“The Covenant with America,” Feature, 8/17
I’ll stand with Archie
I was at the “Spiritual Activism” conference hosted by Michael Lerner and Tikkun. Chris Thompson’s take on the event is accurate, particularly regarding who was left out of that touted “inclusivism.” I pray the would-be leaders of a movement to recover a different spiritual voice pay attention. I spent 25 years as a blue-collar worker and am currently a student at the Graduate Theological Union, affiliated with the Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley.
The opening picture is not Pauley Ballroom, it is the Newman Center, a Catholic ministry for UCB students. But the misidentification is appropriate to the tone of the conference. Those of us who put our religion first rather than our progressive politics were almost an alien presence.
In the economics working group, those of us representing some actual diversity were mostly ignored. I supported the deliberate use of the word “God,” [and was] voted down as excluding agnostics and Universal Unitarians. My question was then, to whom are we trying to appeal? Such language excludes the majority of Americans in favor of the maybe 1 percent offended by this religious terminology. But it does make it possible to be comfortable among educated, nonreligious progressives — the class of people with whom so many of the conference attendees are comfortable.
There was also a day workshop on labor. Someone there actually used the term “Archie Bunker.” The one group in this country still the butt of acceptable prejudice, working people have become the silenced majority. Even among the current generation, only 26 percent have four-year college degrees. And how many have them from a top university or in something by which they earn a living? Plus, even in high-tech industries, 80 percent of the jobs are low-tech — someone has to clean and do the word-processing. Besides, many of us blue-collar people can actually read, write, and think. As Michael Lerner so aptly pointed out, people are not stupid. They voted against their economic interests in favor of something that at least seemed to be a moral stance. Therefore it is critical that if we are to effectively counter the hijacking of religious values by the political right, we must do so sincerely and in language that respects the lived reality of working people, including their specific faith affiliations.
If I have to choose between progressives and those labeled as Archie Bunkers, I’m standing with Archie. As a Catholic and a worker, these are my people and I am committed to them.
Catherine “Rafi” Simonton, Berkeley
Editor’s note
The scene described in the intro took place at Pauley Ballroom, but the opening photo was indeed taken in Newman Hall.
Between the lines
Mahatma Gandhi said that every movement, if its cause is right, goes through four stages: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, and then you win.” Chris Thompson’s article should make us rejoice: We have entered the second stage!
As co-convener of the conference (Thompson systematically ignored not only my role but the contributions of the 109 speakers representing, for example, the ideas of some of the leading Protestant and Catholic thinkers in the country, from Jesuit priest John Dear to Protestant theologian John Cobb to evangelical leader Jim Wallis), I took some comfort from this assessment of Gandhi’s, though, truth to say, the cynicism and gratuitous sarcasm of the article was saddening.
I understand where Mr. Thompson is coming from. We are trying to break out of old ways of thinking, groping for nothing less than a new conception of who we human beings are and how we are related to one another and the world. Of course we have a hard time communicating just what it is we’re after to people who remain — for now — firmly in the dominant paradigm.
Thompson quotes one of our participants saying: “I think that when Rabbi Lerner talks about a life of compassion and love and caring about other people, that’s how I would put it. And I also have a spiritual practice. I meditate. In my everyday relationships, my clients, my family, I try to think about them, I try to do what’s right.” Thompson jeers that this isn’t very “specific.” Give us a break. Christianity wasn’t very specific for the first five hundred years of its existence — in fact, some argue it had margins indistinguishable from Judaism. Besides, meditation is very specific. All things are vague to those unfamiliar with them. What Thompson really means, I suspect, is that the woman he questioned talked about a personal agenda for change, not a political one. That’s exactly our point: What’s different about spiritual activism is that it grounds social change in that neglected source of change and renewal — the human person.
Thompson complains that we have created “an interfaith atmosphere that … stripped religion of its specificity, reducing it to a pantheistic mush of how we’re all connected in some ethereal, deep ecology matrix.” Well, but we are connected in some ethereal matrix, and deep ecology is one of the better models that explain it. And spirituality is that kind of religious consciousness which doesn’t fit into sectarian boxes — and therefore doesn’t lend itself to sectarian violence. Naturally it’s going to take some time to familiarize people with these ideas. Getting a grip on them was precisely why we had this conference and are planning further actions like it. I would encourage people to read between the lines: Something is happening, and whether or not Mr. Jones knows what it is — even if some of us who are doing it aren’t yet quite sure — it has the potential to rescue America from the disastrous slope down which it’s sliding.
Michael Nagler, Tomales
Left-wing commie paper
Chris Thompson’s article was great. One of the best I have ever read on the subject. What was it doing in your left-wing commie paper? Just kidding. Keep up the good work.
Steve Dufour, Pleasant Hill
Thompson misses the joy
There were places in Chris Thompson’s article that made me wonder if we attended the same event. For instance, he keeps insisting that mainstream Christians were underrepresented and their message marginalized in favor of a “pantheistic mush,” whereas I found myself in the company of Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Catholics from across the country in virtually every event attended. Indeed, the predominant (though not exclusive) language to articulate a vision of social justice for this country that I encountered was a Christian one. It seemed to me that the largest group represented mainstream Christian churches. We had a pastor of a Baptist church in the South as a main speaker, as well as an evangelical minister, so even the ideologically “conservative” end of the Christian spectrum was heard from.
Thompson surprised me by suggesting that the Spiritual Progressive movement needed to retailor itself to appeal to the spiritual narcissism that characterizes what he considers to be the fastest-growing segment of the Christian world. That was the sort of label that used to be applied to New Age yuppies, not to conservative Christian organizations, and it used to signify a sort of contempt. Now we’re told that any movement hoping to be taken seriously needs to align itself [with] a more narcissistic vision. Perhaps Thompson doesn’t get that the spirituality of progressives is anything but self-centered — that it is built on a genuine sense of commitment to the entire planetary community and profound conviction that we are, as Jesus insisted, our brothers’ keepers and have a responsibility to act on that truth.
He seems to have failed to note that joy or the overwhelmingly positive and loving atmosphere of the conference. It’s true that probably no one drawn to attend it was happy with current national policy regarding foreign policy, the environment, or social programs. But the objection to those policies was done in an open-hearted way with many overt cautions not to descend into sloppy Bush-bashing, but instead to formulate, articulate, and fight for a more positive and life-affirming alternative.
Thompson complains that the conference was political at the expense of spirituality, but fails to recognize that the participants were people who already had strong spiritual commitments and practices, but whose faith had led them to feel that finding personal salvation, peace, or satisfaction was no longer enough — that we have obligations to help create a world more in line with universal spiritual values. Such an endeavor cannot be done without embarking on the treacherous path of affecting public policy. And those obligations do not need to be in line with particular spiritual “narratives” found in specific religions, but, rather, they must be in accord with the core values that seem to underlie virtually all theologies.
That such a conference could draw so many participants from virtually every major faith and geographic area signifies the gestation of a new movement that cuts across demographic lines. That it was so free from vitriol and so full of positive vision suggests that the groups formed from within it have what it takes to go on to formulate specific action rather than merely articulate complaints. It’s too bad Thompson wasn’t touched by the creative, affirmative spirit he encountered and remained stuck in the mire of criticism. The rest of us were inspired to roll up our sleeves and see what we could do to make a difference, and to make manifest a vision that would be good for the entire nation.
Lia Olson, Richmond
“Good Skating — Great Lobbying,” East Side Story, 8/10
Here’s to foot power
Skateboarding is an art and a sport and should be done more often. Being from Santa Cruz, skating is in my veins. The notes about Burnside were excellent. Now the knowledge is out there that ordinary guys with concrete can do extraordinary things. My skating is nil now because running is more possible, but just hearing a skate slide down a street is like music to this California native. Just knowing a park sits under the 580 feels right. When cars are gone, we can turn the whole system to infinite parks and train tracks going to and fro on electricity. Or at least the electric cars won’t sound so loud to skaters under the roads who like quiet. Foot power is better than gas.
John Bolles, Oakland
“Sideshows RIP?” Cityside, 8/10
Hey, that’s not journalism
Robert Gammon’s embedded-reporter tribute to the Oakland police department’s tireless work against sideshows wasn’t journalism. If Gammon wanted EBE‘s readers to have the whole story, he would have researched the reasons behind those 1,700 tows he mentioned since January. He would have asked what those five thousand traffic citations were for. He would have tried to find out how many people whose cars were towed were stranded far from home in the middle of the night because a turn signal wasn’t working, or because they didn’t, like most people, come to a complete stop at a stop sign. He would have investigated who’s making money off those tows.
Maybe flooding East Oakland with cops to preempt sideshows has made the “mean streets” more “well-behaved.” Has it made East Oakland residents feel safer and more assured of their rights? Has it made Oakland a more equitable, just place to live? I’m glad to hear that Sgt. Hoppenhauer is overqualified for her job. What occupation-era success story will Gammon bring us next?
Kate Berrigan, Oakland
Corrections
Last week’s Fall Arts Preview contained two errors: At Oakland Opera Theater (“An Aria for the Rest of Us”), Lori Zook and Tom Dean handle day-to-day operations but don’t “own and operate” the theater — it is a nonprofit overseen by a board of directors.
In addition, a production error created a page mixup in our story about Oakland airport muralist Jet Martinez. Page FA11 should have run as FA10 and vice versa.
