difficult situation in which we find ourselves on this historic day.  There was a lot to think about at this important moment in history.

 

As a dedicated political moderate, my reactions to this day are complex.  This is the first time in my 36 years of voting that I am so invested in the incoming office holder.  This is the first election in which I made financial contributions.  This is the first election for which I planted a sign in the yard, applied a bumper sticker, wore a button or made some calls for the campaign.   This is really the first time I voted “for” someone for President instead of “against” a less desirable alternative.

 

Over the next 4, or hopefully 8, years I won’t have the easy-out of thinking, “at least I didn’t vote for this guy!”  When mistakes, defeats and disappointments come for Obama, as they inevitably will, I will have to acknowledge that this was my candidate and that I understood that there are no perfect choices.

 

Still, I am optimistic.   Based on his speeches and books I have long had the impression that Obama is a pragmatist and by instinct a centrist.  I don’t think that anyone who has watched either the campaign or the transition could rationally argue that Obama is the classical, Liberal ideologue that he was painted in the campaign.  I don’t get the impression that he is an ideologue at all.   Perhaps I am reading my own hopes into Obama, as many are, but I really don’t expect to be proven wrong.

 

In his speech today Obama called for an end to the “endless” partisan battles that have so plagued our system.   I sincerely wish that is how it will play out, but I am not that optimistic.  I believe “post-partisanship” is what a great majority of Americans want, particularly in this time of great difficulty, but it is not what has defined the political lives of most current office holders or the politically energized folks on both extremes of the political spectrum.  I fully expect to see Obama caught in the middle between groups on both the Left and Right who will still be trying to exploit the fears and resentments that have so long fueled their careers and campaign coffers.

 

What remains to be seen is whether there will arise a sufficient Congressional Center that will abandon Party dictates and join Obama in a pragmatic agenda.  There are, perhaps, some new members who have come in as part of an Obama-driven change.  Sadly, I don’t think there are that many of those.  Perhaps there are some longer term members who have wanted to be able to vote their conscience and cross traditional lines, but have not had the practical ability to do so until now.  I will certainly be writing to all my representatives to encourage that path.  We will have to see what happens.

 

The Obama victory was so improbable that it did not have the chance to bring along a group of similarly minded candidates.  There are perhaps now some people who would never have considered running for political office in the past who now might run based on the example of Obama.  I don’t know when that group could, if ever, break into our ossified, polarized, two party system.  Could political outsiders run as “Obama Independents?”  Perhaps in some districts, but the deck would be stacked against them.  I will be actively looking for new voting options, but living in Southern California, I’ll be surprised if I get local examples.

 

This is why my feelings are mixed today.  I believe that we managed to elect a remarkable individual who will tend to govern from the middle.  I think he will have an uphill battle, but that if he is sufficiently skillful at garnering public support he may be able to overcome some of the dogmas and make an opening for the long-term road to a different political dynamic in this country.  That is a goal that I would like to continue to support. 

 

So I have made my blog entry into the vast virtual sea of such digital offerings on the twentieth day of January in the year 2009.  I plan to look back at this in 2, 4 and 8 years.  For now, I wish Barak Obama and his family the best and I will be praying for their protection and guidance.

Defending a Christian Vote for Obama,

A friend recently put me in touch with an Evangelical believer who could not understand how a Christian could possibly support Obama because of his abortion stance. This is what I wrote to him.


Thanks for writing and for your honesty. I will describe my thinking about abortion in detail below, but the basic reason I can vote for Obama in spite of his support for abortion rights is that presidents have a great many important roles, powers and influences but actually very little ability to make a difference on abortion. We have seen over the last eight years that just because a president might say “the right things” in his abortion stance, it doesn’t mean that he will govern well on a host of other issues. Indeed, considering the key role that Evangelicals played in the election and re-election of George Bush, we bear considerable responsibility for the election of what is now overwhelmingly recognized as a disastrous administration. By focusing our considerable voting power so narrowly on social issues, Christians helped empower the neo-con agenda of projecting American power through pre-emptive war and the anti-regulation policy that led to an orgy of greed that is now crushing our economy. During this time there was little if any change in the abortion culture and President Bush didn’t even use “the bully pulpit” of the presidency to challenge it even when he had a degree of popularity. Of the two candidates this year, I felt that Obama was better suited to undoing some of the damage that has occurred to our nation’s reputation, economy and political climate. I didn’t believe that either candidate would do something to really make a difference on abortion because that would require much more than a change in judges.

I understand your passionate concern about abortion because I agree with you that it is an immoral practice and I would like to see it end. I think there are three things that we, as Christians, can and should be doing about abortion, and an Obama presidency is no impediment to doing any of them.

First and foremost, I think that Christians should be known for the fact that they and their children have far fewer abortions, or ideally none. Unfortunately the statistics suggest that this is not really the case. “Let judgment start with the house of God.”

Second, Christians can be active in making it possible for women to choose not to abort. They can provide shelter and they can adopt. I think that the Church is actually doing a great job here, mostly without attention. That is the Kingdom in action and it has been saving babies for all the decades when legal approaches have produced little change.

The third option depends on doing a good job of the first two. It is being the “prophetic voice” to the World making the case with truth, humility and grace that abortion is immoral. We have a legitimate reason to make that argument, not assuming that our hearers accept the authority of scripture, but appealing to the conscience that God has placed in their heart and which remains in spite of the Fall. When Christians have talked about this as a moral issue, it has frequently been in a graceless and angry tone rather than something that would have much hope of getting others to really ponder the question. But that is not the biggest problem. The tragedy is that we have let the discussion shift from a moral plane to a legal one – from what is right and wrong to whose “rights” supersede the other’s.

The concept of “Rights” is not really “Christian” having came out of late medieval scholasticism and developing mainly during the Enlightenment. Accordingly, the concept of subjective human rights is not the way that the Bible addresses moral issues. “Rights” has been a functional way to talk about what are actually moral issues in a post-Christian age, but it is not fully compatible with speaking Biblical truths. When we allow the argument to be about a woman’s “right to choose” we let people see themselves as defending her against a caddish boyfriend etc instead of sanctioning the death of a child. When we make arguments for the “right to life” we ignore the reality that life is not a “right” at all and is in fact a gift from God - not at all guaranteed for a developing fetus or for you or for me tomorrow. An argument over “rights” is unsolvable because the Constitution says nothing about how to balance competing rights, let alone these particular rights.

That is why the problem cannot be solved just by overturning Roe v Wade. As long as most abortion supporters think of themselves as defending women’s rights they will only be more motivated by that event. If you have a very large proportion of the population that has not yet been convinced that abortion is actually wrong, a legal prohibition will ultimately fail in anything but a police state. If we were to concentrate instead on making the moral argument in a way that people will listen, we could begin to reduce the number of abortions long before there is a consensus that this is something that should be the subject of a law and even if that consensus is never achieved. “Choice” is really not so much a “right” as it is an unavoidable and difficult “obligation” to make a decision if you are someone who is pregnant and does not want to be. We don’t have to wait for a court to change to say, “The choice will have to be made, now let’s talk about the morality of that choice.”

Christians don’t have to elect a Pro-life president to do the three things I’ve described (Being a good example, support and adoption to give women options, and being a prophetic voice). It actually makes it easier to break away from the futility of a “rights” debate when the woman’s “right” is not under threat. Christians can even pray that Obama could be convinced to use his considerable speaking skills and influence to talk about the morality of abortion in the way that he has talked about fatherhood responsibility in the black community.

As members of the Kingdom of God, we have great power to overcome evil with good. The power of the state is nothing in comparison. Throughout history, whenever the Church tries to rely on state power it almost always comes out compromised. We see that happening today because the American Evangelical Church aligned itself so closely with the “Republican Brand” which is now so tarnished. I wouldn’t want to see the Church align itself with the “Democratic brand” either or even the “Obama brand”. I’d just like to see us wrestle with our voting decisions based on what we think will be best for the country while we pursue Kingdom concerns like abortion with Kingdom tools.

Culture Wars

The Culture Wars are not over and if anything I expect them to get uglier. As a Christian, it is the ugliness that is my main concern. At both ends of the political spectrum there is a strong tendency towards conspiracy-theory-thinking which renders rational discussion impossible and raises demonizationism of opponents to a virtue. This is all reinforced by selective filtering of information sources so that the hyper-partisan world-view will not be challenged by contrary input. All this may be a common propensity of people, but that Christians would be at the forefront of it is not OK.

In Roman’s 2 where Paul is challenging the self righteous Jews who, “…are proud of your God, and know his will, and tell right from wrong because you have been taught by the Law (17b),” he points out that they too violate the law and thus “bring God into contempt.” He finishes with the quote from Ezekiel 36, “It is your fault that the name of God is held in contempt among the nations.” Paul is not challenging the truth of the Law but rather the arrogance of its would-be promoters. That, to me, is disturbingly similar to the situation with today’s Christian Culture Warriors. I’m not saying this is true of all or even most politically involved Christians, but one need only look at the comment threads about editorials on the web to see graceless dogmatism and alarmism phrased in ways that are as far from Christ-likeness as one can imagine. The same tone was abundantly demonstrated in the anti-Obama emails that so many Christians were forwarding and in the interviews conducted with people at Palin rallies. The later may have been over-represented by the media, but the fact that it was so easy to find such voices among Christians should be of great concern to the Church. Over the past few decades, the broader American Church has evolved a theology of the relationship of the Church to the World that makes it imperative to use human political power to pursue Kingdom goals. Rather than having the effect of Christianizing political discourse and methods, the result has been to transform the Christian effort into the standard hyper-partisan language and tactics of politics.


There is no doubt that the Gospel message will always face opposition in the world and there is no excuse for the Church to avoid that reaction by watering-down the Truth. That kind of opposition is; however, completely different from the hypocrisy-driven contempt that Paul is talking about in Romans and from the contempt that is being generated by the ugly forms of our Culture Wars. It may only be a small subset of the Church that is so vitriolic, but my fear is that far more of the Church is sympathetic and that the leadership does not seem to be working very hard to help its people find the line between being “salt and light” and representing a “gospel” which is unacceptably mixed with political ideology and a contemptuous attitude. This mixed-gospel-Christianity is so pervasive that it is isolating to those who are fully orthodox in their faith, but not aligned with the particular brand of Republicanism so widely conflated with “Evangelical Christianity.” I know many Christians who were reluctant to let others in their church know that they supported Obama in the last election because to do so is considered heretical by many of their fellow believers.

Now Obama is going to be the President and hopefully most Christians will be praying for him as the scriptures command and as our enormous challenges demand. Some Christians will almost certainly ratchet-up their Culture War efforts believing that is the only way to prevent something like the apocalyptic vision of 2012 presented by the Dobson organization. Unfortunately, some of this will be ugly and if the Church as a whole continues to acquiesce to these voices, we will be guilty of causing God’s name to be held in contempt.

It has been a long time since I have posted anything on this blog. In the mean time I have been intentionally "subjecting" myself to something I strongly dislike as a bit of a "research project."



I have intentionally elected to be on mailing lists for both conservative and liberal organizations, editoral posts and "news and opinion outlets." I also spent time reading the string of comments that are posted for on-line articles and editorials.



This was a voyage into the world of "hyper-partisanship." What I saw was not encouraging for someone who believes that the political process in America has an important role to play in solving our major issues. Frankly, I believe that the pervasive "hyper-partisanship" of our political system is the greatest single threat to our future as a nation.



I don't say that lightly. We are subject to many significant economic, environmental, ideological and moral threats that I do not want to minimize, but if our democratic, political process is paralyzed by partisanship, we have no real hope of dealing with these other critical issues. If you look at how well we are doing with solutions to our long-term problems (health care costs, social security solvency, immigration rationalization...) or our newer problems (energy costs and dependency, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Russian and Chinese ascendency, nuclear proliferation, climate change...) there is little to be encouraged about. Our overly-partisan political culture treats these issues mainly as means to discredit the opposition, and the difficult compromises or nuanced positions needed never emerge.



This disease of our system is full-blown in both the right and left wing. It also infects many single-issue groups that do not neatly fit into the two dimensional political spectrum model such as libertarians, anti-immigration activists and radical anti-technology groups.



Without attempting to channel Machiavelli for the 21st century, I have read enough to derive basic principles displayed in the partisan "press," "blogosphere," "mailing-list-osphere", and "comment-osphere" (the most scary of all) to formulate the principles on which they seem to operate. Based on this period of intensive reading I think I could write a decent version of the (I hope) unwritten “Hyper-Partisan Handbook” that applies all across the political spectrum. Here is my perception of the core principles of this political culture:



1. Fear is always the most effective way to motivate voters. No matter what the issue is, there is a way to frighten someone about it for political gain



2. Never admit that your opposition is right about anything



3. Always describe issues in black and white terms – do not acknowledge any grey areas because that is a sign of weakness. People want to hear simple answers, not complexities



4. No matter what the question, make it into an issue of personality – ad homonym attacks are extremely effective



5. Always treat the name of the political philosophy you oppose as a swear word or insult. At the very least always say it with a sneer



6. Never hesitate to make associations between your opponent(s) and someone else who has strong public negatives - there need be no actual connection to do so



7. Stick with the insult skills you learned in grade school – it never gets any better than that

• Find a demeaning nickname and use it instead of a real name because it is more de-humanizing


• Find a catchy, negative phrase (e.g. “tax and spend liberal,” or “Bush’s failed policies”) and use it as frequently as possible


• Find “adult” ways to deliver the message, “neener, neener, neener” whenever the other side has a set-back

8. As much as possible, put your opponent(s) in the position or proving a negative about what they actually believe

9. Don’t believe it when people say the public wants civility from their politicians – you get much more attention with a fight

10. Answer any bias from the “other side” in the press with an equally biased presentation of your side and declare that this represents “balance” and “objectivity”

11. If there is a moral failing (particularly sexual) by one of your opponents, make sure you “cast the first stone” and then quite a few more at them and all their associates

12. Don’t allow your opposition to accomplish something that will be to their credit, even if it is a “good” thing. “Good” is defined by when your side prevails

13. Do not admit mistakes, don’t even entertain the idea that they are possible for you

14. If there are difficult messages that need to be delivered to the population about the need for sacrifice or patience, don’t ask the people to step-up to the challenge, always find some way to hang that difficulty on the opposition

15. Encourage your partisans to be as narrow as possible in their sources of news and information. Whenever possible, denigrate alternative sources as biased and even sinister

It is sad, but these un-written principles have been used with some great effect. The only potential antidote for the American political system is the engagement of a large number of people who see through these tactics and remain independent in information, thought and votes.

Obama’s Church and You

As the controversy swirls around recorded sermons of Barak Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright of Trinity United Church of Christ, I read over and over questions about whether the Illinois Senator showed poor judgment by remaining a member of the Church for so long. The fact that we even ask that question reveals a fundamental theological assumption that we should take a moment to reconsider. I am just a layperson, but it is clear to me that there is in fact One True Church under One Head, Jesus Christ.

Throughout all of Christian history there has been a struggle to maintain the spirituality of the One True Church and One True Gospel against the drifting comprehension of a vast collection of fallen people who make up that Body. We can read how Paul and the other apostles tried to steer even the first Century Church away from the errors of legalism or nascent Gnosticism. The struggle to maintain the integrity of the true Church has been pursued with great fervor and through various approaches since that time. There was a long era when Christians killed each other over arguments about what constituted the True Church. Some tried to re-establish the True Church through isolation in monastic movements or Anabaptist sects. The uniquely American model was to angrily, though not usually violently, divide and subdivide into denominations. This was done over increasingly small points of belief or practice, with each new fraction believing that they alone were the True Church.

Fortunately, we have now moved to a largely post-denominational era where we are far less likely to write others off as being outside of our True Church. That feature is good, but we have also moved to a typically American consumer model which says that if I don’t like something about a certain church, I should just shop around until I find one that is good for me. That assumption is what is behind the idea that Barak Obama should have moved-on to another Church because clearly many of his own ideals about race relations and about American politics differed from those of his pastor. If he had changed churches on principal his political opponents would have to find something else to talk about. But what that logic assumes is that if Barak Obama changed churches, he would no longer have any connection with Reverend Wright. That argument assumes that if you are a Christian living somewhere else or attending some other Chicago church, you have no connection to Reverend Wright.

That fits with the recent American consumer model of the definition of the True Church which is essentially self-centered. It says, “I’m really not that concerned with what other Christians believe or do, I’m just looking for a Church that is about what I’m about.” That attitude is certainly better than the model of killing the heterodox, but it does not fit at all well with the Biblical concept of the True Church. Barak Obama came much closer to that model when he said that he could no more disown his pastor than he could disown the black Church as a whole.

The truth is that if you are a Christian of any stripe, you can’t just disown Rev. Wright either. He is your brother in Christ and I suspect that if you sat down to talk to him you would find a great deal in common - probably more than you might find with some other Christians.

We also can’t just disown hate-filled, gay-bashing extremists who call themselves Christians. We can’t just disown the Episcopalian who thinks it is fine to have a gay bishop. We can’t just disown the Catholic who has bought into Mariology. We can certainly disagree with them and we can certainly be concerned about whether they are actually a part of the True Church, but it is God, not us, who knows whether they are or will be part of the Body of Christ. You will not likely have any opportunity to play your “priesthood of all believers” role to steer many of these folks towards the True Gospel, but that does not mean that you should not care.

What people have been saying is that Obama should have left Trinity either on the basis of high principle or out of sense of political common sense. This assumes that, as a believer, Obama should have sought out a True Church where such things are not said. This thinking assumes that we who do not attend Trinity have no connection to it. The Biblical image of the Church does not let us off the hook that easily.

There is only one True Church and anyone who is in it is part of one Body with us. If Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter are Christians (something I have trouble imagining), then they too are part of that one Body and can no more disown Rev. Wright than he can disown them. As a Christian I can proudly claim fellowship with Mother Teresa, Dietrich Bonhoffer or Erasmus, but I can’t claim that I have no connection with the perpetrators of the Inquisition or the European Christians who went along with the Holocaust.

There is no shortage of Christians whom I would love to be able to disown and probably no shortage of Christians who would love to disown me. As both a scientist that accepts evolution theory and a dedicated political moderate I know that I fall outside of many Christians’ concept of orthodoxy. The truth is that according to God’s design for the Church, we are all stuck with each other and we have to trust that God can somehow accomplish his Kingdom goals in spite of this motley band called the Body of Christ.

From our human perspective it is actually outrageous that the God of the Universe would trust a bunch like us to bear the name of Jesus Christ in this world, yet He does, and He expects each of us to help each other try to get and stay on-track in living out the mission of the True Church. Barak Obama should be doing that in his church in Chicago and they should be doing that for him. You and I should be doing that in our churches.

Getting the gospel right matters and none of us should be too quick to assume that we’ve got it all right yet. The amazing thing is that even when we fail to keep our telling and living of the Gospel message free from cultural intrusions, Jesus Christ doesn’t disown us. Just as when He was here, Jesus still associates Himself with a lot of imperfect folks. If Jesus were a figure in the political spotlight today he would be absolutely crucified over the issue of the people with whom he associates. Come to think of it, that is exactly what happened two thousand years ago.