Hurricane Sandy Image c/o Huffington Post

This month has been one of personal, professional, and national shifts, storms, and graces. So much so that I can think of no better way to represent this conflux than by sharing my “sermonette” from last night’s worship service in my young adult ministry program.

In the last 30 days I turned 33, I found some beautiful progress and graces in the world of my ministry work, and struggled at a distance with the pain and tragedy of my home state, New Jersey and our neighboring adjacent-hometown of New York City. I spent my life, at different points, wandering the coastline of the Jersey Shore during summer vacation, hopping through the subway and wandering around the Lower East Side when I cut school as a high schooler (oops!) to sitting in Washington Square Park in between graduate school classes at NYU. Now my middle school in Summit, NJ is a “heating station” and crisis center, the YMCA is where mass showers are being taken, and no one is hopping on the subway to anywhere.

From my personal heart to yours I share the “sermonette” I gave last night to my spiritual seekers in Delray Beach. Blessings and prayers to all who suffer and are lost–in this tragedy and in the world at large. This essay was written for all of you.

Mitt Romney’s end-times theological beliefs have largely remained in the shadows during this election. However, a secretly-recorded video has resurfaced from Romney’s first presidential run, bringing renewed attention to Romney’s apocalyptic beliefs.

The video, recorded in 2007, shows Romney arguing off-air with conservative radio host Jan Mickelson, who prods Romney about his Mormon beliefs and attempts to get Romney to admit how different Mormonism is from evangelicalism.

Angrily and somewhat haltingly, Romney explains the LDS Church’s end-times theology, and how parts of its apocalyptic Second Coming theology aligns with evangelical teachings. While all of the video is worth viewing, the part in question begins at the 1:30 mark, in which Romney says:

Christ appears – it’s throughout the Bible – Christ appears in Jerusalem, splits the Mount of Olives to stop the war that’s coming in to kill all the Jews. Our church believes that. That’s where the coming and glory of Christ occurs. We also believe that over the 1000 years that follows, the millenium, he will reign from two places, that the law will come forward from one place (from Missouri), and the other will be in Jerusalem.

Recently two seemingly unrelated events came together: I volunteered for Measure D to raise the minimum wage in San Jose to ten dollars an hour, and I watched another episode of the BBC’s excellent production of War and Peace.

War and Peace BBC

In the episode I watched, a wealthy family, the Rostovs, is crating up their numerous possessions, china, furniture, dresses, vases, and clocks, to flee Moscow in the face of Napoleon’s oncoming troops. They look out the window: a long line of wounded Russian soldiers is wending its exhausted way through the city – now abandoned by most of the rich. At first, the family watches, curious, as the soldiers drag and are dragged past their front door. Then the daughter, Natasha, a person of great spirit and integrity, asks what it could hurt to let the wounded be brought inside and laid on the floor; the family is leaving the city anyway for their country estate.

Just as the family is about to leave, an officer begs them to take a few of the wounded along. Natasha’s father okays replacing a few boxes with soldiers. But when his wife hears of this, she bursts into an impassioned plea: These goods are our children’s heritage! You’ve mismanaged our money, made bad business decisions, and now you’ll deprive them of this too?

Her husband, chastened, goes back on his decision. Natasha, however, explodes: These are only things! I don’t want them! How can you save things instead of human beings? She points down at the soldiers: These are human beings!

In the end, they make the miraculous decision to leave their goods and fill the carts with wounded soldiers. As it happens, lying among the wounded is someone they know, someone very important, but they only find that out after the decision is made.

Ms Pearl lives directly below me in our apartment building in Orange, New Jersey. We exchange pleasantries at the mailbox or in the parking lot as we go about our day. She is a beautiful elder woman. I hope I look that good when I am her age, and it is hard to know just how old she is. She is perhaps in her late sixties or early seventies. She has snow white shoulder length dreadlocks and a lineless pecan brown face. There is a timeless quality about her. She radiates peace.

Hurricane Sandy was on the way, so the Saturday before the storm I stocked up on storm necessaries – food, bottled water, batteries, first aid kit. I had already packed a go bag and had my thumb drives and important papers in a lock box ready if I had to leave. When I passed Ms Pearl’s door on the way out, as usual, I smelled good food. Today it smelled of baking bread.

In contrast, I only turn on my stove to boil water for coffee, tea or hot chocolate. I eat what I buy from the hot food counter at the grocery store, or from the Chinese place I discovered a few years ago in East Orange. She lives alone and cooks. I live alone and I do not.

When the storm hit land, I was in bed. It is a family tradition to turn off the television or music or whatever and go to bed when a storm comes, whether it is an ordinary thunderstorm or a hurricane. God is doing God’s business, and the best thing to do is to be still. So, when Sandy came, the wind growled, and I slept. The storm passed and we were lucky. We lost power, but the trees did not fall down on us. We did not have to evacuate. Our building was still standing untouched. Later, talking on the telephone with my friend Debbie, she named the hurricane Ms Sandy. Give girlfriend her proper respect.

A tough question, this one. Certainly there are a number of responses which are not particularly spiritual, as tempting as they might be. For if we think of spirituality as the simple but extraordinarily difficult attempt to respond to life’s difficulties with mindfulness, equanimity, gratitude, compassion, and love, then the natural tendency towards revulsion at the lies, panic at the thought of the “other guy” winning, or contempt for the stupidity of the confused citizens who might vote against our candidate – well, such responses don’t really fit the bill.

Nor, sad to say, does the religious understanding of one candidate being absolutely closer to God’s commands than the other. And this is equally as true for conservatives as it is for liberals: for those who are sure that Romney will keep the faith for religious freedom, heterosexuality, fetus rights, and a strong military; as for voters who believe Obama serves the Golden Rule and the Sermon on the Mount far better than any Republican could ever do.

What I’m looking for is a spiritual response that can coexist with very different political views; providing, of course, that the different political views don’t depend on outright group hatred, violent aggression, or brute selfishness. Given that condition, I believe it is possible for people of spiritual good will to disagree about (for example) tax policy, responses to conflicts in the Middle East, energy policy, and even abortion rights. (And I say this as someone with highly defined politics, views so far to the left I fall off the planet occasionally.) Such spirituality is compatible with organized religion, with no religion, with reverence for God, goddesses, spirits, nature, or simply life.

When I read Mitt Romney’s remarks at Virginia Military Institute (VMI), a statement of his foreign policy, I am stunned by his idea that the United States of America has the power to work its will in the world. He says: “it is our responsibility and the responsibility of the President to use America’s great power to shape history, not to lead from behind, leaving our destiny at the mercy of events.” He says at the end of his remarks: “The 21st century can and must be an American century. It began with terror and war and economic calamity. It’s our duty to steer it onto the path of freedom and peace and prosperity.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/09/us/politics/mitt-romney-remarks-at-virginia-military-institute.html?pagewanted=all)

From a just peace perspective this is not true, and it shows a striking lack of insight about the complexity of the world and a profound lack of respect for other peoples and nations. This was only one of the major weaknesses of a Romney foreign policy as articulated in his VMI speech. The relationship between military hardware to national security and his embrace of the exhausted and obsolete idea of an American century also make his thinking on foreign policy untenable.

First on the notion of shaping history, humility is in order. Abraham Lincoln writing to three Kentuckians about his decision to emancipate the slaves said: “I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me.” (http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/hodges.htm) History is replete with unintended consequences, both good and bad, from various actions. Even Donald Rumsfeld understood that there are unknown unknowns in every situation. So, the notion that the president of the United States can purposefully shape history to his or her will is ridiculous. This does not mean that the nation can have no influence on other actors in the world, but it is important to recognize the moral autonomy of those other actors. That Romney does not understand this shows an amazing naiveté. He also does not grasp the concept of leading from behind.

Taxes are sexy.

Yeah, I said it. I know that most times you hear about taxes – from Obama to the latest Tea Party wingnut to your local city council bureaucrat – that conversation is boring, it’s policy-wonkish, and it’s usually pretty conservative. Well, it’s time to change the debate.

Meet the Millionaire Tax Virgin. This is a man who tells it like it is — taxing rich people to pay for public schools and services is necessary; it’s about justice; and yes, it can be quite the aphrodisiac.

Dear Mr. President,

I am writing to remind you that from a just peace perspective no one can “win” a debate with political prevarications – a.k.a. lies. In my interpretation of just peace, truth, respect and security are three primary principles rooted and grounded in the Golden Rule that are necessary for peace. Just peace is not only a relatively new paradigm for thinking about war and peace, but it is also a way of conducting our lives in ways that make for both personal and political, for local and global peace.

Truth-telling is a necessary component of justice. And without the due regard that justice is, there can be no peace. Respect for the American electorate, for the realities of our lives, for our fears and dreams, means that public policy ought to be built upon a foundation of rock solid principles. Government of the people, by the people and for the people is how we ALL come together to make life better for EACH of us. The end goal is the sustenance and joy of every person. The end goal begins with a eudemonism that helps to create the conditions for human flourishing and for the flourishing of the natural world and for all of creation.

Respect for the intelligence of the American people means that the women and men who want to lead us ought to know the truth of the observation that you can fool some of the people all of the time; you can fool all of the people some of the time; but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. When people seeking public office change position from one day to the next, even holding contradictory positions within the same sentence – “I will cut taxes for everyone but the rich will not pay less.” – this demonstrates a profound lack of respect for We the People of the United States. Worse, it demonstrates a lack of moral intelligence. (I have written about this in an essay at JustPeaceTheory.com)

The good news is: The American people are paying attention, and while you have their attention it is imperative to speak the truth to the people. You were correct to say in the first debate that we have data. As you know the data show that tax cuts for the rich, for the so-called job creators do not lead to higher gross domestic product (GDP). In a report issued by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), an arm of the Library of Congress that exists to give “authoritative, confidential, objective and nonpartisan” analyses to members of Congress, we learn that tax cuts for the rich only leads to income inequality.

Today, I’m thinking a lot about Occupy.

No, I’m not simply being late to the party – I know that Occupy Wall Street celebrated its one-year anniversary some weeks ago with a glorious 135 or so arrests in New York and a smattering of media attention. But today, October 10^th, marks the one-year anniversary of Occupy Oakland– the most notorious and widely controversial “Occupy” of the nation. And, in spite of all of its many challenges and inadequacies, the one closest to my heart.

A year ago, Occupy Oakland started as a dozen or two dozen folks sleeping in a park – which is nothing much to shake a stick at, believe me, because people sleeping in parks is hardly news in downtown Oakland. as far as political activities go, I’ve attended dozens of actions with more organization, more arrests, more media, more puppets and far wittier banners. But somehow, in a matter of months, Occupy Oakland became a driving force that helped sweep this apathetic nation off its feet.

A little pinpoint of light that became a spark, and then a movement. Like a wildfire. Like falling in love.

Falling in love is about making a connection – and Occupy did that, it made the connection between the unemployed steel workers and the students drowning in debt and homeowners facing foreclosure in the face of nation-wide corporate bailouts.

Few successful conspiracies are published.

Most conspiracy theories are incredible because they presuppose that the conspirators can keep a secret. The truth is the more people involved the less likely that the conspiracy will remain secret. In the GOP inauguration night conspiracy, somebody talked. And Robert Draper reported it in his book “Do Not Ask What Good We Do.” According to Draper, on January 20, 2009 – inauguration night – Frank Luntz, a GOP communications expert, organized a dinner with GOP members of both the House of Representatives and of the Senate. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and journalist Fred Barnes also attended the dinner. Representatives Cantor, McCarthy, Ryan, Session, Hensarling, Hoekstra, and Lungren were there. Senators DeMint, Kyl, Coburn, Ensign, and Corker were present.

At that dinner, they started planning to take back the House of Representatives in 2010 and the White House in 2012. Cantor said it should be about ideas. So far, no harm, no foul. Politicians ought to make the case for their ideas and for their policy positions then let the voters decide. However, once the voters have decided, our representatives have a responsibility to work together to get something done for the good of the nation and of the world.

However, this was not the decision they made. They decided to contest EVERYTHING and not to work with the president on ANYTHING. This is where that meeting degenerated from benign to malignant. It was Paul Ryan’s contribution to say that the GOP ought to remain united against the president. Draper writes:

“‘But everybody’s got to stick together.’ said Paul Ryan, a thirty-eight-year-old Wisconsin congressman and numbers fetishist whose shiny earnestness recalled an Ozzie and Harriet America” (xvii).