is telling us that we cannot serve mankind and neoliberalism. Finally,
most climate scientists are warning us that we cannot survive and serve
wanton prosperity. Each has a message of their own but their messages
have a common theme. That theme is the love of money will lead to our
demise. For either God will judge us, societies will implode and wars
will rule, or we will make the earth as unlivable as the other planets
in our solar system already are if we continue to bow down to the bottom
line.
The above are the prophets of our time. We could call them
prophets against profits. And when they start to speak, their message
might initially appeal to us; but that appeal is short lived. It isn't
long until what they are saying begins to rub us the wrong way. It isn't
long until we, the haves, realize that these prophets are asking us to
change. They are asking us to stop putting money, and the lifestyles
that wealth brings, first. They require that balance to the force of our
personal desires we must bring. And once we hear the call to repent, we
return, sometimes reluctantly, to the same old same old, while daring
God in heaven or the gods of science to strike us with lightening.
We
then respond by either co-opting their gospels or shooting the
messenger. Many prefer to do the former because it is self-flattering
to do so. By accommodating their gospels to our lifestyle, we give
ourselves self-assurance that it isn't our selfishness that is causing
problems. So some worship Jesus on Sundays and ignore him on Mondays.
Some Democrats will protest with OWS or read reports on the climate but
still support the kinds of policies that Clinton did or Obama does now.
However,
others prefer to shoot the messengers. In most cases, they do so with
words. But regardless, the goal is to silence these pesky prophets and
our own consciences. We reason that if we can find significant fault
with them, we are not responsible to do what they say and thus there is
no need to change. And in the end, whether we discredit the source or
hijack their message, the goal is to relieve oneself from our
responsibilities.
until they display an all too human fault. Tea Partiers, for example,
become aghast that OWS protesters commit misdemeanors when taking their
protests to the street or occupying a public park without a permit.
Other Conservatives say they will listen when these occupiers get a job,
a haircut and take on some real responsibility. Others will throw out
the message with the minimal violence that has occurred in a few
occupations. Certainly the violence must be rejected, but the validity
of the message is not negated by the faults of the messengers.
Meanwhile,
climate scientists have already been dismissed by a majority of the
population. This occurred during the email scandal that was reported in
the news. What was unfortunate here, however, is that people didn't
follow up on the issue after the scandal broke out. If they had, they
would have found that the basic message of the climate scientists was
still valid.
The final, and perhaps most deadly, way of shooting
the messenger is done by asking a simple, albeit, rhetorical question:
"will they succeed?" For if OWS does not succeed, then why listen? Of
course, success here is measured by the number of people who join the
movement. This question, however, is also disingenuous. That is because,
with this criteria for success, if we don't listen, they cannot
succeed. Asmaa Mahfouz, an Egyptian protester, complained about such
logic by saying, "if you say there is no hope, then there will be no
hope."
Perhaps the key to understanding how we are blaming our
prophets is to examine our working definition of success. Again, success
is measured by numbers. At least, that is how a pragmatist would define
success here. And, according to that definition, then Jesus and Climate
Scientists have already failed while it is just a matter of time until
OWS fails. Jesus has certainly failed because, despite the fact that
many claim to be his followers, few actually try to follow. The vast
majority who say they believe are Jesus' conditional followers. They
follow on the condition that what Jesus said does not interfere with
their pursuit of prosperity.
But how do others, besides
pragmatists, define the success of our prophets? How would a moralist,
one who struggles with moral standards, define their success? Wouldn't a
moralist measure success by the truth in the message? Wouldn't a
moralist interpret the rejection of a good message as a failure on the
part of the audience? And thus the real guilty culprits are those who
are called but choose not to follow.
When Jesus uses the parable
of the sheep and the goats, in Matthew 25, to teach about the necessity
of help all of the least of these, who is judged as a failure, was it
the goats or Jesus? Who will be judged as a failure if OWS fails because
of lack of support and Wall Street continues it economic abuse of the
nation? Will it be just OWS or the 99%? And who will be judged as a
failure if we refuse to heed the advice of the climate scientists? Will
it be the scientists or our children and grandchildren?
If we
look at the Bible for guidance, we will find that it wasn't Lot who
failed when Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. And when the flood came,
it wasn't Noah who failed. So why would a moralist blame Jesus, OWS, or
climate scientists if people don't accept the message? And if we find
ourselves blaming them, what does it say about us?
