What a fine article, which is surely worth reading in its entirety. Yes, indeed, there is important theology to be considered in the situation between OWS and TWS: The church (or church property) as sanctuary.

The question is not whether TWS had the right to refuse the use of their property. Of course, they had the right, but was the refusal by TWS the right thing to do in this situation?

June Butler

"an extremely insightful essay about the imposed [ ? ] between Trinity Wall Street and Occupy Wall Street"

I think there's a word missing here?

JC Fisher

Thanks, JC! We fixed it! Ed.

To appropriate the secular: Holy Middle Paragraph, Batman!

I still don't feel personal clarity that one "side" or the other has an exclusive claim to truth or rightness in this fight (and I'll admit to a certain amount of cognitive dissonance that this is the battle OWS is choosing -- surely someone in a boardroom is enjoying being out of the spotlight?), but I am very grateful to hear one of the sides framed as clearly as is done above.

I feel a theological urgency to come round to your house and raid your fridge - be sure you're well stocked with milk, cheese, cured meats and anything else I feel like taking...

Dave Paisley--I'm really tired of listening to people make OWS out to be something it isn't. No one is talking about coming into your house and stealing what's in your fridge. OWS is trying to raise the issues of injustice and inequity in our economic system--something which every Christian ought to be on board with, since Jesus was pretty clear about the need to care for "the least of these."

Have you spent some time with the occupiers? If not, I suggest you owe it to them to do so before you malign them in the way you continue to do here.

Have you talked with Bishop Packard and asked him why he climbed the fence and got arrested to stand in solidarity of OWS? If not, I suggest you owe it to him--and to yourself--to do so before you claim that he is some kind of thief.

If you are one of the 1%, maybe I can understand your disdain. But to claim the mantle of "Christian," as you appear to do, and to bear false witness against people who have clearly stated what they are about (i.e., justice and equity) seems to me to be a denial of what Jesus called us to do--love God, love our neighbors, and give up everything we have to the poor and follow him.

I am still struggling with giving up everything I have to the poor--but I never kid myself that Jesus meant something else. As long as our allegiance is to ANYTHING other than God, we cannot truly follow Jesus. And when we put property rights above justice and equity, our primary allegiance is not to God. To tell ourselves otherwise is the worst kind of self-deception.

Paige Baker - I'm tired of OWS making itself out to be something it isn't.

It's a bunch of the self-serving entitled generation (and a few aging hippie wannabes) who are trying to subvert the democratic process in civilized western countries - with little real success I might add. Their demands are a mixture of the mundane (undoing some of the worst financial deregulation, which many of us are behind - duh) and some grandiose demands that would take decades to enact, and should be handled through the democratic process, not the whims of a bunch of unwashed malcontent anarchists.

Their smash and grab tactics of occupying city center locations and turning them into stinking hell holes and vilifying anyone who dares question them does not sit well with the 98.9999%.

Really, let's see them run for elected office - I don't see any of them getting elected dogcatcher, but let's at least see them try. But running for office - city council, school board, whatever, is too much like hard work for them. Far better to just squat on somebody else's property and whine.

From one of the comments (#8) on Beaudoin's article:

"Many in the US are increasingly wary of the Occupy movement precisely for this reason - they 'demand' their 'rights' but refuse to respect the rights of others."

Exactly... I couldn't have said it better myself. Other comments are also just as insightful on the arrogance of OWS

Your implicit criticism of my claiming to be a Christian is indicative of the tactics of the Christian right - you can only be a Christian if you agree with *my* definition of the term. It's interesting to see it used from the left.

It was always pretty obvious that the cafe is an enclave of the far left wing of the Episcopal Church, but the reporting and comments here have shocked even me at just how much that is the case.

I was horrified by the excesses of the formerly Episcopal right, and I am just as horrified at what I see here on the left, to the extent that I am on the point of giving up on "organized" (and I use the term loosely with TEC) Christianity entirely.

The Episcopal Church likes to talk about the baptismal covenant and respecting the dignity of all human beings, but usually that reduces to "respecting the dignity of people who agree with me or those whom I can pity, screw the rest of you".

Respecting the dignity of, say, Trinity Wall Street (composed of people) and its decision not to allow the use of Duarte is apparently not part of the equation.

But hey, enjoy the demise of the Episcopal Church as all but the Marxists leave.

Paige wisely said:

Have you spent some time with the occupiers? If not, I suggest you owe it to them to do so before you malign them in the way you continue to do here. ... Have you talked with Bishop Packard and asked him why he climbed the fence and got arrested to stand in solidarity of OWS? If not, I suggest you owe it to him--and to yourself--to do so before you claim that he is some kind of thief.

The article says there is a difference the legal and the moral. So something may be legal but one may judge it morally wrong. The common good may justify individuals giving up individual rights. But I am wary of quickly giving up a discourse of rights and privacy, which were the values used to justify abortion and LGBT rights.

Or is it more a question of noblesse oblige, that those with much owe more to the larger community? I have read on Trinity's website that their first church was built with slave labor and possibly the second, though records for the second are missing. Are these facts which should be weighed in?

Gary Paul Gilbert

Dave--I understand that Christians disagree about OWS. My point is that doing so by painting a false picture of who the occupiers are--and failing to address the very real theological issues of justice and equity they have raised--is not honest and is not what Christians should be doing. Disagree all you like--but do so honestly. Have you engaged with the occupiers yourself? If not, where are you getting your information?

If you have an interest in the truth, ask Joe Brewer, who has been serving as a chaplain to OWS, who the occupiers are. Ask Bishop Packard or Fr. Merz or Fr. Sniffen who is represented in OWS. Because your references to unwashed hippies and anarchists smacks more of Fox News than what I'm hearing from people who are on the ground.

It's ironic that I, too, am on the verge of giving up on organized religion--but for very different reasons. I see an institution that has little, if any, interest in pushing for real justice in the here-and-now. You throw the "Marxist" accusation very easily--and I am reminded of Dom Helder Camara's comment (paraphrased) that, when he fed the poor, people called him a saint--but when he asked WHY they were poor, people called him a communist. I am grateful that OWS has finally gotten this country to start asking why a small group of people has gotten obscenely rich by making tens of thousands of people homeless, jobless, and hopeless. It is a question that the church should have been asking all along. We should be ashamed that it took a secular group to arouse the nation's conscience.

If asking that question makes me a Marxist so be it--but the Bible raises it as well, so I feel pretty comfortable in claiming that the question is a holy one that all Christians must seriously consider and with which they must wrestle.

Paige, you win my own personal "Patience of a Saint" award. Thank you.

JC Fisher

At the request of his bishop, Father Michael Sniffen gives a moving account of being arrested in Duarte Square: Diary of an Arrested Priest.

I hardly think Fr. Sniffen counts as an "unwashed hippie." And it stretches the bounds of credulity to argue that Bishop Packard, who is a former chaplain for the armed services and a decorated Vietnam veteran, is an anarchist....

Your implicit criticism of my claiming to be a Christian is indicative of the tactics of the Christian right - you can only be a Christian if you agree with *my* definition of the term.

While I'm not particularly in favor of Dave Paisley's approach - it's very possible to disagree with OWS without all the hyperbole - I have to agree with him here. The playing of the "you're not really a Christian unless...." card is very annoying if not really offensive.

In the first place: all people - including all Christians and everybody here - are sinners. In the second: there is legitimate disagreement about the best way to go about helping people who need help. Dave Paisley obviously agrees that people do need help; he simply thinks that OWS is not getting anything accomplished at this point - and he doesn't like their tactics. There's really nothing wrong with having this opinion. I think OWS is in the wrong in this matter, too.

Here's my question: what, exactly, is the purpose of demanding that Trinity hand over their property (a park at least a mile from Wall Street, BTW)? Can't Occupy Wall Street come up with some sort of concrete plan for action, other than continuing to protest and "Occupy"? What's the point of this?

Expressing anger at the way things are is only the initial phase of any movement. OWS needs to move beyond this if they're going to take their ideas any further, and perhaps Trinity Wall Street is helping them do exactly that.

Interesting idea that Tom Beaudoin raises in his article. As we know, in TEC the parish holds property in trust for the diocese, which in turn holds it in trust for TEC. To take the idea in Tom's article a step further, who does TEC hold the property in trust for? And if property "owned" by a parish is held in trust for the larger church, what are the implications of a huge concentration or property being held by a single parish?

BSnyder, I think I do understand why Occupy focused on that lot. They feel it is important to the movement to maintain a physical presence in lower Manhattan. This lot was one of few available. It is owned by what they hoped would be a sympathetic landlord. When that didn't turn out to be the case, they didn't actually attempt to occupy the lot. Instead they dramatized the fact that they had been refused the right to occupy it. One can quarrel with the wisdom of any or all of this, but I don't think it can be said that Occupy was without its reasons. Also, if one believed that liberal churches are just as captive to big money interests as any other institution--that some are, in effect the almoners of the one percent--this probably seemed a pretty good way to drive that point home.

I am happy to share my experiences if you want to reach out to me. As Paige mentions, I have been working as a Protest Chaplain. I have nothing formally written.

In addition to Michael Sniffen's letter, you might also check out (Rev) John Merz's note to his bishop, linked elsewhere on the Cafe, as well as John's blog at: http://apriestspreoccupation.wordpress.com/

All of these sources should be able to answer for you from the OWS and their support's perspective why the "ask" was made specifically of Trinity and specifically for that lot. They also dispel some of Trinity's carefully-crafted PR.

I prefer not to entertain the anger dripping from the rest of your comment, but I'm happy to have a constructive conversation or facilitate one with others for you. And I am not a Marxist. I do not consider myself a Marxist, a capitalist, etc. The only label I prefer is Christian.

Well, thanks, Jim. I don't think it's a particularly good idea to alienate people that way. Trinity may be in the wrong also - but what good has the "drama" actually done? That's the question to be asked, here, IMO. What has actually been accomplished?

I mean, Dave Paisley has a point in his comment above; quite a few people (check the comments on Ta-Nehisi Coates' post, for more) are turned off by these OWS tactics - or find them incomprehensible.

Really, the question is: what is the good coming from this? I don't see any benefit at all to what's happened, for OWS or for the people they want to help, that's all. OWS needs to move on and actually get something done now. Protest is good; fixing what you're protesting against is better.

I don't get the point of the drama, that's all.

BSnyder, you may be right, but I am not ready to make that call yet. The business as usual methods of social and political reform aren't working very well. According to the Census Bureau, half the country can now be classified as poor or low income. Wall Street engaged in serious financial wrongdoing for which no one was punished. It may be that there is a role for righteous anger to play in mobilizing public sentiment. I don't know. I don't grasp Occupy's theory of change. But I am not so sure that the theory of change that I employ works all that well given some of the numbers I just quoted.

If the highest and best use of OWS time and energy is to pit Episcopalians against one another, then I suppose they succeeded. If it was to divert attention from the main arena where they are marginally effective to an arena where they can generate much heat but little illumination, then I suppose they succeeded. We've spent a week discussing TWS instead of the broader issues, and in trying to get people to understand why a gravel lot was important. In that they have failed in creating consensus.

Now we get a complex polity argument to justify all this. The OWS folks have said that they need a place for a camp in order to be visible and effective. If that is true then they have just exposed their Achilles heel to their opponents. If that movement depends on a place then TWS or not they are dead.

But I don't believe they need a place to spread their message more effectively. They do need to avoid these pointless contests.

Mike, I hope you don't mind if I have found these conversations enlightening, and well worth my time. I would have benefitted more, I think, had folks engaged with Tom Beaudoin's article, but so far, that hasn't taken place.

It's true that the article itself hasn't come up for much conversation here! Sorry about that. Tom Beaudoin does make an interesting point about "private property" owned by a church.

I suppose the nut of his argument is in this sentence: "We in Occupy -- as a multifaith, interreligious, spiritually pluralistic movement that is also and equally a nonreligious, secular movement -- can better meet your mission as a Christian church in this particular time, and this particular place, with negligible negative financial impact (Trinity is a very wealthy community), and with a rare and time-sensitive influence, by using this particular private property to host the next stage of Occupy Wall Street, and let’s meet to talk about the liability issues and any other concerns you have, let’s have that dialogue starting immediately, but in principle we have a substantial theological point worthy of your consideration."

I mean, that's a debatable point, isn't it? Suppose Trinity - suppose many people - don't actually agree with this statement? Does this nullify the point itself? I think it might.

And I do wonder what he means by this: " Of course, even though it rarely comes up in official rationales for the denial of access to 6th and Canal, no one involved thinks that the real estate values of Trinity’s holdings are not also a significant consideration for Trinity in their decision to not let Occupy use the 6th and Canal space."

He doesn't explain. What is the point of this sentence, I wonder - and how would "the real estate values of Trinity’s holdings" be affected in any way by a winter "Occupation" of an empty lot?

What might happen is that other non-profit charitable organizations will see that there is a need and step up to provide space. Perhaps other churches will look and see what is available. Maybe a secular nonprofit will help. OWS needs, yes, Michael a large, preferably outdoor space--not a cramped room in Charlotte's Place. This is considered the base of the movement, and they need to get more organized and start acting on direct issues (which should please everyone who says they do nothing--see above for the comment, "OWS needs to move on and actually get something done now."). Is TEC "dead" because it needs a large central space like 815 Second Avenue? Or should they move on and get something done scattered about the country?

A quick look at the history of protests will show you drama is an integral component to draw people in.

OWS didn't attempt to pit Episcopalians against one another. God knows that TEC is all too capable of doing so itself (the reason I left to become a Lutheran--I can't stand all the ridiculous back-and-forth, oh-so-civil arguing all in the name of the "broad tent." I found it to be just a camp of many tents where people throw rocks at each other--but I respect much of TEC and that's my experience). But if you're going to have a truly broad tent, you're going to have these disagreements. There will be priests like Dr. Cooper, beholden to a board of millionaires and billionaires and collecting three quarters of a million in salary each year--or maybe operating on his conscience of the right of private property holders. There will also be priests like Michael Sniffen, Bishop Packard, and John Merz, who choose to disagree and act on their conscience by being arrested. There will be many priests who do not take a position either way. Celebrate the broad tent, if that's what you want and think you are.

Sorry to come off snarky, but this is really trying to the patience--seeing armchair blog commenters with no direct experience with the protesters making snap judgments.

How about back to church as private property, the purpose of this post before it was trolled? OWS is moving on from the ask of Trinity. For your peace of mind, I recommend the same.

BSnyder, I think that point that you say is debatable is debatable. I agree with what he is saying in that I think the Occupy movement has challenged everyone into a little self-examination about the ways in which we support and benefit from the inequitable economic systems in our country.

"Sorry to come off snarky, but this is really trying to the patience--seeing armchair blog commenters with no direct experience with the protesters making snap judgments...."

First of all: how in the world would know that people here "have no direct experience with the protesters"?

Second of all: expressing opinions is kind of what blogs are for.

Third of all: it's a good bet that over 99% of the country has "no direct experience with the protesters." And people really are allowed to express their opinions, even so.

Do you want to have people actually support this movement - or would you rather drive anybody anyway who has any criticism at all?

Jim, in my experience the conversation about income inequality started years ago; I'm not sure why OWS is viewed as being its originator. It's really not.

I have been supportive of the OWS protests, BTW. I thought the protests were important. I don't think people are listening anymore now, though; I think it's just white noise at this point, so I think they should move on.

But apparently - as evidenced on this thread - even the slightest criticism of OWS is enough to get blasted as insufficiently Christian and/or insufficiently informed or involved (or insufficiently deferential).

Add that to OWS' "You have stuff and we need it" statements, I've become rather unsupportive - moreso since reading some of the comments here, BTW - and will support somebody else instead.

People really don't owe this group anything, and am not sure why it's thought we ought to.

"B" (no first name?)--

1. No one has spoken of direct involvement, so I doubt it exists. If I am wrong, let me know.

2. I know very well when people have dug their heels in, and I don't have the desire or energy to "convert" people one at a time. One of the jail support people told me a great story about collecting for Greenpeace. She was in the country, and a man held a shotgun to her and chased her off his property. She became discouraged and wanted to convince him why he should give. But instead of giving up, she went to the next house, and a woman said, "I have been waiting for you" and wrote a large check. If she had spent too much time with the shotgun guy, she might have missed the opportunity to gain the support of the person who was dedicated. It reminded me of this. Some people will not agree, and a decision has to be made what kind of energy is expended trying to find common ground and hope that the larger movement will take root and that the person will eventually see.

I realize what blogs are for. Some comments are, in my judgment and for my own purpose, better-informed and of a more constructive tone than others. Those comments do not have to agree with my viewpoint, by the way.

I respect your formation of your opinion, even if mine differs with it.

One only needs to look at the difference in polling to see that, while OWS did not start (and does not claim to have started) the income inequality debate, it has helped bring a marked increase in attention to it.

BSnyder, I think we differ about our sense of whether the existence of Occupy changes the nature of the conversation. I think that for a while it has. And in a good way. The conversation in its previous state was taking us nowhere. If we return to the conversation pre Occupy nothing, in my opinion, will change. I would like something to change. I am willing to let people who have a different idea of how to make change happen than the ideas I had previously subscribed to a chance to show what they can do. I couldn't figure out what Occupy was up to at first. I am still not sure I know. But I think content analysis of various sorts of media would demonstrate that they have raised awareness about income inequality and financial wrongdoing on Wall Street to higher levels. I am for that. Although I agree that without follow through it reaches a point of diminishing (and probably receding) returns.

@joebrewer. Well I don't know you, nor you me, but I am hardly armchair. From 1976-1978 I organized Brown Lung victims in Greenville South Carolina to pressure the state legislature for worker's compensation. We won tens of millions of dollars in compensation there and in similar battles in North Carolina, Georgia, Virginia and other southern textile states. From 1978 to 1982 I worked directly with unions in the south, supporting textile workers, chicken pluckers and woodcutters in Mississippi. During that same time I founded the Worker's Rights Project that helped non-unionized workers utilize the concerted action provisions of the NLRA. We also did pre-organizing education for unions. That organization is still alive 30 yrs later. I was a member of the International Typographers Union and the IWW. I also lobbied in the US Senate to change Right to Work laws. You can find articles by me in Sojourner's on Political Grief and in Southern Exposure on the power structure of Greenville South Carolina. From 1982-1984 I worked at a children's camp for inner city Chicago kids and designed first job experiences. After ordination in 1986 I worked in my first parish to redeploy its investment funds in a local bank with the injunction that it make loans to home owners and small business in two of the poorest zipcodes in the US so they could fight encroaching gentrification. My parish in MD partnered in bulding the first low-moderate income housing for Seniors in Howard County. My work in San Diego has centered more on development in Kenya, because that was where we had parish missioners. We are now in the process of registering an natural agent that destroys the weed Striga which infests corn, millet, sorghum and sugar cane in 16 African countries, increasing yields of those vital crops 250% - 300% over infested fields. The project will be owned by the local development coop of women farmers in Kenya.
I've done Civil Disobedience and spent time as a guest of various counties. I have also spent countless hours in Movement for a New Society process as part of anti-nuclear power transportation organizing in SC in the early 80's. The OWS process sound remarkably similar.

I invite other of us armchair folks who are offering critique to share their vitae here. I stand by my comments.

@Jim Naughton. I have to say that the summary you published seemed to say it all in terms of the fellow's argument. It strikes me as an ex post facto justification, but I think the question of who can command the use of a parish's space is interesting intellectually to ponder.

I really don't think OWS has had that much of an effect, Jim, actually. Here's some data from the Huffington Post:

"Polls reveal a general dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs. Recent polls found that 86 percent of Americans think Wall Street exerts too much influence in Washington; 66 percent believe wealth is too unevenly distributed; 71 percent believe at least some financial executives should be prosecuted for their role in the financial crisis. Yet, a November 16th poll from Public Policy Polling found that only 33 percent support Occupy Wall St, with opposition at 45 percent, up 9 points from a month ago. A Gallup Poll conducted on November 20th found that 53 percent of those polled neither support nor oppose Occupy Wall St."

OWS is really not speaking to many people, in fact, according to these polls. I don't think anybody ever needed OWS to believe that "Wall Street exerts too much influence in Washington" or that some people have way more money than others do.

OWS was simply giving voice to some of these feelings, not "converting" anybody. And they just don't have very much support; it's important to ask why, I think.

Very respectable and something of which to be proud, Michael...but...I should have clarified: I mean armchair to this particular movement. If anyone wants to spend time at an occupy site, let me know, and I will be very happy to put you in touch with someone on the ground in a city as near to yours as possible.

B,

Really?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/15/1045683/-New-poll-shows-Occupy-Wall-Street-support-growing,-public-discontent-with-Congress-at-record-levels?via=tag

Apparently you missed the headline and the point there, Joe: "Occupy Wall Street's Concerns Are Supported, But Tactics Are Rejected."

IOW, people already agree with OWS about issues, but don't support OWS itself. That was my point exactly, in fact.

BSnyder, it isn't so much what people believe, it is whether they have the power to put those beliefs into effect. A great many movement for social change have benefitted from having an angry, energized element involved in non-violent civil disobedience. I don't see why such an element can't be helpful here. Time just named the Protestor the person of the year, so I don't think it can be argued that Occupy has gotten people's attention.

Just one more thing about this. I think the "accept their position, don't support their tactics" thing is how many people would have responded in polling about the civil rights movement and the anti-war movement, and the women's movement, and the movement for lgbt rights. Yet I doubt progress would have been made on these issues without bodies in the streets making demands.

Thanks, Jim, that's the point I was trying to convey.

Thanks everyone for the discussion. Using the illustration my friend gave me above, I'm moving from the guy with the shotgun to the woman with the check. Merry Christmas.

The problem is, Jim - in my own view, anyway - that economic issues are incredibly complicated. We're in a worldwide economy now, everything dependent on everything else - and there just aren't any simple answers.

Which is why we need to get involved with organizations that are up to the task of working out what will best benefit the greatest majority of people - and then making the case to people so that it makes sense, and so it can be put into practice. (I mean, if people can't even figure out what OWS is up to, it has already sacrificed any leadership potential in this area, IMO...)

Not to say we shouldn't "hold feet to the fire" when it comes to getting this done, of course. (That's "we," BTW - not OWS. I don't support them at all anymore. Tired of ad hominems....)

@joebrewer, @Jim Naughton Winning tactics and strategies remain winning tactics and strategies. OWS or Civil Rights you get nowhere attacking friends or engaging in pointless actions. If there were demands we might be able to support them, though the wiki article is quite good and I have long admired the creativity of the adbuster folks. Occupying TWS's gravel lot or pinning your success on having an encampment, which is the claim of these actions, is a recipe for failure. It demonstrates the difference between idea(l) people and change agents.

Frankly flash mobs that appear in places that interrupt or discomfit Wall Street Denizens would be more effective than gravel lot protests.

Unless you build majorities to take seats in legislatures you are spinning your wheels. All the major movements of the last century that didn't use a gun used a ballot box.

BTW, I don't disagree that protests are important. We don't need OWS for that, either, though.

I mean, do we really have to get on board with this particular organization? Why? What are they offering? I just don't see anything there, myself - and I'm apparently not the only one.

It's really OK to support change on these issues without considering what OWS wants or demands.

B, I think people have been following the path you have sketched out for years with insufficient results. The right wing has demonstrated considerable ability to move our society on economic matters. The left wing has not. I don't attribute the right wing's success to better economic ideas. I think it simply has a better grasp of how to affect change. I think the left needs to experiment with its own methods for affecting change. I am willing to cut Occupy some slack to see what it comes up with.

"I think the "accept their position, don't support their tactics" thing is how many people would have responded in polling about the civil rights movement and the anti-war movement, and the women's movement, and the movement for lgbt rights. Yet I doubt progress would have been made on these issues without bodies in the streets making demands."

I don't think this is true, actually. Nobody accepted those movements' positions at all, for years. The civil rights and womens' rights movement began in the 1800s, and took many, many years to accomplish - goals which went very much against the beliefs and wishes of society as a whole.

This is, really, quite different in that way. People already wholeheartedly agree with the concerns of OWS - but don't agree that the organization is effective. Perhaps you're right that it will evolve into something better and come up with better ways to do things. I hope so.

For now, though: I'm turned off.

I think we are not talking about the same sort of process. Many people who supported some sort of civil rights legislation were turned off by MLK. Those supporters weren't willing to do what was necessary to make change happen. He was.

I think where we disagree is that OWS is actually doing anything to make change happen.

I don't think it is, or is likely to, given its actions recently, and given the rhetoric of its supporters.

You are willing to be patient with them. I'm just not, that's all.

@Jim Naughton The Right learned from the Left. What they did do better was commit money. Money to buy radio and television stations and news media. Liberals and lefties have long been loathe to lighten their wallets for penetrating the public's consciousness. In the 60s and 70s it shifted to winning change in courts and not on the streets.

The SCLC did classic organizing as well a visionary speaking.

OWS is trying two things simultaneously: to educate about the crisis and to invent new ways of decision making. Being "leaderless" like the Tea Party is interesting, but oodles of time has to be spent in wiggling fingers to move. If their principal aim is to change governing process then cool, go for it. If it is to make economic and political changes that benefit people then do like the Tea Party and go instantly to the voting booth.

The guy who has been carrying one of these buckets for awhile is Mike ROwe of Dirty jobs. He has noted that there are millions of skilled labor jobs going wanting in the US that are high paying. We now have a skilled trades gap that means as we boomers get older there may not be folks to fix our toilets. You can hear of his work at http://www.mikeroweworks.com/

You are willing to be patient with them. I'm just not, that's all.

BSnyder: compared to what? You're patient w/ Trickle-Down, then?

The answer to wrong-headed tactics (if that's what you feel OWS is doing) is correct...well, better-headed tactics. DEMONSTRATE (figuratively AND literally) Something Better. Mere sniping serves ONLY the 1%.

I pray EVERYBODY a holiday season of---in their own way---"casting down the mighty from their thrones, and lifting up the lowly"!

JC Fisher

JC, well put, as usual. Write them off, then just wait for the trickle down.

Here's one to-do list and goals. So let's hope that accusation of a "directionless" is finished:
http://bishopsnotebook.blogspot.com/2011/12/next-steps-for-occupy.html

As for "attacking friends," as I have said, Trinity actually did very little. Maybe not quite as much as McDonalds has done. Or Starbucks. Watch how loathe they are to even have a conversation with OccupyFaith clergy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPnbeG3ewUY&feature=related (the majority of which, I think, are probably Episcopalian).

Trinity has, however, used OWS to trumpet their "good neighbor/neighborhood parish" PR, just as they've run their role in 9/11 into the ground (I hear there's more behind that, too). When you read what comes from TWS, you're reading spin from slick PR professionals. It's the simple truth, not an attack. But--what Trinity didn't realize or couldn't control because it looks captive to its heavily-non-member vestry is that it needed OWS a hell of a lot more than OWS needs Trinity.

Nothing happens overnight. From B's own words, the civil rights movement took many years--albeit in a different time when the world was a lot "larger" and technology didn't connect us so readily. But there had to be a spark. You're seeing the spark. Or not, if you've turned it off. Your choice. I've got chaplain work to do, so I'll leave the volley. Happy holidays, all.

Although I am stunned that I even have to type this, I want to be VERY clear...

I did NOT say that people who disagree with me about OWS are not Christian. (I went back and re-read my comment just to be sure.) I said that people who are very public about their faith and who bear false witness against the occupiers by trying to smear them as "unwashed malcontent anarchists" (or who imply, as the Presiding Bishop did, that occupiers have engaged in "acts of force or arms") need to be called to account. I stand by that.

If you (collective "you") read anything more than that into what I said, you read FAR too much.

There are certainly criticisms of OWS to be made--but misrepresenting the people involved in order to denigrate the whole movement is wrong and not condoned by any faith with which I am acquainted.

BSnyder--IMO, one of the biggest problems in this country is people spouting opinions that have no basis in fact. Do you REALLY think it is a good idea for people to be blathering on when they have refused to do any homework?

Joe Brewer--who is on the ground as a chaplain--has repeatedly offered to engage with those who have questions about OWS. So far, no one criticizing OWS has taken him up on it. I find that disturbing.

Jim--as far as the Beaudoin piece goes, this is the key part for me:

The presumption in this theological claim, which I think is correct, is that no Christian church is – on the very terms of its theological existence – permitted to fall back on the mere invocation of “private property” without also a theological conversation about the spiritual significance of what that concept means and how it is being used.

I cannot see that the church has engaged in the kind of deep theological discussion that Beaudoin references and that I believe the current situation demands.

I love a beautiful church building, or a pretty park, as much as the next person--but when all the church can do is hide behind "property rights," we aren't talking about God anymore. When we sic a phalanx of cops and lawyers on people who are sincerely trying to effect change for the most vulnerable in our society, we make ourselves hypocrites.

Remember what Jesus said? When you are asked for your cloak, give your shirt as well. Walk the extra mile. Put away your swords.

I do not believe he was kidding when he said these things....

Some more comments about the article would be nice. (smile) This back-in-forth is going nowhere.

John Andrews--if your comment was directed at me, did you even read what I wrote? The entire last half of my previous comment WAS on the article.

To be honest, I thought I've been responding to the article all along, although I did so by responding to Dave Paisely's implication that OWS was trying to steal what "belonged" to TWS.

Then I got accused by multiple commenters of saying that anyone who disagreed with me about OWS wasn't Christian. Since we go by real names here, I will not let that accusation go unchallenged. It's as false as claiming that all the occupiers are "unwashed malcontent anarchists."

As for the "back-and-forth going nowhere," what do you really expect? It's the Internet--where, as BSnyder points out--everyone has an opinion and feels compelled to share it. ;-)

Ms. Baker, my post was directed at this thread, which has numerous posters. So, no, my post was not directed toward you. As an educator I am used to having high expectations, which is why I expect a thread on the Episcopal Cafe to be related to the topic.

BSnyder--IMO, one of the biggest problems in this country is people spouting opinions that have no basis in fact. Do you REALLY think it is a good idea for people to be blathering on when they have refused to do any homework?

Examples, please. Who, exactly, has "refused to do any homework"? Are you claiming that people who don't support OWS need to go to Wall Street in person in order to make this decision? I'm afraid that most people aren't going to have that chance. Is the claim, then, that we can't make up our own minds on the basis of what OWS itself says on its website, and from what it does? But that's exactly the way people do - have to - make up their minds about things. The truth is that I disagree with them and with their approach, that's all.

JC Fisher: The opposite of "I don't have patience with or support OWS" is not "I'm in favor of trickle-down." And I've already suggested, right on this thread, that economic issues don't have simple answers (even if OWS were actually offering answers, which - even by their own admission - they aren't). I said that what was needed was to work out good solutions and convince people with those solutions. Conversations like this are going on all over the web. Michael Russell and I have both suggested that it's not necessary to "occupy" space under these conditions. If OWS has some good ideas for things they want to do that will help people - other than "occupying," I mean - they should start letting people know about them. Ideas are the currency of change these days - and I didn't see anything along these lines on their website. As I suggested above, too: perhaps they'll evolve. (I also said I hoped they would.) Michael Russell, and others, have also offered some other suggestions on this thread while at the same time disagreeing with OWS.

Last issue: the internet by itself is actually creating lots of change. And lots of us are taking advantage of blogs by having conversations about issues we think are important. I think it's pretty accurate to say that it's been exactly these sorts of conversations that have helped gay people the most over the course of the past 30 years - by convincing others that gay rights were an important issue. I've been arguing about this online for 20+ years and have seen the changes happen right in front of my own eyes - all without an "occupation" of any sort. And that happened, even though there was literally nobody in favor of gay rights of any sort just 40 short years ago. When OWS has such broad agreement with their concerns among the general population, but such little support for its methods - well, I'd think they'd want to understand why. It's no particular skin off my nose, though; I can easily just ignore them along with everybody else. (One comment I read about the TWS dust-up, BTW, was that OWS appeared to be more worried about "the 1% of activists" than about "the 99%.")

IOW, I think exactly the opposite of what's been said here. I think the web - and blog discussions like these - are far more productive of change than "occupying" anything, which is apparently not effective at this point in convincing anybody of anything. Which is why I don't think the drama with TWS was necessary - and why I understand why most people - all part of the "99%" - don't actually support OWS, either.

I think all these things do need to be talked about, BTW, John D. Andrews. There isn't a thread anywhere titled: "Do you or do you not support OWS, and why or why not"? Support has simply been assumed.

(P.S.: In a country that's mostly centrist-leaning-conservative, it's not actually a very good approach, I don't think, to use a raised fist for a logo and offer a slogan of "The Only Solution is World Revolution."

It's simply not going to fly here - or most anywhere, I would think. I have to wonder if OWS wasn't doing their homework, when it comes to 20th-Century history....)

(P.P.S.: I'm afraid that the video you linked to above Joe, makes me even less supportive of OWS.

Clearly, the Trinity woman wanted to know whether the conversation was going to be around "taking space" - i.e., "occupying." I'd say she disagrees with that particular tactic - her right, of course - and doesn't want to be a part of it.

But the TWS guy said, "Let's talk, sure" plain and simple. The Judson guy wouldn't leave it at that, though - but that's not the fault of the Trinity guy. What's the problem with just accepting a plain, "Sure, let's talk"?)

Just one more post, sorry. I want to get my point across, and here's something from 2010 in Slate magazine that may help do that:

But income inequality is a topic of huge importance to American society and therefore a subject of large and growing interest to a host of economists, political scientists, and other wonky types. Except for a few Libertarian outliers (whose views we'll examine later), these experts agree that the country's growing income inequality is deeply worrying. Even Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve Board chairman and onetime Ayn Rand acolyte, has registered concern. "This is not the type of thing which a democratic society—a capitalist democratic society—can really accept without addressing," Greenspan said in 2005. Greenspan's Republican-appointed successor, Ben Bernanke, has also fretted about income inequality.

Yet few of these experts have much idea how to reverse the trend. That's because almost no one can agree about what's causing it. This week and next, I will detail and weigh the strengths and weaknesses of various prominent theories as to what has brought about the income inequality boom of the last three decades. At the same time, I'll try to convey the magnitude of its effects on American life. The Great Divergence may represent the most significant change in American society in your lifetime—and it's not a change for the better. Let's see if we can figure out what got us here.

IOW, many people across the political and economic spectrum agree on this issue - and have been working on trying to address it. The economy is very complex, though, and people are not very sure exactly what the solution is, yet - or, often, the cause.

Which is why I don't understand what "occupations" are going to accomplish - I can't see that this can possibly create any real change - or why it's necessary to demonize people who could be allies.

I'm far more interested in solutions to this problem than in "World Revolution" - so I don't support OWS (although initially I was supportive). I think solutions are going to come, precisely, from talking about and working on these complex problems, and consulting economists and others who understand them. There are many people who would, actually, very much like to find ways to fix the problem - but who aren't invested in "World Revolution," either.

Occupy Wall Street? Absolutely! And yes, I did spend time in Zuccotti Park. I'm in the neighborhood most every day.

But Occupy Trinity Wall Street is really off track, I think, and is ahowboating.

The Occupy Canal Street "Over the Fence" folk may think they're in the same vein as other social justice movements, but the dead giveaway is when they are "Shocked! Shocked!" at the action and SOP of the NY Police Department.

People arrested for, or relatives of those shot to death while, say, guilty of being a person of color might have a more interesting take on the Occupy Trinity people and their comments on being arrested.

But TEC parishes have generally been silent on justice issues. They do not tend to be places where, say, Mayoral candidates (especially the unsuccessful ones pressing justice issues) see as an obligatory stop as are other NYC churches which have taken the lead.

So lets all calm down a bit, figure out what we are doing in our own parishes on justice and economic justice issues -- particularly bringing them to the fore in our communities -- and maybe put the arm on Trinity to help provide some financial support while we're at it.

Jim Guthrie
Brooklyn

Interesting comments. A few thoughts, in case anyone is reading any more.

To those who complain of thread hijack, I would merely say that when the subject of the article is the theological justification for the hijacking of private property (which is the underlying premise of the referenced article), then the morals, motives and tactics of those proposing the hijack are fair game for discussion.

Paige Baker: “something which every Christian ought to be on board with, since Jesus…”

Quite clearly, the above implies that you aren’t a “real” Christian if you are not on board with whatever is being proposed because obviously Jesus was on board with it. It’s ironic that WWJD was a religious right meme.

Paige Baker et al: “Have you spent some time with the occupiers? If not, I suggest you owe it to them to do so before you malign them in the way you continue to do here.”

Sorry, I am quite capable of reading their websites, checking out the national and local news reports (and no, I am not a Fox News viewer/listener/reader, nor am I fan of or a listener of AM right wing talk radio – a diversionary stereotype brought up by many an OWS supporter. Really, if I don’t agree with them it doesn’t mean I’m Rick Perry in disguise) to make up my mind. The scene in Seattle played out like a mini-Manhattan with the camp occupying a city park illegally, then occupying Seattle Community College against their will. We had our own “84 year old pepper sprayed by police!” story, which was an internet sensation for about ten minutes. The fact that she is a lifelong protester who put herself in harm’s way meant that story died pretty fast. The fact that in liberal Seattle, the notoriously lefty Seattle Times reporting has been conspicuously unsupportive of OccSea is as good an indication as any that Occupy Whatever has little support among the vast majority of the populace.

BTW, I have also never met any of the people I have voted for, except one guy I knew who ran for the local school board, and yet, somehow I have managed to form an opinion and been able to vote intelligently.

As for OWS being or not being anarchist.

First, a definition of anarchism (sorry it’s just Wikipedia):

"Anarchism is generally defined as the political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, or alternatively as opposing authority and hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations. Proponents of anarchism, known as "anarchists", advocate stateless societies based on non-hierarchical voluntary associations."

From the OWS slogan:
"Occupy Wall Street is leaderless resistance movement... we don't need politicians to build a better society." and so on...

If that's not anarchist, then what is?

This is the pointless WTO protests all over again (which, oh by the way, were specifically "anarchist") except that it's a bit more rambling and trying to steal some street cred from Arab Spring where people are actually putting themselves in harm’s way.

And even if it isn’t fully anarchism, then it certainly veers towards totalitarianism (we know what’s better for you, so best to just put us in charge and have us figure it all out for you). George Orwell would be proud. It’s only a matter of time before we start hearing “Four legs good, two legs better!”

I’ll leave you with the words of the great Winston Churchill: “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”

And perhaps the one most apropos to this time: “Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”