Pixar, Dreamworks, and the Spiritual Evolution of Humankind

My wife and I have been to a number of animated movies from Pixar and Dreamworks lately: WALL-E, Bolt, and The Tale of Despereaux. We really enjoy movies from these studios--partly because they're wholesome and fun, but mostly because they reflect some positive spiritual progress that we're beginning to see in humankind, especially among the younger generations.

The Tale of Despereaux is an especially striking example. Never in the past would such a non-conformist "child" have been praised so highly in a children's movie. Yes, there have been non-conformist children in children's cinema for a few decades, but they're typically presented in a slapstick comedy style, which blunts any sense that a young viewer might want to emulate them.

Desperaux is a mouse who defies his cultural convention of living in fear to bring salvation to a community. Even at the human level, this community had reverted to living in fear due to a tragic event, and the result had been no sunshine, no rain, and general despair in the kingdom. (I think the story's creators aere right on target, by the way, when they attributed changes in weather, the success of crops, etc., to the spiritual condition of the community.) The change agent turned out to be a mouse who was shunned by his community because he had courage.

Of course, an easy parallel can be drawn to the outgoing Bush administration. Ever since the tragic events of 9/11, the administration's only tool for achieving critical mass for its policies has been to stoke fear, and fear of terrorism has been its excuse for maintaining its fascist policies even after that critical mass evaporated. The McCain campaign made a long list of political mistakes in a year that was already bad for Republicans, but arguably its worst mistake was its "fear and smear" campaign tactics, which began early and intensified as the campaign got desperate.

A look at the election results shows that McCain won the "fear" vote by a landslide, but that the percentage of the electorate who voted out of fear declined tremendously. People began to realize that, as in Despereaux's community, living in fear has produced dreadful results--less freedom, less prosperity, a less fulfilling society--and a more dangerous world, despite claims to the contrary. People began to seek out hope over fear.

Our younger generation is leading the charge in this regard. Despereaux is an excellent rendition of what aura readers are calling "indigo children," and sociologists are using the term
"Millennial Generation" to describe the generational group that most of the indigos belong to. A large body of data--from the woo-woo community and the scientific community alike--indicates that the next few years will be very difficult and that this generation will make a significant contribution to leading us on a path to recovery. That path will be environmentally sustainable, more oriented to peace than to war, and geared toward local communities over globalization.

My wife has been reading a study on spiritual messages in cinema, and it's very revealing. I do believe that global consciousness is on the rise, and creative types are catching the wave and putting out some very good cinema. I'm glad to see that "children's movies" are included in this trend, and indeed are leading the charge in some ways. That's the generation that will most benefit from an "expanded spiritual toolbox."

And this is a whole 'nother post, but there are a number of very interesting parallels between WALL-E and City of Ember.

Happy Holidays

Happy holidays. In corporate America, that's the proper way to convey wishes for peace and joy at this time of the year. And it's appropriate in our global and pluralistic society. At work, I have a team member who has already celebrated her "holiday season" with observance of Ramadān and Eid ul-Fitr. I work daily with people who emphasize Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Pancha Ganapati, or Chinese New Year above Christmas.

For many others in Western countries, December 25 is, for cultural reasons, the default date for a secular observance of giving and family togetherness--and "Christmas" is the default name even though the individuals involved might not be practicing Christians. This is actually quite appropriate in a way, since Christmas began as a Christian alternative to a cultural festival occurring on the same date.

To me, spiritual diversity is a beautiful thing. Back in the Bible Belt, family members who tell me about a person I'm not acquainted with there will inevitably describe him/her as a "good Christian man" or "good Christian woman." For them, someone's identity as a member of a religious grouping or faction is the most important thing to know about that person.

For me, the spiritual and energetic qualities of a person have little to do with religious identity. Even though I am a Christian, I would not want my workplace to be exclusively Christian. I have known enough Christians who are incompetent, passive aggressive, needy, or judgmental that the odds are that my work life would be less pleasant if my colleagues were replaced by a subset of Christians. And I wouldn't want to work in an all-Muslim or all-Hindu or all-New Age workplace either--for the same reasons. Diversity is the best answer.

Maybe we can find a better way to express heartfelt, spiritual wishes to a fellow traveler than "happy holidays." My hope is that through a spiritual renaissance, spiritual people will honor one another without competition, without prejudice, without proselytism.

Rick Warren at the Inauguration

Progressives have raised a bit of ire about Obama's cabinet, but their real fury has been leveled at the person who will lead a 5-minute prayer at the inauguration. Chuck Currie, a spiritual progressive in Portland, was quoted nationally when he wrote a blog post about this, so I decided to respond with my point of view. Due to technical difficulties, I thought my first version of the post was lost in cyberspace, so I re-wrote it, and did a better job the second time. When I pressed "Submit" on the second post, the first one appeared on Chuck's blog. Oh, well. Below is the second version of what I wrote to Chuck:

Chuck,

First of all, I must be significantly more liberal than you if you think that Obama campaigned on a "progressive agenda." His healthcare plan is not single-payer but instead maintains large profits for insurance companies; he opposes gay marriage; he supports corporate personhood; he supports certain kinds of warfare and continued huge military spending; his tax increases on the wealthy are very small and now will likely be delayed; he supports so-called "clean coal"; he does not oppose capital punishment; etc. At best, his policy positions can be described as moderate.

Having said that, I was an enthusiastic Obama supporter because I believe that he has the rare personality and presence that will bring our nation together and move it in the direction of effective, compassionate, and yes, progressive government and society. His progressive Christian faith is a big part of who he is in this regard. I have never given money to a political cause before, but contributed significantly both to Obama AND to No on 8.

I have been very happy to watch Obama's cabinet come together--a "cabinet of adults," as one commentator put it. Bush rightly was criticized for surrounding himself with ideologues who were more interested in power and ideology than in competence and the good of the country. I do NOT want a liberal version of the same thing, as such would continue the same negative spiritual energy that has hurt our country so badly over the last eight years. Obama has signaled that he will be in charge, and his will not be a conservative administration even though there are some conservatives in the cabinet.

He's doing similar things with the religious ceremonies at the inauguration. He's reaching out to evangelicals AND spiritual progressives with his two selections. Warren has certain objectionable political views, but does not insist that others agree with them and, in fact, goes out of his way to give progressives an occasional voice in his church. I would not want him to "preach" at the inauguration, but having him deliver a prayer is a powerful way of saying to evangelicals, "I am not going to marginalize you and oppress you," as Bush did with spiritual progressives. It says nothing about the policies he will promote, but it says something about the spirit he will exude.

As an exile from an evangelical upbringing (I currently attend a liberal mainline church in Beaverton), I know that many evangelicals are weary of the Republican Party and the religious right's aging leadership. They will support a pro-choice, pro-gay politician if s/he connects with them on other values such as compassion for the
poor. If we're really to have a progressive future in this country, we need to unify the country around the core principles we agree on rather than continuing to polarize and marginalize. This is the real principle that Obama ran on.

It is vitally important that we make a clean break from the past eight years. Secular progressives tend to focus on policy positions, but spiritual progressives should recognize that the main problem during the past eight years has been the spiritual bankruptcy of the Bush administration. The ridiculous policies were just a symptom of this existential paralysis. If we are to really begin to heal and undo the damage, we are going to need to achieve critical mass at a spiritual level. Creating another members-only "club" and marginalizing everyone outside it is not the way to achieve this.

Shalom,
Mark Mullins

Re-Imagine the World

Our church recently hosted a book study on Bernard Brandon Scott's book Re-Imagine the World: An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus. Scott is one of the world's foremost parables scholars, and I had read his more scholarly work Hear Then the Parable in seminary years ago. I heard him speak at a Jesus Seminar on the Road event on the Oregon coast last April, then met him personally when he was one of the presenters at a Jesus Seminar on the Road event at my home church last October. It was interesting to see that his mannerisms were very typical for an Oklahoman, but his insights were anything but.

I was asked to lead the last two sessions after missing the first two sessions due to business travel, and I thoroughly enjoyed reading the book and dissecting the last few chapters with a group of six or so people. We discussed Scott's compelling interpretations of the Unforgiving Slave, Shrewd Manager, and Dinner Party. Then we delved into the final two chapters that attempt to tie all the parables together.

The title of the book gives some clue as to his perspective, and the next-to-last chapter carries the same title, "Re-Imagine the World." He describes the parables of the Jesus tradition as falling along three "coordinates":

1. God is unclean, exemplified by the Leaven. Leaven is said to represent the empire of God, but at the time it was considered unclean, and even worse, symbolic of evil. This radical concept says that God is not aloof and "otherly," but rather is best seen through society's most unattractive.

2. God is present in absence, exemplified by the Empty Jar parable found in the Gospel of Thomas. This notion would have been no less radical than the first one to Jesus' original hearers, and it says that the best indication of God's presence is God's absence.

3. Cooperation, not contest, exemplified by the Samaritan. In a world in which one's whole being and identity was tightly intertwined by one's class, one's social level, the Jesus tradition emphasized collaboration, cooperation, and undeserved love--rather than warfare and competition.

In thinking through these concepts, I thought of how distorted those ideas have become in much of today's Christianity. Today, many believe that the Chrisitan charter in this age is to help build an (American) empire, whereas Jesus' parables indicate that God's empire is anything but imperial. And yes, Jesus was a very political figure--something I'll write on further in a later post.

News Flash: False Statements Preceded War

I guess I understand the reasons why the corporate media has avoided using the word "lie" to describe numerous and various statements by our president, but it's hard not to use that word in analyzing the leadup to the Iraq war.

But two organizations recently released a study that stops just short of using that term, after doing exhaustive research of what was said by administration officials in comparison to the information that was available at the time.

The study, which got a surprising amount of media coverage, identified 935 false statements regarding Iraq over the two-year period following September 11, 2001.

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

...

It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

The full study can be found on the Center for Public Integrity's web site, which also contains a graphic that would be humorous if so many human lives had not been lost. Titled "False Statements by Month," it shows the number of lies growing steadily throughout 2002, peaking in February 2003 at 140, and then gradually declining after that.

I'm not sure that most Americans needed such a detailed study to realize that the administration is morally and spiritually bankrupt, but it's nice to see someone willing to call a spade a spade, backed up by irrefutable research, and get some media coverage for doing so.

Worst Healthcare in the Industrialized World

Well, it was already obvious to me that health care stinks in the U.S., and now even the corporate media is reporting this fact. A recent article (as well as a report I heard on NPR) describes the latest analysis by the Commonwealth Fund that ranks our country dead last in timely and effective healthcare delivery among 19 industrialized countries studied.

[The study] looked at death rates in subjects younger than 75 that could have been prevented by timely and effective medical care.

The researchers found that while most countries surveyed saw preventable deaths decline by an average of 16 percent, the United States saw only a four percent dip.

The result of this slower improvement is that the U.S. moved from 15th to 19th since 1997-98. Interestingly, the number one country was France, a country derided by conservatives for its socialist leanings. That nation's healthcare system, fully funded by the government and serving citizens and visitors alike, is often noted for its quality of care, efficient administration, and effective public health strategies.

Some might say that as long as we're improving here in the U.S., what's the problem? The problem is that we're improving from a pretty dismal low point. The fact that hundreds of thousands of people die unnecessarily in our health care system is inexcusable. Yet this is a little-reported aspect of our healthcare crisis. Journalists, polititians, and even educated liberal activists typically have the financial resources to avoid situations of marginal care, and family and friends with the ability to advocate for them if they do wind up in such a situation.

But there are many without those resources, and it's this demographic that fuels our high mortality statistics. Our two-tier system--good insurance for some, little or no coverage for others--creates the situation of uneven care that we see today. It also increases costs for everyone.

"It is notable that all countries have improved substantially except the US," said Ellen Nolte, lead author of the study.

Had the United States performed as well as any of the top three industrialized countries, there would have been 101,000 fewer deaths per year, the researchers said.

Our country needs universal care. The most efficient and effective delivery system for such care is a single-payer government system, which is politically untenable. The major Democratic presidential candidates have decent proposals--not as good as single payer, but better than nothing.

And one more thing--don't let the AMA get too involved in writing the rules. Alternative care must be a big part of improved health in this country. The M.D. no longer has the godlike status of a generation ago. The best care is a balanced approach--compassionate, spiritual, scientific, and holistic.

Alternative Giving

This year, almost all of our Christmas gifts for family members were made through the alternative giving program at our church. We're a liberal church, and many of us have families that are mostly conservative, theologically and politically. We're also a mostly middle class church, and most of our families don't have material needs.

As a result, our missions and outreach ministry saw an opportunity to provide an alternative to the traffic jams around the malls, the dilemma of trying to buy gifts that avoid offending the values of either the giver or the recipient, and the perceived obligation to buy someone another trinket that doesn't have lasting value. It also signaled the end of most of my own efforts to convince my family that my faith and my politics are better than theirs, mostly by giving liberal books as Christmas gifts.

Our alternative giving program enabled people to give donations in honor of friends of family members to any of a couple dozen charities that were pre-screened by the committee. Those who wanted could write a single, tax-deductible check to the church, from which the money is dispersed to the charities. I paid the charities directly to enable employer matching of the gift.

Our committee selected 20 or so charities, all of which reflect our church's values, and some of which reflect values of more conservative people. My family members did not receive donations to the charities on our list that advocate a response to global warming, equal rights for sexual minorities, universal health care, civil rights for oppressed people, and so forth, because those would have made them feel uncomfortable politically. Instead, we gave to Habitat for Humanity, Care, Medical Teams International, and Save the Children--charities that are consistent with the values of just about everyone. Yet across our church, almost all of the charities on our list received a donation.

The program was a tremendous success in our church, and the committee found in its research that a number of families in the church have practiced alternative giving for many years. One family described the family Thanksgiving celebration, which includes a time when everyone goes through the Heifer Project catalog and requests alternative gifts--a cow or a dozen chicks for a poor farming family, a well for a village without clean drinking water, etc.

Alternative giving has become something of a fad within progressive circles, with many web sites offering resources and ideas, and even radio commercials on our progressive talk station. It's even becoming more common in evangelical churches, something that offers me additional hope that Rick Warren's generation of evangelical leaders will have more balanced priorities than the generation of Jerry Falwall, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson.