I live with the diversity at the church where I serve as Interim Vicar - some members are participating in Occupy Manzanita or another Occupy around the area - some are sure it is the first step to anarchy - some just wonder what good it will do in terms of what is really wrong - others wonder why this energy is not going into running candidates and electing a better government.

It is never good organizing to turn an ally into an antagonist. What do they achieve in this confrontation? What strategic place to the summit?

It is also pointless to make police the enemy. They are working folk and need to be recruited not alienated.

I wonder whether we can examine the notion that Trinity is an ally in attempting any real economic reform. Many of the members of its vestry would clearly be threatened by such reform. http://www.faithinpubliclife.org/blog/trinity-wall-street-vestrys-1-connections/

This isn't to devalue the aid and comfort that the parish has provided to Occupy people so far, simply to suggest that given economic realities those contributions were always going to be limited.

The Occupy Movement has helped to refocus the political focus in this country. I would suggest it is a more biblical focus. Consequently, I believe Trinity Wall Street should be more cooperative with the Occupy Movement in NYC. I am also saddened by what I see as an overly strident message of the PB against the Occupy Movement in NYC. I am a strong supporter of her, but I believe she has missed the mark in this, and she should rethink her statement.

Not to take us down a side road, but I have an open question related to Jim's comment on Trinity's vestry. My understanding is that few, if any, of them are members of the congregation (list inside Jim's comment link). I have studied the Constitutions and Canons of both TEC and the diocese, and this appears permissible. This doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

So, friends, I ask: how common is this in the Episcopal Church? Does anyone else share my view that this is not a good thing?

So if the Vestry of Trinity and its staff are of the 1%, the same question remains: is it better to alienate them or use the groundwork laid in their openness so far to convert them all the further?

Having a showdown on a piece of property that has been reported as under lease seems ancillary to the principal thrust of the movement which is to highlight economic disparity and inequity in order to end predatory economic behavior and structure resources to provide work for all. Does a fight over a gravel lot help that go forward?

I don't think so. Organizers see the world as made up of three sorts of people:

Those with you.
Those who are neutral.
Those against you.

For each group there is an organizing goal.

You develop those for you to help bring in the neutrals and perhaps convert those against you. But by all means you nurture those with you.

You work to move the neutrals to your side.

You work to convert those against you, or at least make them neutral. You work to splinter their support structures so their positions become socially, politically or economically untenable.

Trinity Wall Street is not the foe, although there are likely foes among them. This action strengthens their hand as it weakens the hand of the Rector and staff to do more.

So I still see no point to it.

Where OWS might profit from being this week in on the Madison Avenues and Rodeo Drives of the US making iot hard for the 1% to shop without seeing the messages. All they need do is fill the shops with scruffy meandering people until people with cash to spend have a hard time getting in! And because they might shop they cannot be removed. There are plenty of stores to occupy all week.

Mike, you have articulated the theory of change that I understand best. We have had limited success with it, no? People with progressive economic views have been on the run in this country for most of the last 40 years. Occupy has a different theory of change. I don't know what it is, but it clearly isn't the one we are familiar with. That said, they have gotten the world's attention in the way that seemingly savvier folks have not. So I am willing to watch them at work before I start offering them instruction.

It seems to me that if one regarded Trinity Wall Street as the charitable front for a major real estate corporation--not saying that I do--you would indeed think that it was the foe, and act accordingly.

Hardly limited success, Jim. It brought forth labor unions, civil rights gains, an end to the war in Vietnam, greater workplace safety and health, workers' compensation for a number of diseases, women's choice, equity for women in the workplace and church, labor contracts for migrant workers, environmental protections, consumer rights and protections; in short all the things conservative now want to undo. Oh and the election of Barack Obama who used these methods connected with social media and the energy of a fresh message.

Eventually people have to vote, unless you just want revolutionary overthrow. As the Arab Spring folks are finding out, toppling a dictator is one thing, creating a progressive democratic government may be quite another.

Now if OWS can produce votes or attitudinal changes, spectacular, lets see it. But by their own admission they have neither a central message beyond "We're Mad as Hell and We're Not Gonna Take it Anymore" nor a strategy for change. So while I am pleased to see them out there until they have some focus the jury remains out.

I am happy to be surprised, but so far I am neither surprised not particularly encouraged. It will get cold soon.

In the end there will be voting, best to know how to count.

Mike, are you under the impression that those movements started with clear legislative agendas, a firm sense of who their allies were and a determination to eschew public confrontation? Do you think that three months in, they had a more advanced sense of where they were heading than the Occupy folks do? Half the county is either poor or low income, and you see no role for people who are just plain angry about that?

Michael Russell I think that the OWS message is as clear as clean water and as sensible as it gets -- things can’t stay the way they are.

When 1 out of 2 Americans is living in poverty or low income, when over 8 million children live in poverty, when getting sick or losing a job bankrupts a family and costs them their everything, when corporations are declared people and CEO’s through shareholders are bailed out continuously for their risk-taking while common people are told that they must experience austerity and suffering, when the top 1% own and control over half the wealth in the world, when bankers are allowed to run the government and tank the world’s economy with no consequences other than the politicians they fund handing them ever larger amounts of more free money to gamble with then it’s time for a major change.

That’s the OWS message. It’s time for big and permanent change. They don’t presume to say or know what that change will be or look like or how it will unfold and they invite everyone who’s not causing the problem to join their voices to the discussion and offer ideas and support for bringing about the change. They are not confined to what worked in the past or well-worn techniques because it is a new and different world and they are exploring new and different ways of bringing about change.

It’s radical democracy, radical hospitality and radical care of one’s neighbor, radical new thinking and radical new ideas, all in solidarity with the message and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth who shook the powers that be to their very core in HIs own day.

Dismissing them for having no conventional legislative plan or soundbite-sized message is just plain silly. They are savvy enough to know that the governments are owned by the bankers and the plutocrats and that change via election will take a generation or more if it is allowed at all. They are calling for a new way of doing business as a society and as a world of common humanity. It scares the heck out of those at the top and befuddles those who haven’t experienced (yet) firsthand how dysfunctional, sinful, and evil the status quo has become. I wish them Godspeed and blessings and I join them whenever I can.

This issue is complicated. I have been reading that Bill Dobbs is a press liaison for the Occupy Wall Street. Dobbs is a gay activist against marriage equality and hate crimes laws. (He claims to have his reasons.) I have heard him trash the New York Civil Liberties Union because of its support for hate crimes legislation. He is one of the representatives of OWS who do not want to allow sympathetic elected officials to speak to them or work with the movement. I know a City Council Member who was not allowed to speak to the group. Elected officials, apparently, are impure. On principle, Dobbs is against working with elected officials and political parties--in the same way he refuses to work with mainstream LGBT organizations. If I were representing Trinity Wall Street I am not sure I would negotiate with Occupy Wall Street, even though I admire how they have been able to capture media attention on the issue of economic injustice.

Trinity is not the enemy and could be encouraged to do more. Yes, it owns lots of real estate in the Wall Street area, but it did not have to be as open to the protestors as it has been. It could have shut them out from the start.

I hope that, like the social movements in the 1960s, some of the representatives learn to work with those within the system who are sympathetic.

Gary Paul Gilbert

And I, Gary Paul Gilbert, know that trying to tie the OWS movement, which is worldwide, to one person or a handful of incidents is dishonest meant only to muddy the waters. OWS has no official “representatives”, a fact that grates on authoritarians and status quo seekers the world over. I hope that, like Jesus of Nazareth and the social movement of Christianity, that they destroy the current corrupt, sinful, and rigged system entirely and create a new system that mirrors the Kingdom of Heaven.

No one is tying the OWS movement to one individual or incident. But we know one individual who has been presented in the New York Times and on MSNBC as a spokesman for the NYC occupation who has a history of contrarian and obstructionist stands on progressive issues. If the movement has no official "representatives," someone nevertheless got the idea that this guy could fill in.

Yes, we need a whole new system -- how to get there from here? Jesus didn't make it -- he preached the Kingdom and we got the (Constantinian) Church, as has often been observed. We feel keenly the difficulty of changing the system from within (and near the bottom), but it's what we can do, awaiting a revolution. It's discouraging to be dumped on by puritans from the outside.

Dear Ms. Cardinale, I am already aware of the difficulty of determining to what extent Bill Dobbs represents Occupy Wall Street. He has been listed as the pressliaison in press releases and I saw a video interview he did on City Univeristy of New York television.

My point is more that personalities as well as principles matter in politics. That mainstream politicians and other community leaders have been shut out of OWS does not bode well for it.

I do not pretend to speak for Jesus Christ. The idea of ventriloquizing God freaks me out.

Gary Paul Gilbert

@ Jim Naughton: The movements I listed had clear goals from the beginning and were hardly amorphous. Did they engage in confrontation, of course, but it was very targeted confrontation aimed at exposing the violence of the powers that be or disrupting the inequitable systems. They engaged in civil disobedience, but with a purpose. They bypassed existing systems to show their economic power (the bus boycott for example).

@Priscilla I am hardly dismissing them, I am pleased they are raising important issues. But having confrontations with Churches who have been supportive (and in encampments like their's clean open bathrooms are very supportive). So this is good video, but largely secondary to the issues they themselves raise.

The movement is 3/12 months along, and I am greatly interested in seeing how they shape themselves. It is a free country (at least till the NDAA act is passed), so they are free to do as they please, but I am not going to wrap sanctity around unfocused actions.

Some of these comments in attacking the PB, Bishop Sisk, and others are ad hominem and thus unfortunate. But again it is a free country where we enjoy free speech even when we are not interested in its consequences.

@Priscilla, the French Revolution set out to do what you suggest in your last post. That didn't work out so well.

Gary and MIchael: Think Differently. That’s the message I’m giving out for my part in OWS. We can certainly study history and attempt to avoid the mistakes of the past and learn from the victories but we are hardly constrained to do the same things over and over (insanity, I believe?) The media, and apparently many commenters here at the Cafe, NEED a spokesperson and a simple message so it can be defined, explained, and contained. The beauty of OWS is that is refuses to play by the old rules and won’t be constrained by the current system.

To quote an favorite song from my RC days “Some would rely on their treasures, others put trust in their gold, some have only their Saviour, whose faithfulness never grows old."

r Priscilla,

Many years ago my wife carried my daughter upstairs for a nap. She said to her, "I think its time for a nap." My daughter at 3ish replied, "Don't think that, think something else." You don't know me, not I you, and if you want to trade CV's offline and compare "different thinking" histories and grassroots movement involvement, I'd be happy too.

But you misquote at the end of your last post. "Insanity," said Einstein, "Is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." I am suggesting that doing the same thing and getting a similar result are connected which is why we study history. It is also why we repeat proven methods of getting social change. They work, over and over and over, and sadly sometimes, they work for anyone who will use them.

The Tea Party was effective because it went RIGHT for an electoral strategy and I submit to you that unless the OWS folks go right for an electoral strategy they will live in camps for a long long time. I love the "I am the 99%" testimonials for example, and they need to be broadly shared. Those build constituencies.

If your plea is to just toss out everything and start afresh rarely works, those who are organized step in ready to muster their constituency ala the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis in Egypt. We do not have 40 year dictators we have a representative Democracy.

Time will tell as it always does, but chance favors the prepared and focused.

Michael I would not presume to speak from my privileged position on how much things have changed due to playing by the conventional rules. I have African American friends and Hispanic friends and other friends who belong to subgroups who would argue that nothing much has changed precisely because leaders and movements played by the rules and simply replaced the key players in the ongoing system of oppression.

Nor am I akin to a 3-year old arguing against naptime but that was a masterful attempt to shut me down. I was actually referring to Steve Jobs, a person I greatly admire who refused to accept conventional wisdom and historical precedent and who changed the world in remarkable ways in his short 56-year old life.

I know it is frightening to think of paradigm shifts and changing world views but I also know that they happen inevitably and often violently and those who oppose them the loudest are usually the ones who fall victim the most quickly. Whether you or I or anyone else likes it or not the world is changing and millions of human beings worldwide are rejecting the current paradigm of soulless capitalism, corrupt governments, impotent social institutions, and chronic injustice.

That some do well in the current system and see no need for a change or call for slow and conventional change does not change the fact that millions of us are not doing well and have no prospect of doing well and our progeny have less of a chance than we do. We are reaching critical mass on this Earth of ours and scarcity of resources and who controls what are fast becoming life or death situations.

I believe that you and I have much in common and share many of the same ideals. That our goals may differ in this speaks more to our current situations and our past experiences than anything. I do not wish to be your enemy but I do not accept your assessments either.

We both stand in the grace of God. Let us be content with that!

So, ummm, Apple, with it's exploitation of Chinese workers is the example of a paradigm shift? Apple who now has more cash than the US? Really?

Michael, since Steve Jobs is beneath you here's another one for you:

"We could accomplish many more things if we stopped thinking them to be impossible."

-- Vince Lombardi

I reached out to you in peace. You rejected my offer. So be it.

I pray and sing Oh Adonai for the OWS family and their opposition this last Sunday of Advent.

There are no ad hominem attacks against KJS or Sisk on this page.

It's interesting read through these comments and watch the conversation evolve - or is devolve more appropriate?

Some things I note happening as the conversation moved along.

-increased use of "you" language
-use to sarcasm/irony
-move to claim the moral high ground / act put-upon

It seems part of the problem with our country right now is a failure of discourse - we have forgotten how to talk to one another about difficult issues. Congress sets (follows?) the tone on this.

If the church is to be a counter-cultural witness to the world ("Conform yourselves no longer to the pattern of this world but be transformed..."), I wonder if that witness might not begin with our conversations with one another within the church?

-Jesse Zink

Jesse, I think your analysis misses the point. The problem with discourse in this country is not that it is impolite, it is that almost everyone participating in it at a national level is a fully-owned subsidiary of a wealthy interest. Tone is the least of our problems.

Personally, I think you two (Jesse and Jim N) are BOTH right.

I'm as likely to demonize my opponent as anyone else (Lord have mercy!).

At the same time, IMHO my voice is having ZERO impact on the larger national dialogue, and I'm PISSED OFF about that! [Longtime unemployed, depressed, owes more money than I can ever HOPE to repay? Please. I'm a loser NO political party really gives a damn about.]

So I say "Oy Vey" and "Lord Have Mercy" and "God bless you, Occupy!" and hope, God being merciful, somebody(s) somewhere figure a way out of this mess...

JC Fisher