As November 4 nears, I am going to offer one of my favorite Psalms, a text that has challenged and comforted me through a few election cycles. Psalm 146:

Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord, O my soul!
I will praise the Lord as long as I live; I will sing praises to my God all my life long.

Do not put your trust in princes, in mortals, in whom there is no help.
When their breath departs, they return to the earth; on that very day their plans perish.

Happy are those whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in the Lord their God,
who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them; who keeps faith forever;
who executes justice for the oppressed; who gives food to the hungry. The Lord sets the prisoners free;
the Lord opens the eyes of the blind. The Lord lifts up those who are bowed down; the Lord loves the righteous.

The Lord watches over the strangers; he upholds the orphan and the widow, but the way of the wicked he brings to ruin.
The Lord will reign forever, your God, O Zion, for all generations. Praise the Lord! (NRSV)

I share this Psalm as a reminder for Christians that ultimately our hope is not in governments or political leaders, but in the God of Jacob. I do not intend to foster apathy or encourage people to refrain from important democratic processes such as studying the candidates, forming thoughtful positions on the issues, or voting. I do not even want to persuade people from endorsing a candidate if they feel she or he is the best person for the job. I will be voting for a candidate on November 4.

There are generally two ways of engaging democratically. The first is to build coalitions with people who share similar views on certain issues and promise that one will back the other on topics that may not be so important to the other person. This is basically our party system where politicians and different groups have allied together and support each other, even on matters that aren’t obviously relevant to them. The second way of democratic engagement is to form coalitions on a more ad hoc basis, taking the matter issue by issue, and, I believe it is to this form of engagement that the Church in American needs to commit itself.

I have also been fairly clear on my blog about how disappointed I have been with how the Religious Right has engaged American politics. I agree and disagree with them on their positions, but it is not generally their positions on the issues that bother me, so much as the means by which they engage democratically. They offer, in my opinion, a very thin and limited view of democracy because they have, more or less, followed the party system of engagement. Neither major party embodies the Christian ideals, and therefore, I am concerned of Christians baptizing the Republicans or the Democrats. When Christian bodies hitch themselves to a party, they place themselves in a tenuous position because they now have to answer for the decisions that party makes that may go against the gospel. My concern is that as I see a swelling of politically moderate and progressive Christians finding their organized voice, they will fall into the same trap as the Religious Right and opt for a party-type of engagement rather than a more prophetic promise to speak truth to power. I do not want to see these moderate and progressive brothers and sisters hitch themselves to the Democrats and write hagiographies of Barack Obama as the Religious Right has hitched itself to the Republicans and have written their hagiographies of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

Christians are better suited to say, “No matter who is in office, we will work with or push against them in order to pursue justice for our neighbors and love for our enemies.” We maintain our prophetic voice when we are not known as Democrats or Republicans. If a party resonates with you, by all means join it, but remember, as a Christian, you are called to seek the Kingdom first, not the party’s platform. Leadership is vitally important, and I hope anyone reading this will prayerfully and thoughtfully consider their votes. Please do vote. But as you enter the poll, remember what Psalm 146 tells us: God brings justice, renewal, and grace while political leaders are temporary.

Wow I preached a bit more than I had intended. Maybe I just got a bit juiced up because it’s Reformation Day and I’ve got a list of complaints, a nail, and a hammer. Just trying to find the right door.

On the back of Stanely Hauerwas and Jean Vanier’s new book, Living Gently in a Violent World, I came across this pull-quote from Amos Yong and I love it.

Church takes time, patience, gentleness, vulnerability, friendship, hospitality, mutuality and peaceableness. In other words, church takes practice.

This statement from Allen Greenspan in yesterday’s hearing in the House Committee Oversight and Government Reform has been swimming through my head since I first heard it reported:

I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms.

Over on the Acton Institute web site, David Gregg captures my opinion of markets with this statement:

If the current financial upheaval teaches us anything, it should be how much market capitalism depends upon most people developing and adhering to some rather uncontroversial moral virtues.

I don’t follow Gregg in all of his conclusions of how to assign blame during the current economic mess, but I think he is right to show that we need virtue and morality in our economic system from lenders and borrowers, from producers and consumers, and from labor and management. I wish he would say more about what those virtues should be or from where they should originate. We now see how deeply flawed is and was Greenspan’s previous assumption that self-interest would be the best means of organizations protecting their investors’ equity. Self-interest cannot sustain a society for long. Duty, virtue, sacrifice, and love have no substitutes.

I still consider myself a capitalist in part because I still believe it has done more good than other economic systems. The debate needs to open, however, about what type of capitalism will we have in our nation and our world. Unfettered capitalism works in the short term, but appears to have serious crashes. It concerns me that our economic systems have not only run on self-interest, but encourage further selfishness and materialism. I began worrying about this in college when the economy soared and that meant people were buying a second or third car, or buying houses well beyond what they needed, taking themselves further into debt, often through risky loans. Our selfishness created a system and markets that reward and encourage immediate gratification, but as I said in another post on capitalism, “There is a feedback loop between our character and the systems we create. Yes, our values shape the market; we would do well to remember that the market returns the favor.”

The announcement I mentioned in an earlier is that I have accepted a call to be an interim co-pastor at Eagle Rock Covenant Church. I will serve alongside my friend Brian, who was an intern with me at Pasadena Covenant Church. Together we will minister as pastors for the church as they reflect on the season they had with their outgoing pastor, listen to God for direction, and prepare to call the next full-time pastor. This will intentionally be a temporary position. It is not one I would have imagined for myself coming out of seminary, but as Carey and I have prayed and sought God’s discernment with other friends and family, it seems like this will be a good fit for both Brian and I and the congregation. It will be a part-time position as Brian and I will split the pastoral responsibilities and thankfully, Servant Partners has graciously allowed me to transition to part-time work there as well. I’m excited for the opportunity of this new phase of ministry.

I’m not a big fan of direct democracy or the California voter initiatives that show up on the ballot. I have voiced my complaints before that as pieces of legislation, they are much too strong, exist outside the normal investigation and hearing process, and they often tie the bugetary hands of our legislators in such a way that, in my opinion, exacerbates our state’s inability to pass timely and balanced budgets. Also, some of the initiatives over the years have changed the state’s constitution and I think we need a much more deliberative method of amending our state constitution, like how the United States Constitution is changed through a lengthy and difficult amendment process. As I read the current slate of initiatives, I realized I’m being asked to be an expert on or at least have a working knowledge of corrections, addictions, rehabilitation, courts, policing, sentencing, and what these things should reasonably cost. And that’s just for Proposition 5, whose text takes 20 pages of double-column type in the voter’s guide. I really have little idea if this is a good or bad law, or if it could be made better as many bills are in the normal legislative process. I just get to vote yes or no on it. The initiative process does not make much sense to me. Without paying attention to the propositions on the November ballot, I want to suggest three propositions for a future vote. I want to reiterate that my proposals are not in response to any of the current propositions up for vote.

Voters for a Stable Constitution Amendment: Amendment to California’s Constitution that changes the process for amending the California constitution so that ratification of any new amendment requires 2/3 support in both houses of the state legislature and approval by 3/4 of voters via a state-wide ballot.
Reasoning: Changing the state constitution should receive input from average voters, but I do not believe that only average voters should have a say. We need checks and balances in the system and we should adopt a process like the federal government uses that requires 2/3 support in both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the states to ratify an amendment to the Constitution. The legislature should act as a check.
Voters for Honest Costs and Good Budgets Act: This act requires that all future ballot proposals are pay-as-you-go. No ballot proposal that increases or mandates spending requirements can be paid for by bonds or other means of borrowing. All spending increases and mandates must have equal taxation increases. These revenues to cover costs must come 60% from sales taxes, 20% from state income taxes, 10% from property taxes, and 10% from business taxes.
Reasoning: So many propositions mandate certain requirements for spending as a percentage in the state budget or call for new spending projects. Many of the proponents promise that these propositions “will not cost taxpayers a dime” because they receive most of their funding by borrowing against the future, often in the form of bonds, which send our state further into debt. Right, as if debts never have to be paid. I imagine such an initiative would kill most ballot initiatives if everyone knew they had to pay for them immediately, which is why I put the burden of the costs on sales taxes.

The next is my favorite proposal and covers some of the first proposal and would make the second proposal moot.

Voters for a Representative Democracy Amendment:
Section 1: Amendment the state constitution, banning all future California ballot initiatives, excepting in cases of amendments to the constitution.

Section 2: Those amendments may only reach the voters for a state-wide election after passing by at least 2/3 margins in the both houses of the state legislature. A proposed amendment must then receive support from 3/4 voters in order to be ratified.

Reasoning: We have representatives—let them represent us. The ballot initiatives process was meant to offer a means for Californian citizens to directly bypass the government in enacting laws because, over a century ago, citizens feared that the Southern Pacific Railroad had much too control in the state’s affairs. We have a means of checking and balancing our elected officials: elections. If our elected officials do not do the will of the people, we have ample opportunity to vote them out and vote into office someone who will follow the voters’ demands. I cannot sit through hearings about the fiscal, environmental, legal, and social impacts of proposed laws, and so I elect someone as my representative to do that for me in Sacramento. I do not relegate my responsibility to be as informed as possible about the issues, but I cannot nor should not be expected to act as a legislator when I have two in Sacramento already representing me and my neighbors. I do not want to be a redundancy.

Anyone willing to stand outside the grocery store and gather signatures?

Carey and I are back from our vacation and I’m ready to play catch-up on all the work I missed. We needed the relaxation and the exertion of hiking all over Yosemite—and taking way too many pictures of Half Dome. I’ll get pictures online soon. Be prepared for an announcement coming in a couple of days on this blog. A tip for readers: I won’t be announcing yet another blog or that we’re having a baby, so hold your horses.

Carey and I will be camping in Yosemite for our vacation next week. Today, I read this news from the Los Angeles Times:

A major rock slide this morning at Yosemite National Park injured three visitors, destroyed more than half a dozen cabins and prompted park officials to evacuate popular Curry Village as a precaution.

The slide let loose about 7 a.m. more than halfway up the 3,200-foot face of Glacier Point, which looms above the tent cabins and concession services on the valley floor below.

An 1,800-cubic-yard slab of rock cartwheeled down the cliff, shattered and sent boulders and fist-sized granite shrapnel spraying toward the edge of Curry Village and its more than 500 tent cabins, regular cabins and hotel rooms….

The rock fall was the second in two days at Glacier Point. Tuesday afternoon, a smaller slide sent boulders cascading toward Curry Village, destroying one tent cabin.

Thankfully the campground where we’ll be staying, according to the park rangers, is about a kilometer away, so we won’t be affected. Still, the news is a bit unsettling. I may wake up really early one morning and run through the campground, shaking a box of rocks near other peoples’ tents.

My father used to say that he could never argue with his mother because, “Mom had her opinions and she wouldn’t let the facts get in the way.” This article by Robert Burton on Salon.com sheds some fascinating light on the psychology of decision-making and voting. In “My Candidate, Myself,” Burton writes:

In the current presidential election, a major percentage of voters are already committed to “their candidate”; new arguments and evidence fall on deaf ears. And yet, if we, as a country, truly want change, we must be open-minded, flexible and willing to revise our opinions when new evidence warrants it. Most important, we must be able to recognize and acknowledge when we are wrong.

Unfortunately, cognitive science offers some fairly sobering observations about our ability to judge ourselves and others….

Closely allied with this unshakable self-confidence in one’s decisions is a second separate aspect of meta-cognition, the feeling of being right….

The evidence is substantial that these feelings do not correlate with the accuracy or quality of the thought….

Feelings of absolute certainty and utter conviction are not rational deliberate conclusions; they are involuntary mental sensations generated by the brain. Like other powerful mental states such as love, anger and fear, they are extraordinarily difficult to dislodge through rational arguments. Just as it’s nearly impossible to reason with someone who’s enraged and combative, refuting or diminishing one’s sense of certainty is extraordinarily difficult. Certainty is neither created by nor dispelled by reason.

To a certain extent, we all engage in individual-groupthink, to coin a new phrase. After we make our conclusions, we discount contrary evidence while overvaluing evidence that affirms our assumptions. In my opinion, last Friday’s presidential debate seemed fairly even in that neither John McCain nor Barack Obama shot himself in the foot. Similarly, neither candidate performed head and shoulders above the other. But in seeing the polls afterward, people generally thought their candidate won the debate. Now, I am leaning a certain direction and have been for months. I will say that I found myself excusing certain errors or disagreements I have with him, while I railed against his opponent when he said something I didn’t like. My mind was made up, which to a large extent is fine, so long as I remain open to new information.

So what does Burton want from a president?

I want a president aware of how his mind works, as well as what he suspects are his inborn biases and intellectual limitations. Ironically, the acknowledgment of intellectual limitations may be the best evidence for superior decision-making skills. Contrary to George Bush’s belief, we do not want certainty in the White House. We want flexibility and an acknowledgment that certainty is often a sign of ignorance.

Unfortunately, sound bites, TV interviews and presidential debates often fail to reveal the candidates’ real thought processes—how each would approach a new or complex problem for which he or she doesn’t already have a pat answer.

Burton’s article is certainly helpful in forcing us to look at our assumptions and decisions and reminding us that it takes hard work to remain open to new information and evidence. He puts a bit too much stock in cold, objective reasoning and empirical evidence as the most basic and most commonly held means of knowing whether something is true or not—I think he tends to discount spiritual phenomena. Those of the more Republican persuasion may not like the tack Burton takes in the last quarter of the piece. But Burton’s article should make us aware of our biases as we enter the home stretch of this election cycle (finally) and as we listen to our candidates and their opponents. Abraham Lincoln described our instincts well when he said, “People who like this sort of thing will find this the sort of thing they like.”