Pages -- horizontal menu

Biblical Bias

by Berry Friesen (October 31, 2016)





  --honest business practices;










So where does this leave us?




Voting Constructively

by Berry Friesen (October 24, 2016)

Most Americans (57 percent) think we need a major third political party because the Republican and Democrat parties are not doing an adequate job of representing us, according to Gallup polling conducted in September.

So why don’t we have a major third party?  The main reason is we voters haven’t supported credible third parties on the ballot—the Greens and the Libertarians.

On the presidential ballot for the Greens in 45 states is Jill Stein, a physician.  On the ballot for the Libertarians in all 50 states is former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson.

(Also on the ballot for President in 11 states is Evan McMullin, a former CIA and Goldman Sachs operative.  Though not impressed with these credentials, I mention McMullin because he currently leads the polling in Utah.  McMullin is running as an independent, not associated with any political party.)

Generally speaking, the Greens and the Libertarians are not beholden to the special interests that drive policy in the US: Wall Street, the energy companies, the big military contractors. This makes a huge difference in the positions their candidates take.

For example, Stein and Johnson each oppose the interventionism that has come to dominate US foreign policy.  Each supports major cuts to military spending; opposes the current economic model, which brings prosperity to the well-connected and leaves the rest of us behind; and views climate change as a pressing public issue.

Rigged Election?

The election system is set up to protect incumbents and ensure the domination of the Republican and Democrat parties.  Generally, we don’t regard this built-in bias to be cheating.

Media bias can distort how a candidate is perceived by the voters.  After noting almost unanimous media support for Clinton, Mike Whitney asks: “When was the last time the media threw 100 percent of its support behind one party’s presidential candidate?”  But generally, we don't regard media bias as cheating either.

Of course, Trump also has benefited from the media, which inexplicably made him into a credible candidate by the inordinate amount of coverage it gave him, especially during 2015.


So when Trump now claims the upcoming election is “rigged” against him, he seems to be speaking of something more targeted and nefarious.

Swanson provides an example of this as well:


Last but not least, there is the cheating that excludes people of a certain persuasion from registering to vote,that blocks their voting by failing to provide enough accessible polling places, or that cancels out their votes by changing the totals.   Allegedly, Republican state officials used these practices in 2004 to win Ohio for George W. Bush and in 2000 to win Florida for Bush (see here and here and here).  In 1960, Democrat state officials are widely reported to have done the same to win Illinois for Kennedy.

Our Response

I take seriously the worries about a rigged election.  Each major party has the motive and the operational capacity to cheat in specific locations.  And yes, each is morally capable of doing it.

Yet this doesn’t prompt me to despair.  Voting continues to be a modest way to impact our world constructively. So I ask: how can I do that?

In most states, to qualify as a recognized political party and thus be assured of a spot on the election ballot, one of a party’s candidates must receive a designated percentage (typically 5 percent) of the vote cast in the preceding election.

This is an important step for a political party to take, enabling it to spend time and money next time around on talking to voters about the issues, not the mechanics of getting on the ballot.

That’s why I don’t see voting Green or Libertarian as “a protest vote.”  Instead, it’s a way to prepare for a better political future by strengthening parties that have fresh ideas and will resist the oligarchic control of Wall Street, fossil-fuel energy and the big military contractors.

This time around, let’s end “lesser evil” voting and the ever-worsening quality of Republican and Democrat candidates.  Let’s use our ballots to accomplish something positive:  vote Green or Libertarian.

Clinton the Imperialist

by Berry Friesen (October 17, 2016)












-- Comparing Russian President Vladimir Putin to Hitler;







Electing an Anti-Christ

by Berry Friesen (October 10, 2016)

Writing in the October issue of The Mennonite, religion professor J. Denny Weaver suggests the essence of the biblical image of the anti-Christ (see Revelation 13) is to sanctify imperial war-making by linking it with Judeo-Christian symbols and rhetoric.

“Wars have been fought in the name of Jesus ever since the fourth century, when Emperor Constantine declared himself a Christian and put Christian symbols on the shields of his army,” writes Weaver.  “In that sense, there have been so-called anti-Christs ever since.”

An American anti-Christ?  In our time?  Yes, says Weaver; all the current candidates for the US presidency “are running for ‘not-Christ’.”      

Most American Mennonites—indeed, most American Christians—are sure to object to such a characterization.  We take pride in “our democracy” and treasure our right to choose our leaders via elections.  It’s provocative—even inflammatory— to say we are using these cherished practices to pick an anti-Christ.  What possible connection is there between the violent, deceptive and enslaving beasts of Revelation 13 and the US President?

Weaver’s relatively short article doesn’t explain this connection in detail.  He merely references two features of the United States that support his thesis:  its claim to a Christian identity “under God” and its practice of “waging war” by “sending American young people to foreign countries to kill and be killed.”  Thus, Weaver says, the book of Revelation—with its parody of a dragon and two beasts—remains a warning to us “to remember the true character of the emperor and empire.”

There are American Christians who refuse to invest themselves emotionally in presidential elections.  The Amish and so-called plain Mennonites are examples.

But the great majority of us American Christians are not easily persuaded to detach emotionally from the American state. And most of us still think the current empire is so much better than the ones spoken of in the Bible as to render its warnings inapplicable.

If you are included in that great majority, then I encourage to test your perspective via “The United States as Destroyer of Nations,” an essay by University of Pittsburgh School of Law professor Daniel Kovalik.  

Coming out of the great US victory in WW2, the core issue for foreign policy was how to maintain control of 50% of the world’s wealth with only 6% of the population.  What success has the US achieved in that regard?  Kovalik explains:


How has this been accomplished?  Again, professor Kovalik:


Kovalik’s list of nations weakened, divided or destroyed by the US-led empire in the post-WW2 era is long: Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Yugoslavia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Ukraine.   Many millions have been killed along the way.  And Kovalik’s list of targeted nations doesn’t even get them all.

Our objection is easy to anticipate:  yes, all of those nations were weakened, divided or destroyed by the US, but that wasn’t the purpose of the US intervention.

Here is Kovalik’s response:


Kovalik sums up this way:

“Jose Marti once said, ‘There are two kinds of people in the world: those who love and create, and those who hate and destroy.’ There is no doubt that the U.S. has proven itself to be of the latter kind; indeed, the very nature of U.S. foreign policy is destruction.”

We may find it outrageous to characterize the US-led empire as one of the beasts of Revelation 13.  But then how do we explain Syria, where to protect al-Qaeda’s control of east Aleppo, the US is prolonging the war and threatening Russia?  How do we explain Libya, where the US armed Salafist fighters and destroyed the government, leaving chaos behind and ISIS entrenched?  How do we explain Ukraine, where the US joined neo-Nazis in bringing down an elected government and making war on Russian-speaking citizens?

There are no honest explanations for these crimes.

Nor should we spend any more time or energy debating the relative merits of Trump or Clinton.  One of them will be the new anti-Christ; let's not legitimize either with our votes.


Going Tribal (2)

by Berry Friesen (October 4, 2016)

I want to write more about “Going Tribal” in coming weeks because embracing a tribal identity may be one of the keys to surviving humanely within the empire.

But I also feel misgivings.  “Tribalism” is almost a synonym for conflict-ridden, us-versus-them thinking.  We obviously don’t want or need more of that.  How can one reap the humane benefits of a tribal identity without also becoming more insular and defensive?

My exploration of this tension is taking me to some interesting people and conversations.  I mentioned Greg Boyd and Tribalnet in a previous post.  Since then my circle of reading has widened to include Rod Dreher and the Benedict Option; the network of Christian communities connected to Ched Myers and a vision of radical discipleship; and Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove and the New Monasticism.

These are distinct networks with important differences.  Boyd stands within the evangelical tradition, Dreher within the Eastern Orthodox tradition, Myers within Anabaptism and Wilson-Hartgrove within the multi-faceted Protestant stream.

But each, it seems to me, would join Dreher’s way of describing the people who find these movements attractive:  “Christians in the contemporary West who cease to identify the continuation of civility and moral community with the maintenance of American empire, and who therefore are keen to construct local forms of community as loci of Christian resistance against what the empire represents.”

To repeat, what these tribally-oriented networks have in common is a negative (“cease to identify . . .  with the maintenance of the American empire”) and a positive (“keen to construct local forms of . . . Christian resistance”).

My co-author, John K. Stoner, is currently leading an adult education class in his congregation entitled "Communities of Resistance and Hope."  It’s a conversation about what’s involved in distancing oneself emotionally and spiritually from the empire and committing instead to what Jesus called “the kingdom of God.”

This past Sunday, I helped lead the class as it talked about the presidential campaign and election. People do have their favorites and it wasn’t an easy conversation, especially not in a class setting where uncomfortable questions hung in the air.  Does the importance we attach to the election reflect the strength of our identification with the empire?  If we yearn for political engagement that is more holistic and authentic than lesser-evil voting, what would be our structure for that—my congregation?

Earlier this year, Richard Beck, a psychology professor who blogs at Experimental Theology, posted about the Benedict Option, its strengths and its dangers.  He highlighted the characteristics of progressive Christians that suggest a particular need for the Benedict Option (or something like it).

Statism:  The belief that the state is the sole and final arbiter of social and moral affairs and thus reducing Christian social action to taking control of the state.

Individualism:  A fierce commitment to radical autonomy and independence making it impossible for us to form communities that participate in God's ongoing story of covenantal promise and fidelity.

Functional atheism: Pervasive doubt and agnosticism, along with an inability to articulate anything particularly or distinctively Christian in prophetic contrast to the prevailing liberal and humanistic consensus.

Scarcity, Exhaustion and the Never Enough Problem: The competitive meritocracy of capitalism fills our lives with neurotic status anxiety--what Brené Brown calls ‘the shame-based fear of being ordinary’--which drives us to emotional and physical exhaustion as we work and perform for self-esteem, success and significance.”

But it’s not only progressive Christians who need the help.  Beck acknowledges as much:  “Late modern capitalism is killing us. That's why Christians, conservative and progressive, need the Ben Op.”

I recommend all six of Beck’s essays about the Benedict Option, as well as Dreher’s response to Beck.  Also the online conversations between Dreher and Wilson-Hartgrove, which can be found here and here.  Add the writings of Boyd and Myers and we have much to help us as we ponder the implications of going tribal.