Category: Culture & Society

3March2011

Looking for Greed in All the Wrong Places

Written By robfaircloth

A well-educated, intelligent high school classmate of mine, who now works in public higher education, recently posted a joke on her facebook page (I modified her use of a sexual insult to describe Tea Party activists):

“A unionized public employee, a Tea Partier, and a CEO are sitting around a plate of a dozen cookies. The CEO takes eleven cookies, looks at the Tea Partier, and says ‘Watch out for that union guy…I think he wants your cookie’.”

Gordon Gecko, the iconic insider and money-grubber, epitomized in the movie “Wall Street” what some apparently believe to be the only word in the world about greed. It is as if everything we know in our collective conscience to be true about greed and about capitalism we obtained from that movie.

Indeed, given recent trends in political discourse, given the “buffet of buffoonery” occuring in Wisconsin over reigning in union expense, and now Michael Moore’s recent hysterical comments that rich people’s money is not theirs, but “part of the national resourses”, I would not be surprised to find that the Wikipedia entry for “greed” simply played a clip of Gordon Gecko’s famous speech from “Wall Street,” while its entry for humility was simply a photo of Wisconsin union protestors.

I’m reminded of the old Looney Tune cartoon in which Bugs and Daffy get lost and find a genie’s hidden treasure (“Nyah, I should have taken a left turn at Albuquerque”).  Daffy sets out to stuff his pockets with all manner of goodies, until he finds the biggest pearl in the place. His conversation is then reduced to the proclamation “Mine, mine, all mine!”, which we would all agree to be a manifestation of pure greed.

But was Daffy greedy only after he got the pearl? Or did his greed compel him to fight all comers — including Bugs and the genie — and to give up all else in order to secure it? (He gave up his stature, too, when the genie ended up shrinking Daffy…yet his greed remained full-size).

We are, in our present political and cultural discourse, working from the assumption that only those who already have can be greedy. Those who want everything from them — or who simply want more, more, more — cannot, we suppose, be greedy.

It is a fact that those on the right too infrequently castigate the rampant capitalist for his greed, yet those on the left too often seem willing to cite only the capitalist for greed, when it is obvious that they hold no monopoly — pun intended — on that deadly vice.

My friend’s joke was meant to portray the greedy and his victim. It was funny, as jokes go. But perhaps the unionized public employee didn’t get too worked up because his greed was sated: he was getting his cookies straight from the State kitchen, for life.

Are CEOs all bad? No. Are unions all bad? No. My point is simply that accusing one group of sinful behavior, while considering it impossible that another is also guilty, is naive and not beneficial to public discourse and the resolution of civic problems.

25February2011

A Smorgasbord of Dysfunction

Written By robfaircloth

Wisconsin has been known in the rest of the country for one particular foodstuff: cheese.

Now it is not so much one homogeneous block of curdled milk product (whether hole-y, or bleu, or moldy), so much as it is a veritable cornucopia of public dysfunction.

A buffet of buffoonery, if you will.

The dust-up caused by Governor Scott Walker’s attempt to reign in public spending has revealed in one place, at one time, the virtual inanity of thought in no less then four (4) separate spheres: State legislature, unions, public education, and the media.

Democrat legislators fled the State to avoid giving Republicans — who hold the majority after recent elections — the ability to vote on legislation that the Democrats don’t like. They have, in effect, blocked the democratic process, while at the same time they and their supporters in the streets claim to be promoting the democratic process.

Unions representing public employees are encouraging the defeat of Gov. Brown’s collective-bargaining restrictions, asserting that they are interested in “working people” — working people who, with salary and benefits, reportedly earn over $100,000 per year on the public dole.

Teachers claiming to do nothing but labor “for the children” are calling in “sick” — complete with faked doctor excuses — to join street protests and State capitol sit-ins, apparently unaware that the act of abandoning the classroom to argue for salary and union power is not quite consistent with an interest in kids’ learning.

The media, reporting on the kerfuffle, describes the event as “Cairo coming to Madison” (if your teacher was ‘sick’ that day in your Government class, Madison is the capitol of Wisconsin). Really?

This would be quite amusing, if it did not spell such trouble for public life. It seems that integrity and honesty are in short supply, while greed and self-interest are abundant.

1December2009

A Reverse Copernican Revolution

Written By robfaircloth

Scientists, intellectuals and those generally predisposed against organized religion railed against the resistance of the church and other conservatives to the notion that the Sun, not Earth, was the center of our solar system. That resistance remains the basis of criticism that the church and conservatives are “anti-scientific.”

What a difference a few centuries makes.

Now, the church and conservatives are advocating restraint against the wholesale reordering of world societies — and the economic and social upheaval it will cause — around the generally unproven notion that there is such a thing as “man-made global warming.”

Now, it is the so-called scientists and intellectuals who advocate “green” everything with dire predictions (whose deadlines are constantly revised) of the melting of polar ice caps, submerged Caribbean islands, and the images of hapless polar bears with no ice to call home. Apocalyptic language, it seems, is not the sole province of religious types. Then again, the “blind faith” frequently ridiculed by intellectual culture seems now to be held by those worshiping at a green altar.

With revelations that green science may, in fact, have intentionally manipulated data in order to promote its agenda, it would seem that they are the ones now insisting that the earth is the center of the universe.

Perhaps this is the Copernican revolution in reverse.

15October2009

Zero Tolerance Policy Saves School from Spork

Written By robfaircloth

Citizens should take comfort to know that the increased efforts of law enforcement to protect society from dangerous elements has resulted in the capture of two would-be criminals, Matthew Whalen and Zachary Christie.

In Lansinburg, New York, Whalen, a high school student, was prevented from “surviving” when a two-inch survival knife was confiscated from his locked car on school grounds. Such weapons have been used to cut twine and open envelopes in the past. Whalen hid his lawless intent behind a veneer of respectability, having joined the “Boy Scouts,” obtaining the rank of “Eagle Scout,” and going so far as to save a relative using CPR he learned there.

In Newark, Delaware, officials uncovered the plot of Zachary Christie, a grade school “Cub Scout,” to eat his lunch with a camping tool. These alleged “camping tools” include such dangerous implements as a fork, a spoon, and a butter knife, which when placed in cups in the cafeteria lunch line pose no threat, but when combined in one utensil and wielded by a trained subversive such as Christie threaten the peaceable enjoyment of lunch everywhere.

One cannot help but notice the common theme in these recent law enforcement successes. Both suspects are members of the “Boy Scouts,” a subversive organization engaging in such anti-social and lawless behavior as “Pledging Allegiance,” praying, selling popcorn, and “camping” – a thinly-veiled and poorly hidden training ground for survival after they have succeeded in overthrowing the government and lawful society.

Unconfirmed reports indicate that these ruffians have also come into contact with home schoolers, engaged in hunting, shopped at Wal-Mart, and read the Constitution of the United States.

Sleep safe, America.

1July2009

Hypocrisy and Gov. Sanford

Written By robfaircloth

Many authors have documented that the image of religious people – particularly Christians – held by non-religious people is dominated by the idea of hypocrisy. Southern Baptists were stung a bit recently when an informal poll taken by Thom Rainer resulted in summary description of us as teetotaling-fundamentalist-legalistic-fried-chicken-eating-bingo-parlor-opposing hypocrites.

Governor Mark Sanford earned the “hypocrite” label when it was discovered that he was committing adultery with an Argentine. His “hypocrisy”? Having been married with kids while committing the adultery.

This is not new, of course, as Jesus himself pasted the hypocrite label on the religious leaders of his day.

But it seems that in many cases the label “hypocrite” is thrown on anyone who sins, and who has formerly said, in one fashion or another, that we shouldn’t sin.

But is that hypocrisy? Is Governor Sanford a hypocrite?

Southern Baptists are rightfully called hypocrites when we spend such time and energy on certain sins – gambling, liquor – while completely ignoring others – greed, materialism, idolatry.
Hypocrisy is NOT when a man believes, or even states, that adultery is wrong, and that his covenant with his wife is sacrosanct, yet then commits adultery. That is simply sin. Hypocrisy is not when one believes that false witness is wrong, but then lies about something. That is simply sin.

Hypocrisy is the idea that one can say something is wrong only for others. If Gov. Sanford had explained himself with the claim that what he did wasn’t really adultery (“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms Lewinsky”), or that it was alright for governors to do but not citizens, that would be hypocrisy.

If Southern Baptists claim that because they don’t gamble or drink, they have no sin problem, that is hypocrisy. If Southern Baptists claim that liquor is wrong for everyone else, while maintaining a lifestyle of drinking, that is hypocrisy. If Southern Baptists claim that God is not concerned with gluttony, lying, materialism, or adultery (except when Gov. Sanford commits it), that is hypocrisy.

22April2009

SBC: Vice Squad?

Written By robfaircloth

The Alabama Baptist and other media outlets associated with the Southern Baptist Convention are frequently dominated by stories of efforts to curtail gambling and alcohol use. Any why not? Wasting the family’s grocery money at the slot machines and driving drunk hurt everyone. But should those things dominate both our discussions and our energies and become what the SBC is known for?

Who among us would not be able to recount the efforts of our own church, or that of people we know, to keep liquor stores a suitable distance away from church property and retain a ‘sanctified zone’ for our pious goings-on? Otherwise ambivalent Christians can be counted on to mount the proverbial holy crusade to keep the pool hall across the street from getting a liquor license.

Why does sanctimony seem so appealing?

“Sanctimony” is a bit strong, you say? The April 2 issue of The Alabama Baptist carries the story of a Prattville church that successfully ‘halted’ the lease of state property – located down the street from the church and its school – to a liquor store (click here for a blog article about it). The Minister of Administration for East Memorial Baptist Church, Bryan Easley, gave the rather revealing reason the congregation was so interested in maintaining its ‘sanctified zone’: “None of us wanted to drive by a liquor store on our way to church and school and home.”

What?

The church was not faced with an issue of its congregants needing to navigate through besotted heathen stumbling around the streets, spilling alcohol and obscenities all over children innocently skipping their way to Vacation Bible School. It was not faced with the problem of drunken revelers sleeping off their partying in church doorways, vomiting on the lawn, or engaging in promiscuity behind the church sign emblazoned with the message “Sign Broken – Message Inside.” (What if our hypothetical hung-over drunkards wanted to hear that message, and proceeded inside to partake?)

Instead, the minister did not want to drive by the store.

Let’s imagine, for a moment, that the minister and his congregation wanted to avoid other things:

“None of us wanted to drive by a prostitute on our way to church and school and home.”

“None of us wanted to drive by a drug addict on our way to church and school and home.”

“None of us wanted to drive by a mugging on our way to church and school and home.”

“None of us wanted to drive by a gambler on our way to church and school and home.”

“None of us wanted to drive by a homeless man on our way to church and school and home.”

Besides – none of us? On the way to church, school and home? What if they merely saw a liquor store ad in the Yellow Pages as they looked for a fried chicken place that delivers? (See the link to the Sam Rainer article below for the not-so-inside joke.)

Several thoughts come to mind, most of which I am not able to transcribe verbatim, for I would imagine that many who deem themselves followers of Christ and don’t want to drive by a liquor store would also proudly proclaim that neither do they want to “internet surf by someone speaking sternly to fellow believers.”

First, let us be clear about the biblical teaching on alcohol. It is NOT forbidden. The biblical prohibition is against drunkenness. The biblical prohibition against causing others to stumble is NOT an absolute mandate to avoid drinking – or anything else, for that matter – but an indication that when a believer KNOWS that his behavior causes another to stumble, he should be willing to lay aside that otherwise permissible behavior for the sake of his stumbling brother. Sinful behavior, by contrast, is always wrong, whether or not it causes another to stumble. It is perfectly acceptable for believers to choose not to drink at all, either for personal preference or to avoid the possibility that another might be caused to stumble. It is NOT permissible for that believer, having so decided, to consider others of different opinions as less pious or less faithful.

D.A. Carson has reportedly quipped “If I’m called to preach the gospel among a lot of people who are cultural teetotalers, I’ll give up alcohol for the sake of the gospel. But if they start saying, ‘You cannot be a Christian and drink alcohol,’ I’ll reply, ‘Pass the port’.”

Second, this sentiment reveals a disturbing mindset about which sins we choose to rail against. We have no problem railing against VICES – those things that all those unrepentant heathen or backslidden believers are doing to degrade society. But poll those congregations that spend enormous energy mounting petition drives against gambling and alcohol, and count how many of their sermons in the past twelve months have railed against gluttony, greed, anger, envy, divorce or lust. We rail against the behavior of others while molly-coddling the sin that corrupts the heart.

Third, this sentiment reveals a disturbing mindset about corporate worship. Not only do we want to be left alone to worship God together, but we also want everyone who doesn’t to quit reminding us that they aren’t, and about the condition from which God called each and every one of us. We create a ‘sanctified zone’ around our church buildings to keep the ‘sinners’ – and any evidence that there are any – a safe distance away. Does the very sight of someone sinning – viewed from the protective cocoon of our late-model automobiles – keep us from worship? Does the very knowledge that someone remains lost outside the church walls keep us from worship? Perhaps our true discomfort comes when we consider that perhaps that knowledge should compel us to do something other than roll up our car window or sign a petition.

It should come as no surprise to members of Southern Baptist congregations that we are known as being ‘legalists,’ and hypocrites, to boot. (Sam Rainer talks about an informal poll on this subject taken by his dad, Thom Rainer, on his blog.)

Last, there is inherent in this attitude a presumption that to be Christian you cannot be even close proximity to certain types of sin (I’m still pondering how the mere existence of liquor, sitting in unopened bottles on shelves in a closed store, constitutes sin to be so studiously avoided…or how Jesus himself would have passed current ministerial muster). There is no thought at all given to why it is only gambling and alcohol that must be safely quarantined, and not all those other sins that stem from our creaturely pride.

Instead of faithfully doing our part as believers to herald the kingdom of Christ – characterized by humility, forgiveness, grace and redemption – we are instead engaging in the ancient lie that we can create our own tee-totaling, electronic-bingo-boycotting, man-made empire.

So, for those who maintain that we can’t drive by a liquor store and remain Christian: ‘Pass the port’.

9June2008

FAITH IN FAITH

Written By robfaircloth

Posted on the marquis of a public middle school: “It doesn’t matter what you believe — only that you believe.”

Lets hold off, for a moment, on the standard jokes regarding the competency of public schools to educate, and test this proposition. Lets suppose that a middle school student could actually read the marquis and began to put its truth proposition into practice (and yes, the statement is a proposition about truth, regardless of its contention that truth does not matter). Sammy Student formulates the belief, based upon his school marquis, that good grades were not dependent upon completing coursework, paying attention in class, or even upon attending school. He receives an “F” (this may be a bit unrealistic, because giving bad grades could be considered too “judgmental”) but “believes” that it is an “A”, and his fragile self-esteem is, at least temporarily, preserved.

Or, lets suppose that Sammy believes that drugs were not truly illegal. Or that it was acceptable for him to beat another student senseless in the bathroom. Or that strapping explosives to his chest and blowing his student body (in both senses) to smithereens would make him a hero.

Would it be any comfort, or would it meet reality in any sense, for him to explain these things “Well, I believed., and isn’t that what really matters?”

What I “believe” is that this vacuous, feel-good tripe is both unlivable and self-contradictory. As Sammy Student so painfully discovers, the proposition does not enable him to live his life, because he would not live long believing “It will not hurt me if I step in front of this chicken truck.” Furthermore, the statement is self-defeating. If it does not matter what I believe, then I don’t need to believe this statement. Because it proposes an accurate assessment of reality, it is a truth claim. But if the statement is true, it proves itself untrue.

Is this what passes for education? Or what people believe about life? I believe so, and that is what matters.