Fisking Sisk

While I am crafting a thoughtful, respectful response to Bishop Sisk it is worth pointing out some of the glaring flaws or curious assumptions in this message as starting points for those who wish to reflect upon it. The best methodology I can think of to achieve this right now is what it known in the blogosphere as "fisking."

On Friday, October 21, I visited Zuccotti Park, the site - at least until last night - of the Occupy Wall Street protest. Whatever happens next in Lower Manhattan (and as I write, on the morning of November 15, things are moving fast, with the outcome unclear), there can be no doubt that this protest has struck a chord, and given birth to a movement that appears, in spite of everything, to be gaining momentum.

Is it truly gaining momentum? How is this measured? There are many measures by which we can conclude the opposite.

For some, this chord seems to have sounded like a long awaited trumpet call to action; for others - who have not been shy to express their disdain - it is decidedly discordant.

So, it's black or white, you disdain it or welcome it as a trumpet call? How about something else? Is it not possible to be benignly indifferent to it, to not disdain it and yet not be inspired by it?

Back in October, it was not always easy to distinguish those who were "tourists" - people who swung by to see what was going on out of simple curiosity - from those who were active participants in the protest itself. But what was clear was that this was not some tiny cell of extremists. Those present represented what was, to me, a surprisingly wide swath of the American people. Some, young and not so young, gave the appearance of being seasoned protesters. Others, again both young and not so young, seemed to be first timers: folks who held their banners and slogans with a slight aura of awkwardness.

Again, is this true or is this romanticizing? I too visited Zocotti Park. It appeared to me to represent a narrow sliver of American society rather than a wide swath. Again, how do we measure this?

It is true that it was not easy at Zucotti Park to sort out the substance from the theatre. The media have offered little help, with their focus, unsurprisingly, on the most colorful and extreme expressions of protest. They have highlighted slogans that call for the jailing of bankers, while ignoring placards like the one I saw that said "99% + 1% = ONE" - which I interpreted as intending to highlight our common interests and essential unity as a people.

Is unity a salient, defining principle of this movement? Could the media have been highlighting what was representative of the movement rather than filtering?

Nor, sadly, have those in public leadership often commented helpfully-and they are certainly disingenuous when they point to the protestors' lack of a plan as evidence of a lack of seriousness, when apparently they have no plan themselves.

There is no disingenuousness. The plan is either the status quo or the status quo plus minor refinements, which is grounded in a belief that our society is largely just and moral, or least more so than available alternatives. That too is a legitimate stance, no?

Indeed, all too often the opposing voices that we hear are shrilly dismissive-their aggressive, trivializing tone hinting, to me, at a deep, largely unconscious, level of anxiety. It cannot be lost on many that all this is taking place with the background noise of the Arab Spring ringing in our ears.

I detect in this a presumed equivalency between protesting political opppression and income inequality. Is that the church's stance?

Whatever happens next in Downtown Manhattan, it is terribly important that the core energy behind this protest not be lost behind a blizzard of slogans and rhetoric.

Energy is evocative of emotion, zeal, passion. Slogans and rhetoric are evocative of words, of expressing ideas and endeavoring to persuade. Are Christians to be governed by passion over reason? Is that what is meant here?

The particular motivations of those protesting are, undoubtedly, as mixed as the American people itself. One dominant thread, however, is an (admittedly inchoate) critique of unfettered capitalism.

Is our brand of capitalism really "unfettered"? Many believe it is significantly fettered, and therein lies not only a flaw, but perhaps a great evil.

But the fundamental issue is not that the laws of capitalism are flawed; the fundamental issue is that we are flawed in our attitude to them.

There can be little doubt that capitalism is a productive way to order economic life. But we need to remember, as the protestors have reminded us, that that is all that it is - an economic system based on the entirely reasonable propositions that capital has value, and that supply and demand are the most efficient way to set prices. Capitalism is of no help at all in determining what is morally good - that is something that must instead be determined by the community's wider values.

Capitalism doesn't lay claim to determining moral goods. Are moral goods really determined by a community's values, and thus mutable? I was taught that morality is grounded in the Word of God and is immutable. Earthly arrangements reflect our response to the will of God, but they have no bearing on it.

And there should be no question that when an economic system fails to reflect those communal values, it should be modified and governed until it does.

Many believe our system does reflect shared values - freedom, opportunity, industriousness among others.

To say, as some do, that any attempt to control or guide our economic system is neither wise nor possible is to admit that an economic system has decisive control of our lives. For a Christian, such an admission would be nothing less than to yield to idolatry. (Though I do not claim deep knowledge of other religious traditions, I suspect that this is true for them as well.)

To say such is not to admit to lack of control over our lives. It is flawed to anthropomorphize an economic system. What is at the root of how we organize our society is our humans desires and needs. To say that changes to how we organize society are unwise are reflective of our understanding of who we are, not slavery to some false idol.

God alone is the One, and the only One, to whom we can concede such ultimate authority. For the non-theist to make the argument that the laws of economics are immutable is to concede that we have no power of ourselves to help ourselves.

Is anybody saying that the laws of economics are such that they have led us away from what God asks of us? I'm pretty sure that is not what skeptics of the OWS movement think.

That is the same argument that those in the grip of various kinds of addiction make: "I am not in control, my addiction made me do it."

As the OWS protestors point out, wealth in our country is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few, the real income of the broad middle class has not increased in more than a generation, and the ranks of the poorest among us each year become ever more solidified. These are the facts - and the reality behind them is, quite simply, morally wrong.

Respectfully, these are not the facts. Income inequality is a highly nuanced, contentious subject within the field of economics. It is not sufficiently clear how imbalanced the distribution of resources is, nor is it clear how the relative balance equates to individual well-being or even social well-being.

Ultimately, left unchecked, that reality is deeply dangerous. It is at odds with our vision of ourselves, and as Americans we ignore it at the peril of our most cherished national ideals.

Again, what are our most cherished national ideals? Income equality was never a principle enshrined in our founding arrangements. We didn't fight a civil war over income inequality. We didn't act upon the world stage in the 20th century in the name of income inequality. That is no implicit condemnation of the notion, but let's not afford it a status it doesn't have.

As Christians, we ignore it at the peril of our souls.

Really? I was never taught that the fate of my soul depended on how much earthly riches I had relative to others. I was taught the love in my heart for my fellow man, God's love, mattered regardless of whether I had more or less than my neighbor.

The way forward is not simple. In spite of what some in the public square would have us think, there are no obvious and easy solutions for complex problems. But what we must strive for is clear. We must - and I believe that this is what lies at the core of the OWS protests - rein in the imbalances that have caused our economic house to careen off course as though it is a self-perpetuating, self-governing good.

Why do you elevate the relative distribution of wealth as what Christians must strive for? Does God keep score in monetary units? What about love, faith, virtue? These are the things I hear about on Sundays. I've read too of societies that focus nearly exclusively on the former and exhibit none of the latter. Again, what is it really that we should be striving for?

The solution that we find will not be perfect, just as human beings are not perfect; but to surrender to forces as though we are helpless before them is not an answer, but an excuse.

We can do better. We are not helpless. We can, by working together, build a better, more just, society: a society founded on the American ideal of a nation in which there are "certain unalienable Rights," including those to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

How does income inequality follow from these three attributes? Why do we define "just" in terms of monetary values?

We can look to the heart of who we are as a people and draw upon our better lights to seek the common good.

Is a perpetual argument over who has more, who has less and who is worthy based on what they do or don't have in the interests of the common good?

That is our challenge as a nation. As followers of Jesus, we know that our calling now and always is to seek the welfare of the people, the children of God.

As a follower of Jesus I am tasked with reflecting his love and his sacrifice for us out into the world and to use the gifts he has given me for good. The welfare of the people may flow from that, but I'm pretty sure my explicit calling is not to address monetary imbalances here on Earth.

Finally, does God love "communities" or "societies"? I don't think so. God loves us - me, you...actual people. Does God exhort us to arrange our affairs for a proscribed amount and particular notion of justice? Maybe, but that's not what I've learned over a lifetime as a Christian. God exhorts us each to be just. Does God act on a collective basis? Again maybe, but I was taught that God acts upon the hearts of each of us. Jesus did not exhort his followers to build things in his name or achieve explicit societal goals in his name, he exhorts his follows to be "fishers of men" to act upon the individual, to secure hearts to his name. Sounds like Bishop Sisk is more a disciple of John Rawls than of Jesus Christ.