Greenpeace and Music

 By coming here tonight, you are making possible a trip for life and for peace”, said Greenpeace co-founder Irving Stowe to the crowd of 10,000 gathered on the evening of October 16^th, 1970 in Vancouver, British Columbia (Amchitka, 2009).  The event was the Amchitka benefit concert, and not only was it the launching pad for Greenpeace as an environmental organization, but it also marked the beginning of the marriage between Greenpeace and musical activists. 

Although Greenpeace was founded out of that concert, no one really knew the current name of the organization until almost a year later.  The Amchitka concert was an effort by Stowe to raise money intended to fund a protest-by-sea against the U.S. nuclear testing facility on the Amchitka Island of the Aleutian chain, a part of Alaska.  The three headliners of the show would have been a music lover’s dream at the time, and they were all in the prime of their careers:  Joni Mitchell, her then boyfriend James Taylor and Phil Ochs.  They all agreed to perform for free, and Mitchell and Taylor have continued to support Greenpeace to this day (Ochs having passed away in 1974) (Greenpeace, 2010) (Kurutz, 2009).  

The Initial Mission

The concert ended up being a huge success, raising enough money to fund the initial activity of the boat that had been renamed the Greenpeace for the inaugurating voyage in September of 1971.  The group of ragtag activists, hippies and lawyers on board had formed a loosely knit organization called “The Don’t Stop the Wave Committee” before the Amchitka concert, but after the voyage, they believed the only good thing to come out of the trip was that they had finally settled on the name Greenpeace, taken from their sailing vessel (Greenpeace, 2010). 

The plan for the mission was to park the Greenpeace right in front of the nuclear facility on Amchitka Island, but the boat was lightly rammed and ordered to abort by a U.S. navy boat, albeit manned by sailors who were in fact sympathetic to the cause.  This turnaround in the middle of the course was discouraging to the crew of the Greenpeace, and they thought the entire year to be a wasted effort until they arrived back in Vancouver and discovered that they had received unprecedented media attention from around the world.  The particular nuclear test that they were protesting did happen, but many future tests did not, as Amchitka was shut down by the U.S. government five months later, and Greenpeace was officially in business (Greenpeace, 2010).  

The Perfect Match

Greenpeace is now one of the most visible environmental organizations in the world.   They are involved in a broad spectrum of environmental issues from climate change, ocean and forest preservation, anti-nuclear causes, promotion of a toxic free future, sustainable agriculture and visible protest activism.  Greenpeace has long recognized their mission as being a perfect match for the passion and spirit of many artists and musicians, and they have pursued these artists as much as the artists have pursued them (Carothers, 1989). 

At the beginning, the artists at the Amchitka concert and the founders of the organization would literally have hung out in very similar scenes, with both parties coming directly out of the 60’s counter-culture movement.  “When I encountered the people at Greenpeace, and saw the work that they were doing, and they way they engaged this [environmental] problem, I felt a huge sense of relief that people were working on it” said James Taylor in 2009 upon the long-awaited public release of the recording of that landmark show.  Both Taylor and Mitchell have agreed to donate all proceeds from the sale of the recording to Greenpeace (Amchitka, 2009). 

Other artists that have done significant activism over the years for Greenpeace include U2, Annie Lenox, Sting, Michael Stipe of R.E.M., Peter Gabriel, Public Enemy, Chrissie Hynde, Jerry Garcia, Sade, Green Day, Pink, Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers, Bryan Adams, Jack Johnson, and many more who have supported the organization in principle (Greenpeace, 2010) (Carother, 1989). 

 

The Personal Factor of U2

Growing up on the music of U2, Greenpeace was literally the first environmental organization I’d heard of.  Since then, I’ve always had respect for Greenpeace, in large part due to that initial visibility provided by U2.  There was a period of time in the late 80’s/early 90’s when Greenpeace was the sole organization officially supported by the band (Flanagan, 1996).  So, I can personally attest to the benefit Greenpeace sees in uniting with artists (especially those more politically, socially and sustainably inclined) to increase the awareness they’re trying to promote, as Greenpeace was effective in attracting me through this method. 

U2 was involved in one of the most visible Greenpeace events in history with the Sellafield concert and subsequent protest action in June of 1992.  U2 and Public Enemy headlined the concert, which was held near the Sellafield nuclear facility on the coast of England bordering the Irish Sea.  Sellafield had been dumping radioactive waste into the Irish Sea for some time, causing increased cancer rates around the site, but the final straw for Greenpeace and the bands was when Sellafield decided to open a second facility to take on the radioactive waste of other countries.  This was too much, and the fact that Ireland, Wales and Scotland were seeing some of the worst of the effects only angered the band that much further, especially considering that Sellafield was directly owned by the British Government (Flanagan, 1996). 

Sellafield had obtained an injunction prohibiting U2 from setting foot anywhere near the actual facility, but no matter.  The thought was that if they entered by sea the injunction couldn’t be enforced.  So, the members of the band sailed in rubber rafts with three drums of radioactive sand from the beaches of the UK, and deposited them at the front gate of Sellafield (which was basically right on the Irish Sea anyway).  Overall, the project was a success in the sense that it brought awareness to a facility that was previously unknown to the masses (Flanagan, 1996).   

Why Greenpeace?

In researching this topic, I initially approached it from the vantage point of why artists were particularly attracted to Greenpeace.  It was only through research that I discovered the attraction actually went both ways.  Still, I have wondered what is it about environmental organizations or any socially conscious causes that seems to draw artists; at least more so than other types of people. 

I discovered a quote from Annie Lenox that I think is illuminating to this question:  “Music is the language of the soul articulated,” she says. “The inner world is very potent for me – I don’t ascribe to any God or Jesus or Buddha – I just have a sense of it and revere it along with the natural world and human consciousness” (Drakakis, 2010).  I think all artists, like Annie, have a sense of the unity, the one great force that is the universe, even if they don’t acknowledge it. 

Having been around and interviewed many artists during my radio career, they all seem to recognize something bigger than themselves that gives them their creative inspiration.  Most can’t explain where it comes from, but they sense something, and they have that unique passion that drives them to purpose.  I feel that same passion, and it is a uniting feeling.  It causes one to question the world around them, and when questioning starts, the questions inevitably lead to “how can we do this better; make this world better?”  These questions can be equally applied to the artist’s music, or their environmental consciousness, and striving to answer this question has been Greenpeace’s mission as well. 

I think the efforts that Greenpeace has taken over the years to engage artists is exemplary, is unique, and is to be commended.  They have not altered their message to attract these artists, they’ve not had to.  The original crew of the Greenpeace sailed with the theme of “bear witness” which they took from the Quaker pacifist tradition (Greenpeace, 2010).  Continuing to honor this practice will keep the actions of Greenpeace and our own actions in line with the grain of the universe, and that grain is hope, love and unity.  When we practice the genuine good in life, everything else falls into step.  May we all continue to question how to make this world a better place to live.  

References

Amchitka. (2010). Retrieved from Amchitka Concert Web site: http://www.amchitka-concert.com/

Carothers, A. (1989, November 1). Can rock 'n' roll save the world?: music's mission to moscow and beyond. Retrieved from @U2: http://www.atu2.com/news/can-rock-n-roll-save-the-world.html

Drakakis, H. (2010, November 29). Annie lenox: Music icon and Woman of the Year on drug-taking, adopting children in Africa and redefining feminism. Retrieved from The Big Issue in Soctland Web site: http://www.bigissuescotland.com/features/view/423

Flanagan, B. (1996). U2: at the end of the world. New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc.

Greenpeace. (2010). Retrieved from Greenpeace Web site: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/

Kurutz, S. (2009, November 22). Speakeasy: Lost 1970 Amchitka Concert Featuring Joni Mitchell and James Taylor Surfaces. Retrieved from Wall Street Journal Blogs Web site: http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2009/11/22/a-long-lost-1970-benefit-concert-featuring-joni-mitchell-and-james-taylor-surfaces/

A return to the Ethics of Anabaptism with James McClendon

This first personal introduction to James McClendon was a return to my roots. Having been raised in an Anabaptist family and tradition, I was able to appreciate as never before how the ethics of this community coincides with the universal ethics that I now incorporate as my own life’s perspective. Many might shy away from a book that is not technically a part of “their worldview”, but I am at the point where I not only appreciate where I’ve come from, but I also want to learn more about how religion, atheism, humanism, secularism, philosophy, science, etc… all strive for what we consider to be the “good” or “truth”.

Theology is seen by McClendon as a “drive for truth”. So, theology (and Ethics) by his definition does not have to be inherently religious. He does say, however, that theology is a NARRATIVE. It is a way of living, and is not reducible to a single moral principle or value. Only through the course of a lived life can we see a specific moral pattern and place it in its context in time, place and community. That according to McClendon is what makes “Christian ethics” Christian, and, even though he doesn’t mention it, what would make “Muslim ethics” Muslim, etc… Where I find McClendon’s verbiage a bit misleading is that he seems to discard the universality of ethics. He downplays the importance of our basic relation to the “other” for the sake of elevating Christianity. I understand that in order to consider one’s self Christian, then it can only be done by the “Christian narrative”. However, I found his emphasis on the specifically Christian to be a bit too focused. The ethics of Christianity ARE present in other belief systems, but it will not be displayed in the “Christ narrative” or by acknowledging the supremacy of Christianity. However, is that what is ultimately important when we are considering the hungry, the weak, the oppressed and the poor?

I am appreciative of McClendon’s prophetic leaning Christianity in that we are to practice the high principles of that tradition (social justice, compassion, love) in the here and now. I just wish he would have looked for that common ground (which is there) in the other traditions a bit more, but that is my issue, and he clearly was out to show what it means to live the CHRISTIAN life vs. anything else. Although, I consider this recommended reading for its great insight into the Anabaptist tradition (including examples of lives such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Dorothy Day), which is one that will resonate for anyone pursuing the causes of justice, universal truth and the guiding force of love.

A review of "The Next Christendom" by Philip Jenkins

“Christianity is never as weak as it appears, nor as strong as it appears” says Philip Jenkins as he ends this important book on global religious trends. Whatever might be the presence of religion in one’s life, the numbers cannot be ignored. Christianity has gone through its largest boom period in history over the last 100 years, and the pace is only quickening. Due to an often patronizing Eurocentric viewpoint, this fact is usually overlooked in the Northern Hemisphere. Most of the new Christians reside in the global Southern Hemisphere, and Jenkins points out that that half of the world is experiencing a Christianity that is inconvenient and uncomfortable to the modern beliefs of Northerners.

This becomes a touchy subject as the very term “modernity” or “post-modernity” is called into question. “Modernity” according to whom? The increasingly smaller percentage of “enlightened” secularists or religious pluralists in the North? Or “modernity” as it relates to pure numbers of people? If we are looking at numbers alone, then Christianity and Islam HAVE to be understood and incorporated into any complete understanding of the world. Jenkins lays out the case that these trends are not going away, and that this century should see even greater growth in both religions than the last.

Jenkins does a decent job of staying as neutral as possible on a very passionate, charged topic, although his political conservatism does come through at times…as in the reasons for the existence of the Jewish state, and his downplaying of Islamic intolerance in the Western media. Where he is right on point is in his description of the “new” Southern Christianity looking nothing like what the North has experienced in recent decades. Parts of this new Christianity focus on the teachings of Jesus concerning oppression and poverty (in the North considered progressive socially), while remaining ultra-conservative on issues of gender and sexual orientation. There is undoubtedly multiple arguments to the effect that this trend cannot last when the “Southern Hemisphere gets more educated”, but there is a danger in looking down one’s nose through this line of thinking.

This book struck me in a number of ways. First, it was humbling. While I try to be as well-informed as possible, I realized how much I lacked empathy when it came to the reality of religion in the world. Second, I realized that my continuing quest to identify with a constantly changing world was to re-visit the teachings of my youth…even if I no longer subscribe to that religion (or any religion). If I am to relate to future generations of world citizens, I need to understand the various new forms of “Southern Hemisphere” Christianity just as much as I attempt to learn as much as possible about Islam, Buddhism or Hinduism. Re-visiting new ways of looking at old Christianity is just not trendy in Europe and North America. However, to ignore those forms of Christianity is to ignore what are the largest current forms of religion on the planet, and an incarnation of Christianity that is on an unbelievable upswing. No, religion is not disappearing anytime soon, as much as those in the West depict its demise. We can either learn more about how these others think, or slowly become more and more uninformed and ultimately out of touch by burying our heads in the sand.

"Rifts in Time"

Many of you have already heard this story presented elsewhere, so don't feel the need to indulge me again :)  I am posting this blog as a reminder to myself of the unique perspective I've gained through studying with Dr. Christian Early at EMU.  This essay was the result of a midterm assignment.  

A 34 year old man experienced a cataclysmic event that seemed to slow the passing of time. The hours, the minutes, the seconds had not changed their eternally fixed durations, but something had changed in the man. A “rift in time” (Connolly, 2002) had occurred that had altered the man’s perception of speed. No longer was the man’s conscious mind filled with disposable thoughts that were used to merely exist; to function, as it were, in a life filled with absurdity. Now, the man had come to an awareness of. This awareness is the profound realization that each moment of the eternal past meeting the eternal future - the ever present now that constitutes the very makeup of time – is a moment that can never again be composed of exactly the same amount of life experience, maturity, perception, spiritual development and assemblage of mental images. Nor can this “ever present now” (specific to our subject) be experienced by any other person. Those closest to the man in physical and conscious proximity could only see the external manifestations of what had become an internal layering of culture, neural maps, evolutionary conditioning, and genetically designed modes of thought.

That man was/is me. The “cataclysmic event” that caused the “rift in time” was a near-fatal car accident on July 21st, 2009. Through lenses provided by Antonio Damasio and William E. Connolly, I am able to see certain fence posts that this event created around the borders of my mind. Damasio and Connolly have taken steps to fill in the space between those posts, thus marking an artistic work in progress. My hope is to partly articulate the color and design of this ongoing creation to you, the reader. It is as Damasio has stated in his search for emotion and feeling through philosophy: “Spinoza was still the same, but I was not” (Damasio, 2003).

A new paradigm involving the universal had taken a hold of my mind. When Damasio refers to Spinoza’s idea of salvation, he mentions this universal. To me, the universal is God. When I say the universal, I don’t mean just the world as perceived by the senses. It is not even something that one can completely bring into consciousness, though it is something that is a part of us all. Damasio says when describing salvation according to Spinoza: “When you are less than kind to others, you punish yourself, there and then, and deny yourself the opportunity to achieve inner peace and happiness, there and then. When you are loving to others there is a good chance of achieving inner peace and happiness, there and then” (Damasio, 2003). Spinoza’s code of ethics resonates with my own, and I fully believe resonates with anyone. It is an ethic that is about love, and love represents unity. There is a part of you that is the same as me. Therefore, harming you would be an affront to my own being. Ethics evolves, first, out of a love for the self. This is not a narcissistic obsession, but an acknowledgement of the eternal essence that makes up all of us. Spinoza believed in this essence not as an actual being, but as BEING itself. God to Spinoza was all there is. To accept life, to acknowledge and face death, to work on the intellect, to be as present as possible, to be charitable, to take equal care of the mind, body and soul is to go with the grain of the universal. Spinoza would consider this to be a move closer to happiness, because it is in step with God.

Connolly would describe whatever one does to attain this happiness as an “artistry of the self” (Connolly, 2002). Connolly states: “You began to experience meaning less as something to be discovered and more as an investment you make in selective activities and events” (Connolly, 2002). At the risk of sounding cliché, it is a practice in the game of life. Connolly talks about “loyalty to thought”. The conscious mind works with what is contained in the unconscious, and the artistry of self is a process of repetition and reflection on that which is agreeable with the universal. To go against this universal, or God, is to engage in self-destructive behavior. It is to deny reality, to attempt an escape from becoming. It is to ignore feelings, and to allow emotions to enter a state of anarchy. Or, it can be a process of counterfeiting emotions and feelings through the use of drugs, sex, work or any of a number of intoxicants.

I have now established the fact that by the “universal” I mean “God” and by “God” I agree with Spinoza that “God” is all there is. It can then be understood why I also agree with Connolly’s idea of “rifts in time” as being a more accurate description of the life process than the linear predictability that is common to the theo-teleological view of philosophy articulated in the Aristotelian tradition. That linear view of life is too narrow, and too defined. It can stifle individuality just as much as the cold scientific view evolving out of Copernicus and Newton. If I was to live by the teleological viewpoint, I would find no reason to engage in my own artistic process as everything I could possibly imagine has already been planned outside of time by an omniscient being. If I was to live by the scientific viewpoint, I would find myself in an existential black hole of insignificance. Both viewpoints could very well lead me to ask the question: “Why am I here”? Either way life would lose its significance, its individuality. With my “universal” view there is more than enough “room” in my God concept to allow for these rifts in time. Paradigmatic adjustments in life are the moments where bursts of growth happen. It is that state of flux described by Connolly as “becoming”.

I don’t believe that we’re meant to arrive, but to appreciate the movement that carries us along. It is a movement that has evolved out of a homeostatic machine infused with culture and the vitality of one’s humanity. To be human is to be an individual part of the universal. It is to engage with the other “parts” of this universal through the methods of love, and recognition of the validity of voice, character, and the view from that place on which the “other” stands (i.e. empathy).

The homeostatic is the machine that evolution has designed to allow us to regulate this life process (Damasio, 2003). This process gets to the very root of what it means to be alive by acknowledging action at its base. Life is energy, energy is action. Action is what affects the biological organism and that “affect” is what Damasio would call an “emotionally competent stimulus” that produces a reaction in the organism. This “reaction” is what we mean when we refer to “emotion”. The emotion then produces a feeling that is a mental image. Emotion produced feelings are the ink on the paper of the neural map. The neural map is the score for the music of life. What we compose is up to us. To go with the grain of the universe is to compose in the major key of joy. To go against this grain is to go against our very essence, and is unpleasant and painful to listen to. This would be akin to making a composition in the minor key of sorrow. Anything joyful, according to Damasio’s interpretation of Spinoza would not harm the “other” (Damasio, 2003). I will go a step further and say that true joy is an engagement with the essence that is common to both ourselves and the “other”. That engagement is what we call love. It’s not necessarily a physical engagement, but a mental one. The “essence” with which we engage is also love and therefore it is unity and “God”. God is love. This is what I mean, and what I believe Spinoza means when he says that God is all there is. Therefore, salvation comes through love, because it touches the divine.

The rift in time that happened at the exact moment of my car accident allowed me to touch the divine. I realize this with the advantage of hindsight, and to summon a reference to Connolly, the moment of consciousness that I attained after waking from the accident is “colored” with a variety of emotions and feelings. Initially, I was unaware of what my body felt due to the state of shock that I was in. Then the layers of perception started to make things clear. I was apparently in a car. I heard nothing at first. All I felt was an incredible peace that (literally) infused the color of white into my memory. However, I mean more than this when I refer to color. The peaceful feeling in my mind was the color of that first moment of consciousness. Then with ever increasing rapidity, the layers of perception started attacking my senses, adding texture to the color. Someone was calling my name. How did he know my name? I knew that this was impossible; I had been driving by myself. Instant panic. Memories of a lifetime told me that this was not right; in fact is was more than not right, it was drastically wrong and deserving of fear. The pain started to hit me, and the fear became stronger. This man also appeared to be upside down (actually it was I who was upside down). Clearly, the somatic markers of my mind eliminated the need to rationally process every detail of this dire situation. Even with the additional coloring of a surreal haze, I knew that my life was in a precarious situation. The sounds of the jaws of life and the fireman coming through the passenger side door with a knife to cut my seat belt off of me only pulled up more unconscious layers and further colored the entire scene with extreme anxiety. If firemen were involved, I knew that this was an accident. The man that was saying my name confirmed this, and the fear reached its peak. Accident. That word. It was a somatic marker. Panic now occupied every part of my body from my injured foot and shattered knee to my inability to catch my breath and the flood of thoughts that instilled the messages of bodily emotions into feelings of my consciousness. Panic was all that was in my consciousness at that moment.

When I read Connolly’s references to the Hitchcock movie Vertigo and his reading of Bergson, it brought greater clarity to the memories of that accident. Connolly’s entire account of perception is well summarized in those two examples. In Vertigo, we hear Connolly describe the juxtaposition of the woman falling and the feeling that something was off from the timing of the woman’s scream (Connolly, 2002). This creates that familiar feeling of uneasiness (the feeling itself a result of memory layering). We have a certain sense from experience of how things “should be” in our world. The seemingly upside down paramedic was akin to the woman’s scream for me. I knew that his position, outside the car, on the road, and standing still, did not make sense to a man (me) who seemingly seconds before was driving at a speed of 55 mph. Connolly masterfully incorporates cinema to illustrate these kinds of moments in life, and uses Bergson to shape his descriptions.

It is quite difficult to fit all of my experiences of the initial seconds, minutes and hours after the accident into some sort of organized explanation. Enter the idea of naturalism, and specifically immanent naturalism. More than anything I’ve read in Connolly, I appreciate this attempt to “fill in the gaps” as it were. This is the third element comprising the trilogy already containing the Aristotelian theo-teleological and the scientific. Connolly defines naturalism as “the idea that all human activities function without the aid of a divine or supernatural force” (Connolly, 2002). Immanent naturalism would contest the idea that we have it “all figured out” through theology, philosophy and science. This makes perfect sense to me. There has been no universal “system” or “idea” that is as authoritative in its clarity as to explain everything to everyone. Countless interpretations of the “transcendent” or “supernatural” dot the landscape of humanity. The world we are a part of, our lives, our individuality all are in a state of flux. Seemingly universal laws could be subject to change. This is the constant process of becoming. Immanent naturalists contend that nature is more complex, indefinable and incomprehensible than any god that the human mind could conceive. Connolly has perhaps given me the most realistic “textbook” description of the reality of life that I have ever seen. The “gaps” in life are where the substance lies, and they are what Connolly attempts to explain.

As I sum up where I was and where I am now as a result of my car accident “rift in time”, I would like to call on the ghost of Nietzsche. Nietzsche’s “underworld” of conscious layering that is a part of his immanent naturalism would work well as a form of explanation.

I was born a human, like billions of others, but I am an individual, unique and unexplainable by a set of pre-defined laws. To be sure, I have characteristics, both physical and mental that are similar to those other billions. I carry the same essence of humanity that is common to all, while retaining my individuality. I would go so far as to call this essence a “natural inheritance” from being human. My brain and body are hard-wired from millions of years of evolution to strive for my own survival. I am constantly fighting a natural fear of the unknown. Unfamiliarity has genetically instilled the idea of danger into my mental wiring. Nietzsche and Connolly would both state that these natural tendencies to fear the unknown (including “unfamiliar” fellow members of the human race) can be overcome by self artistry. We work on our unconscious by working on our conscious. We practice those moral principles which go with the grain of the universe. We ignore cultural messages of hate, division, racism, sexism, materialism, homophobia, nationalistic exceptionalism, individual inferiority and external status symbols. Instead, we practice love, mutuality, nonviolence, empathy, dialogue and acceptance.

Before my car accident, I was in a state of culturally conditioned mental distress from a disintegrating marriage and radio career. After the accident, my mind was re-programmed. Some of that came from those cultural items that were still worthwhile to me. This included literature, knowledge, and all that marks the achievements of humanity in the process of becoming aware. I quit clouding my mind and disrupting the messages of my emotions and feelings with substances such as alcohol, tobacco and other drugs. I refused to listen to any message from society that went against the universal. I returned to nature, as it were, in my drive to survive. Life to my naturally and culturally conditioned mind was not worth living unless I was “happy”. So, I took it upon myself to determine what it meant to compose the music of my life in the major key of joy. This process involved looking inside my mind, bringing to my consciousness more and more of the elements of my unconscious, and reconciling, acknowledging and accepting the contents of the dark corners. The more I acquired from my interior, the less I required from the exterior.

This to me is what it means to live the “good life”. This process has brought a degree of clarity that I never thought was possible. It has brought me to this place in life, to this university, and to the writing of this paper. Antonio Damasio, William E. Connolly, Spinoza and Dr. Christian Early have helped me to see even further. I am grateful for these additional moments of clarity, and am always conscious that each new experience is one that is irreplaceable.

An Inconvenient Hero

In one of my Peace and Justice classes at EMU, we have been diving into the concepts of nonviolence practiced by MLK and Gandhi.  Here is a response I wrote on an essay/chapter titled "The Inconvenient Hero" by Vincent K. Harding.  I would highly recommend Harding's writings on King.  Not only was he a close friend of MLK, but he refuses to gloss over any uncomfortable parts of MLK's message.  He is the perfect writer to ask the tough questions and to keep King's true memory alive. 


     “Who dares re-call this man, when all the plagues he fought are still among us, standing in the way of ‘the America we hope to be’:  racism, militarism, materialism…is he safely dead?  Perhaps we should re-call him and see.  Now.  Perhaps in the process we may learn again how to live – unsafely, in love with God and neighbor, with cleansing, purifying fire, with the America that is YET to be created – by us.”

     Vincent K. Harding spoke these words in his chapter on Martin Luther King Jr. called “The Inconvenient Hero”.   Harding uses powerful language…the language of King…to remind us that the memory of the dead becomes distorted when they are no longer there.  Words can be picked at will, manipulated and used for shameless agendas, reduced to 10 second sound bites that become palatable to an American public that wants to be comfortable…a public that does not want to move or inconvenience itself to practice any true principles of love and justice.  A public that does not inform itself, that does not become angry with righteous just indignation at a war-crazed government killing people all around the world.  No one can tell Harding otherwise, and no one can tell me otherwise.  If we were upset enough, we would have the power to demand that the injustices of this nation come to an end.  A united America of justice-demanding citizens could force this insanity to stop.  We don't, however, because we are divided amongst ourselves...just as the structures of power would have it.  This may sound harsh, but upon reading Harding’s chapter, this same fire against injustice burned in Martin Luther King Jr., especially during the last years of his life…the life that he ended up offering as payment for those beliefs.

      King was becoming radicalized.  King’s focus was starting to become world centered, humanity centered, broadened beyond the borders of America.  King realized that all of humanity was part of the same unity.  National boundaries mattered no longer.  The American “dream” (that more and more was looking utopian) was bigger than the dream of a nation, it was a dream that encompassed the entire world.  It was a dream that had become a nightmare.  King said as much himself…before Vietnam even started…when he was referring to the children killed during the church bombing in Montgomery, Alabama.  King went on to call our country “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.”  Not much has changed in the 4 + decades since.

     Martin Luther King Jr. was a prophet.  Prophets are often not welcome in their homeland.  Remember a man named Jesus?  Prophets are the kind of people who grate, who do not compromise, who face indignation, condemnation, and assassination.  Prophets are inconvenient and uncomfortable to listen to.  They hear all the time that they should “tone things down a bit”.  King heard this often.  The toughest part for King was that he heard it from some of his closest friends.  What has marked the great leaders like King, like Gandhi, is that they do not back down from their mission.  They are determined in their actions, because they have their vision focused on love, justice and nonviolence at all times.  They know that to go with the grain of the universe is to go with the divine.  They will not be talked down, and they will not back down.  They represent the alienated, the voiceless, and this means being outside of society and involves nonconformity to the ways of a profoundly sick society.  Until all are treated equal, none are equal.

     Harding says that “those who are serious about re-calling King must therefore be serious, too, about the risks of his company, his unexpurgated company.”  The question that Harding has for us is this:  Are we willing to REALLY embrace this “national hero” who has a politically correct holiday named after him?  If we are, then we need to embrace his complete message…the message that called America to account for its injustices and demanded that it live up to the “dream” that it professed (and professes) to be about.  Who will stand in the place of King?

Slash and What it Means to be Sober

I’m going to pick up one of those cliché “two types of people” lenses to describe my thoughts right now, but I think the cliché works here: Those who are sober and those who aren’t.  When I talk about sobriety, I’m not necessarily referring to the absence of chemical substances as we know them, (although those certainly are included), but to anything which one might use to “escape”.  One’s “substance” might be consumerism, religion, over-work or anything which focuses the mind outward instead of inward.  It’s the escape from self that is the issue, not the way it is done.  I personally didn’t realize how foggy my thoughts were until I got “sober” in all areas of my life.  The clarity I’ve now found is astounding. 

I read Slash’s autobiography because I’ve always been a GN’R fan, but also because I knew that he’d recently gotten “clean” from chemical dependency (I think it’s been 3 years now).  I was curious about his path, and wanted to know many things, not least of which was whether he was “sober” or simply “clean”.  But also, having lived in Las Vegas and having been on the opposite side of the music industry in the form of radio, I thought I might relate to him in some way.  I was right.  The fame element for me obviously wasn’t there, but many other issues clearly were; e.g. similar personality traits, a lack of accountability in our lives, career decisions which made it easy to pursue substance abuse, and an apparent element of fate that has kept us both alive.

Chemical substances haven’t been a part of my life for a while now.  However, detaching the perceived need for the substances was a lot more difficult than the substances themselves.  The need can quite easily be filled with something non-chemical, and often is.  The personal work required to get rid of that “need” is something that everyone must go through to be truly sober.  It’s a discovery of the internal and an ability to go there.  Slash talks about his inherent restlessness in the book.  “Restlessness is a fickle catalyst; it can drive you to achieve, or it can coax your demise.” That’s a trait that I’ve always had too.  I believe people are restless who have a greater than normal sense that things are out of balance.  It involves a certain degree of intuition. It can also be a realization that the “ideal” has not yet been reached.  It is a driving force, and is constantly on the move.  It heads very clearly in one direction and doesn’t take many detours.  Most of these types are “all or nothing” people.  When I pursue something, it’s with intensity and passion. 

It appears that Slash has at least discovered the key to sobriety, if not sobriety itself.  Only he knows whether he’s truly sober, but the right language is there.  “First I kicked the drugs, then I cleared my head and did some work on figuring out why I liked to put myself in the same position over and over again.”  “I’ve found that just *being*, day to day, just waiting to see what comes, and going from there is the only way to grow.”  Whether or not someone has a drink or even does a line is not the real issue, although I don’t believe any kind of good is ever achieved by either.  So in that sense I’m completely anti-substance at this point…not just for myself, but in general.  The legality makes no difference to me.  What “good” has ever been achieved by taking a drink?  However, to each their own, and I’m not on some kind of a crusade, it’s just my opinion derived from experience.  The most important thing is not the object used to escape, but the elimination of the need to escape in the first place.  There are many intoxicated people who don’t drink or do drugs.  If more would find a degree of awareness, we would all be that much better off. 

Conflict Theory as it relates to Religion

This is the text of a presentation I gave today in my Theories of Social Change class. We have started by examining classical conflict theory, which has its roots in the Marx/Engels tradition. The idea of oppression and oppressor being the overriding themes. Max Weber is also a prominent figure in this tradition. I thought this may be of interest to some of you, and would welcome your comments.

THE CHRISTIAN WEST VERSUS THE ISLAMIC WORLD

I want to start by taking this back to the beginning of our study of the conflict theory of the classical tradition in Sociology (Marx/Engels), because this will relate to what I intend to talk about. What are some of the main reasons that we have conflict, and therefore, conflict theory? (Ultimately power, but it can be in the form of status, money or any of a number of instruments of oppression)

All of these answers relate to one thing: At the very basis of conflict theory is the idea of the “other”…or someone we’re trying to control. Conflict represents the very opposite of love, unity. Unfortunately, this is true in the realm of religion as we are all too aware. What I intend to do is focus on how false consciousness, not religious principles has created a conflict both between and also inside religious traditions that theoretically are supposed to be universal. To do this, we have started with a macro or large scale example. My total of 3 contexts within religion will progress towards the micro. In each of these as well, we will show who controls the mental means of production. Our media incorporates control of the mental means of production by a certain side…that of the “Christianized West” in the form of the more religious far right.

The threat of status inconsistency (the shifting of the class or power balance) is INCORPORATED into the false consciousness (that of a class perceiving itself to have more or less power than it actually does).

This false consciousness implies an enemy…that of Islam. We are told not to approach them as an equal, but to see them as the “other”, theoretically against us and out to destroy us. We have failed to separate those on the other side of the fence who are also co-opting religion for political purposes. Most in this country view Islam as the evil, not power USING Islam. Unfortunately, power structures on both sides of the debate have used this false consciousness in what has become a power struggle. Power in conflict theory works best out of the fear motive.

THE AMERICAN CONSTANTINIAN CHURCH & THE PROPHETIC CHURCH

Cornel West was the first I’ve heard to use this description of American Christianity. To West, the Constantinian church is similar to the one in the Roman Empire that went along with everything the state put forward. The two were inseparable, and the Constantinian Christians believed the Roman Empire to have its own form of divinity. Do you see the parallel between the modern day United States? West goes on to say that Jesus was NOT a Constantinian. He opposed establishment, and was out to establish a new system on the earth…one that did not relate to the power struggles of empire. This is where prophetic Christianity comes in. Those that are willing to speak out against injustice rather than acquiesce to unconditional nationalism.

For example, who would comprise the Constantinian church in America? How would you say that the Constantinian church has been co-opted by our government? Who holds the real power in this situation?

Now I see elements of false consciousness at play here, but I also see a certain degree of status inconsistency. First, the Christian right believes they hold the power over the government, when they don’t realize that the government has co-opted the message of Jesus to stifle dissent among what we might call evangelical or Constantinian Christians. America is viewed by many on this side of the spectrum as the divinely mandated, Christian founded and ordained nation to carry out righteousness upon the earth, so God, country and Christianity are all inter-connected. The respect of nationalism is used to suppress questioning of domestic and foreign policy. All this really began in the late 70’s after the Civil Rights Movement. The prophetic church/religious tradition that came out of MLK and even Malcolm X obtained a populace power for a while by uniting and organizing the angst of the oppressed. This was a prophetic exodus call…a call of the proletariat in this situation to rise up and get results, which they did. The government was shocked. They realized the power that could be harnessed by religious affiliation. So the power struggle reversed itself by the government co-opting the more conservative side of the religion by emphasizing patriotism and the founding fathers and a “return to the traditional values of the nation”. This was already instilled in Western Christian traditions, but had not been used for political agendas until the late 70’s. Then these prophetic Christians…mostly of the Civil Rights movement…were viewed as radicals, opposing war and going against the calling of a divine nation to enact its policies upon the earth.

In both of these first two examples, we can see the control of the mental means of production and false consciousness (both closely connected) by the government.

AT THE COMMUNITY LEVEL: LOCAL EQUALITY ISSUES

There is no doubt that there has been a historical false consciousness imposed upon the women of religion. This is true of the Abrahamic tradition as well as those of Eastern religions. It is true today in those of the literalist tradition, or who use the Bible, Qur’an, Torah, etc… to justify subjugation of women. Those literalists miss the point when reading scripture in this way. What they fail to take into account is the societies in which these Scriptures were written. My God image is one of equality, tolerance and unity. God to me is more than just a name…God is in the universals…love, peace, justice, unity, equality in all areas of life. This is what I’ve been trying to show has been LACKING in human nature and has in turn created these conflicts that we’ve been talking about. There are many issues of inequality within a particular church congregation, but I have chosen the issue of women as I believe it to be the most important issue along with that of gays in the church. The false consciousness imposed upon the female gender has been created by a misinterpretation of scripture. God’s love trumps any argument of inequality that anyone could present to me. God’s love is the ultimate status equalizer. The equal love of God is incompatible with a subjugated gender, sexual orientation, race or religion. The injustice that we see in conflict theory is not compatible with this God.

Whenever we have divisiveness due to conflict situations, it is because of a perceived status differential. It is a refusal to look at all as equals. With women in the church, it becomes subtle. The patriarchy of the Christian tradition over the years has been extended to society at large, as we live in a Western culture influenced by classical Christian patriarchy (although the religious right seems to have no issue with a potential female candidate for President…odd perhaps?). However, the male dominance in the church is now being questioned very openly, and males (or females) who accept this patriarchy are forced to at least consider and acknowledge the arguments involved. They try to do this in a subtle way so as to hang onto their dominant role…because they can see the status inconsistency coming. To do this, they use the same word that we have heard in reference to the more macro examples I gave…a dangerous word: PRUDENCE. It would be PRUDENT if the Muslims didn’t build a mosque at Ground Zero. It would be PRUDENT if Rosa Parks didn’t stay in her seat on the bus…it would be PRUDENT if these negroes would move their march somewhere else. It would be PRUDENT if women wouldn’t try to take positions of leadership in the church. We acknowledge your right to do all these things, we just don’t think it’s prudent. Translation: We really don’t accept you, and are intolerant of what you are trying to do, because we want to maintain our class/power position. The common language we hear and have heard is that all these groups vying for voice are “insensitive”. They are only insensitive…in these examples…in the respect that they are striving for an equal voice and an equal status in society. I have heard this language in my own home…as my mother and father represent the polar opposites of the Mennonite Church. My mother graduated from AMBS seminary (a liberal Mennonite seminary supporting women leadership in the church) to the great opposition of my father. Dad is quite patriarchal, and it has made it very difficult on my mother. My mother has heard the word “prudent” over and over again in regards to her discontinuation of leadership activities in the church I grew of my youth. It eventually led to her leaving the church. Now, is this an example of a loving situation? When someone is forced to leave a church for a different reading of God’s love?

Conflict struggles have no place amongst people who claim God as the driving force in their lives. God is love and acceptance not intolerance…which is why I’m proud to be at a Mennonite school that’s primary mission is the resolution of conflict situations and the restoration of acceptance, peace and equality. Love and unity are the primary focus at Eastern Mennonite, and I’m proud to say this school focuses on inclusion, not exclusion. All faiths (or lack of faith) are welcome here, and there is no state agenda. That's more than I can say for the prestigious schools that claim to be non-biased on any issue...(you'll often find establishment agenda behind things). Thank you for your time today, and many blessings to you.