Category Archives: Sovereignty

I Pledge Allegiance…

Wow! My last post was here was exactly 7 months ago. So, to prove that I have not been just sitting idly by and ignoring the problems posed by consumerism, ecological devastation, etc., here is the homily I will be preaching this Sunday in connection with a teaching series our community is going through which I also wrote on Creation and Discipleship.

Would everyone please stand? Put your right hand over your heart. Repeat after me, “I pledge allegiance…” Please sit down.

Many of us grew up pledging allegiance, to flags, to states, to nations. Some of us may have even pledged allegiance to a Christian flag. Perhaps we did this without thinking. We did what we were told or what everyone else was doing. Consciously and unconsciously we all make commitments, we all pledge allegiance, whether it’s to the ideas that drive us or belief systems that shape us, whether it’s to specific places or people, to political parties or organizations. We all pledge allegiance.

Last weekend we celebrated the Fourth of July. This is a day when we retell the myths and stories of the United States, consciously or unconsciously, myths and stories about freedom, democracy and even the divine role of this country in the world and through history. This is how the idea of a nation and those in power continue to court and maintain the allegiance of its citizens.

Telling stories is also how we remind ourselves who we are as followers of Jesus and where our allegiance and commitments lie. The Israelites and modern Jews tell the story of the Exodus during Passover to remind themselves that they are a people who have been liberated from oppression by Yahweh in order to follow this God and be God’s people in the world, to bear witness to this God who sets people free.

Later in the Old Testament the people cry out to God to be a nation like the other nations around them. It’s hard to not fit in. It’s hard to be different. We all want to belong. Belonging is part of what it means to be human. But sometimes this need to belong can get us into trouble. It can lead us to belong to the wrong groups or we can belong for the wrong reasons. So, reluctantly, God relents and allows the Israelites to form a nation, like other nations. The Israelites now belong to the group of nations around them, but they have sacrificed something in the process.

We all have competing allegiances and commitments. We must all make choices between these commitments. God asked Abram to leave his homeland and everything he knew based on God’s covenant promise. Jesus asked his followers to leave their commitments to family to form a new family. He asked them to leave others to bury their loved ones and to leave the comfort and stability of their homes and support systems to follow him. The call for us as Christians is radical.

It is also important to distinguish between what God creates and what human beings create with our own creative and destructive impulses. God did not create nations. God did not draw borders in the dirt. God did create diversity. We see the biodiversity in the creation story with plants, animals and all kinds of living creatures. In the story of the tower of Babel, when the people try to achieve god-like power and status by consolidating and centralizing power by forming one people and one language, God reiterates that diversity is the way of creation, not sameness. At Pentecost the Holy Spirit comes, not to make everyone the same, not so that everyone would hear one language, but so that each one would hear the Gospel in their own language. Paul reiterates over and over that the unity of the Body of Christ is in its diversity, not in spite of it.

What happens when we pledge allegiance to nations, parties or ideologies above God’s reign in the world? History tells us disaster ensues. One of the main features of civilizations throughout history that have collapsed is that they have destroyed the creation that supports their growing populations. As citizens of God’s kingdom we belong to a nation that includes all of creation. The president of this “nation” is the Creator, not just of this planet, but the entire cosmos.

So, what allegiances and commitments are required of us as followers of Jesus and citizens of the kingdom of God? Clearly our allegiance crosses borders and transcends nations. Our commitment is to all of creation and all of humanity in all of its diversity, but also to this particular piece of creation we call home and these particular people we call brothers and sisters. So if you would please stand again, and let us pledge allegiance once again…

I pledge allegiance…
To the Creator of all things and the creation which sustains me
To the soil beneath my feet which feeds me and all creatures that make up my home
To all those who the Creator has made including those who speak, look and think different than me
To the plants and creatures that are my roommates in this place
To the Body of Christ and my brothers and sisters who help me fulfill my calling as a child of God.

The Ancestral Values We Inherited: Protecting Indigenous Water, Land, and Culture in Mexico

Within our indigenous community of Xoxocotla, we continue to hold the ancestral values we inherited. It never crosses our mind to leave them behind. Because in daily life we are always in contact with nature, with our lands, with our water, with our air. We live in harmony with nature because we dont like the way that modernity is advancing, destroying our territory and our environment. We believe technological modernity is better named a death threat.We still watch our children chase the butterflies and the birds. We see the harmony between the crops and the land. Above all, we respect our water and we continue to perform ceremonies that give thanks for the water.

via The Ancestral Values We Inherited: Protecting Indigenous Water, Land, and Culture in Mexico.

Three Things Activists in the Office Can Learn from the Street

My new book, Anarchists in the Boardroom, tells the stories of Argentine worker-run factories, Occupy encampments, and direct actions against tax-dodging corporations to highlight some of the emerging alternatives to our inherited systems of organizing. There is something deeply human about these non-hierarchical systems that seems to bring out the best in us. They allow us to find our own ways of supporting the causes we believe in, rather than slotting us into hierarchies and departments that prescribe how we are meant to do so. Below are a few key lessons that could help our organizations to embrace the humanity of the people that make them up:

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/yes/most-recent-articles/~3/0hUtkyTND8g/three-reasons-why-participatory-democracy-helps-build-a-stronger-workplace

The Crisis of Humanitarian Intervention

Is it ever legitimate to supersede the principle of national sovereignty with a military intervention aimed at protecting citizens from their government? And if the answer is yes, what circumstances would justify this course of action and how should it be carried out?

Perhaps there is no better way to sum up the tragic odyssey of the doctrine of humanitarian intervention than by invoking the old saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

via The Crisis of Humanitarian Intervention.

Toward A Living Economy: Managed Boundaries

This is a continuation of a series exploring some ideas about what a living economy based on the rules of nature might look like. David Korten points to three rules or principles from nature that would shape such an economy: 1) Cooperative Self-Organization, 2) Self-Reliant Local Adaptation and 3) Managed Boundaries. This post will consider the third.

The third rule is “Managed Boundaries”which recognizes the exchanges at work in the interdependence of a healthy ecosystem.

Because of the way life manages energy, each living entity must maintain an active flow of energy within itself and in continuous exchange with its neighbors. Life requires permeable managed membranes at every level of organization—the cell, the organ, the multi-celled organism, and the multi-species ecosystem—to manage these flows and as a defense against parasitic predators. If the membrane of the cell or organism is breached, the continuously flowing embodied energy that sustains its living internal structures dissipates into the surrounding environment, and it dies. It also dies, however, if the membrane becomes impermeable, thus isolating the entity and cutting off its needed energy exchange with its neighbors. Managed boundaries are not only essential to life’s good health; they are essential to its very existence.

This is exactly what the current economic system cannot account for, energy flows. We can’t see what resources are flowing out of our bioregion and into others and likewise we don’t see the flows from other bioregions into our own in the form of food, products, labor, etc. The current system masks these flows with layers of trade, corporate entities, regulation, nation-states and various governing authorities. You can look at most products and find a “Made in…” label, but how much does that really tell you?

Reorganizing our human economies to function as locally self-reliant subsystems of our local ecosystems will require segmenting the borderless global economy into a planetary system of interlinked self-reliant regional economies. This does not mean shutting out the world. Vital living economies exchange their surplus goods for the surplus goods of their neighbors and freely share ideas, technology, and culture in a spirit of mutual respect for the needs and values of all players.

When I mentioned in the last post that this might sound like a scary form of tribalism to some, this point is what I had in mind. It’s as if our imaginations are held captive to two possibilities, which ultimately keeps us captive to one possibility for organizing the world, either some form of strong central control (which includes both capitalism, marxism, socialism, communism, etc.) or isolationist groups fighting with each other in a neo-tribalism or balkanization of the world. It seems to me that the problems we face are usually created in some part by our lack of ability to get outside of the status quo and paradigm that shapes our picture of the world and how it works. This exercise in imagining a living economy is an attempt to imagine an alternative beyond the two possibilities mentioned above, strong central control or tribalism.

Korten helpfully points out that the living economy he imagines is not local and regional tribes that isolate themselves from each other (Has this ever really been the case entirely?). He isn’t ranting about dismantling the global economy. Instead he seems to envision a global economy that more closely mirrors the global ecology. There are global exchanges that take place but not the kind of top-down centrally managed enterprise that currently exists with asymmetrical power relationships between nations, peoples and sectors within economies of nations and regions.

Ecological health does not depend on global institutions to regulate it. There is no IMF that lends some energy, trees, animals or pollinators to an ecosystem to maintain its health. If a species goes extinct (whether naturally or because of human intervention), there is no way to take out a loan with structural adjustments from a hypothetical institution of ecological resources that will somehow correct the health of the ecosystem. A greater degree of autonomy for local and regional economies would be necessary to mimic the health of ecosystems.

It also means that local and regional economies would have to be primarily based on their bioregions and then negotiate the management of the boundaries of that bioregion in terms of exchange with other localities. This seems to imply that the global system which makes it normal to have high-need and short season crops, like asparagus, and crops with a very small growing region, like quinoa, out of season in regions far from the point of production may no longer be feasible. Producing non-agriculture products in overseas factories may likewise also be less desirable with a shift in focus toward regional sufficiency and dependency on the local bioregion.

Each of the elements of Korten’s suggestions for a living economy shift the primary economic focus from a system abstracted from the natural resources on which it depends to one that begins with the soil that sustains us and only gradually, and in a limited way, expands from there. The question that looms over the act of imagining such a system is how in the world we could ever get there from here. I hope to explore some thoughts about that question in the final post in this series.