I had the wonderful opportunity this summer to visit for a few days in the home of a very longtime friend. John and I go back to the second grade together. We were both altar boys in grade school and both went on to become Unitarian Universalists. John was exposed to our liberal religion as the result of being a dutiful friend. He traveled with me during my seminary days on several Sunday mornings, as I went here and there through the Midwest preaching to various U.U. congregations.

As I was visiting John, his wife Diane and their two kids last month, I arose early one morning. They were all still quite asleep. I went downstairs, put on a pot of coffee, opened the morning paper to the crossword puzzle, and turned on the radio.

Another of our high school classmates, who has achieved a level of celebrity in the area through his newspaper column and "talk radio" show, was hosting his daily program. So, I listened for awhile to the discussion of the day, which was: " Why is it that the World Wrestling Federation has become so incredibly popular?"

For those of you who may not be familiar with the WWF, it is the latest manifestation of the traditional farce known as professional wrestling. It is extremely violent, at least in appearance, and is a very theatrical charade. It is, as one of my former teachers used to enjoy saying, "crude, lewd, gross and common." Besides all that, it has become an extremely popular entertainment mania from coast to coast.

So, on this particular morning, between the two coasts, folks were calling in with all kinds of theories and explanations regarding the popularity of the WWF. "It's just good entertainment." "It's really sexy." "It's macho." "It's high theatre." Occasionally, a caller would take a stab at a more analytic interpretation, "It's just representative of the cultural battle between good and evil." Or, "It’s the same thing as all the violence that's in video games and in the movies."

Even though he was responsible for the topic, I had to give my former classmate credit. He did try to keep the conversation on a higher level than it might have otherwise sunk of its own accord. "Okay, if it really is sexy or really violent," he asked, " why do sex and violence drive this mega entertainment industry? Are these the kind of experiences we want our children to have in the form of entertainment? What lessons do we want them to take away from such an experience?"

The callers would say, "Oh, Jim. You’re reading too much into it. It doesn't mean anything at all. It's not even real. It's just for fun."

I thought Jim was trying to get at some of the deeper questions, but he hadn't quite made it there all the way. That's when we reached the "top of the hour," as they say, and time to bring the listeners up-to-date on the news. The top stories, of course, were about the election campaigns and the latest antics of the presidential candidates.

I’m hardly a political analyst. I don’t even like listening to political analysts for the most part. But I am an observer of social phenomenon, and it occurred to me, in less time than it takes for a body slam, that there was a connection between the subjects of the newscast and the preceding talk-radio conversation. There’s a discernable theme that we can trace from the WWF to presidential politics. Perhaps that theme could be called: "America in a Nutshell," or maybe even better would be Alfred E. Newman's famous line, "What, me worry?"

By now my friends were out of bed, getting ready for work or school. I told John and Diane about the radio conversation and shared my observation of the connection between the two themes. John and Diane are very loving friends, and I think quite tolerant of my sometimes unusual perspectives. Still, I think they thought my idea just a bit much. And so, dear congregation, I leave it to you this morning to wrestle with the validity of my observation.

The radio caller who had suggested that there was a relationship between the WWF and video games was on the right track. The WWF and violent video games are closely connected symptoms of a social addiction that we might call virtual entertainment. Much of our entertainment can be seen as a part of this same syndrome, the election campaign included.

First the connection between video games and the WWF: Video games, as entertainment, provide some of the most violent, sexualized and destructive images imaginable. If someone were to imagine a new level of gruesome coercion, it would quickly become part of the next generation of video games. What makes this genre of entertainment "acceptable" though, is that it isn't real. It's only computerized imagery of a virtual world. No one is really raped, pillaged, decapitated, exploded or otherwise annihilated. It is intended to be all in good fun; it’s fake.

We live in a computer age. And I'm not saying computers are bad. They're not. They have a great potential for good, and in many ways live up to that potential. But they also have the capacity to remove or detach us from the outcome of our actions in a way that other modes of communication have not.

The most graphic illustration of that for me includes evening news footage of Desert Storm, back in January of 1990. It was shocking to see the game-like computer images that represented actual bombs that were raining over Baghdad. Another ongoing illustration of this detachment can be observed in the practice of stock day trading. Individuals quickly buy and sell stocks of companies with whom they have no relationship or knowledge. And they do it by computer. There are many ways in which the computer enables the manipulation of human lives without the benefit of human connection.

Computer games, including cyber pornography, promote this same kind of insulation. Even more, they’re addictive and they encourage the user to disassociate human relationships from human behavior. After all, it's not real. What can it hurt?

Professional wrestling does much the same thing, but in a different venue. It too is not real, but acted out sexualized and violent behavior. No one is actually physically hurt. Except of course, when something goes wrong, causing an unintended paralysis or death. It is intended to be "all in good fun."

A difference between the WWF and video games is that the wrestling takes place in a social, dare I say cultural setting. At least it’s more social for those who attend the live events. One might argue whether or not there is any social interchange that takes place at the wrestling matches, or if the experience is more like that of toddlers’ parallel play. Most enthusiasts though, stay home and watch on television.

The WWF, through its fake but vehement expression of violence is much like video games. It provides a virtual—like arena. Pent-up emotions and hostile behaviors can be displayed and acted out with no consequence because, supposedly, there is no real foul and so no real harm.

So, how does the presidential campaign fit into this world of virtual entertainment where participants are encouraged to brutally act out their aggressions, certainly not based on issues so much as posturing? And how does the presidential campaign fit into this world where observers are encouraged to detach themselves from responsibility for outcomes? Perhaps the fit might be a bit more snug than we’d like to admit.

I’m not talking so much about the more obvious analogies, although they do beg an airing. For example, the presidential candidates, like the wrestlers do for their viewing public, serve as surrogates who act out the frustrations of their voting public. Body slams translate to muckraking. No holds are barred, and free-for-all aggression is intended–not so much to promote a true champion as to disable a challenger.

The sexualized arena of the WWF is not without its parallel in the campaigns. Campaign ads and candidates are made to look "sexy" but, even more, sexualization is being played out as moralization. Candidates want to look sexy, but are on guard to avoid looking like they might be sexual or condoning of sexual behavior. The morality play is staged in scenes that explicitly or implicitly make charges of adultery, scenes that question a woman’s right to choose, and scenes that even question who loves God the most.

The hallmark of professional wrestling is the histrionic, overly boisterous saber rattling of the opponents. Of course the corollary of this behavior in the presidential campaign is the histrionic, overly boisterous saber rattling of those opponents, as well.

Similarly, there is a psychological/theological model that is somewhat identical in the two arenas. An egotistical Calvinism prevails as each gladiator claims, not only to be the greatest, but that they are chosen and called to be the greatest.

As a brief aside, we might notice the contrast between either the WWF or the presidential campaign and the Olympic Arena, now so alive in Sydney. While the Olympic Committee may struggle for credibility, the athletes–almost to a player–are there for the love of the sport and simply to do their best. Their performances are inspired and uplifting. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if our presidential politics could similarly focus on what is best instead of exploiting what is worst?

There are some deeper and more disturbing comparisons that underlie the WWF and the presidential campaign, though. They have less to do with similarities of performance, and more to do with how and why these performances play so well to such an eager audience.

I’m not suggesting that the presidential campaign is indiscernible from professional wrestling. The campaign is serious; it needs to be. Too much is on the line. It is frightening though, that there are so many similarities between the campaign and the WWF. And those similarities pose some questions that beg to be answered.

Why does the public need such negative and cynical entertainment? What is the cost of the detached acting out of cultural angers and frustrations? Finally, what does all this tell us about the spiritual state of our nation? And, how might we religiously respond to the WWF syndrome in American Politics?

The poet Carl Sandburg wrote:

"between the finite limitations of the five senses

and the endless yearnings of man for the beyond

the people hold to the humdrum bidding of work and food

while reaching out when it comes their way

for lights beyond the prisms of the five senses,

for keepsakes lasting beyond any hunger or death.

It seems we’ve always been yearning for the beyond and hoping we might find ourselves out there. We live in a cynical age though, and the panderers and the liars have taught us that there is good cause for cynicism. We’ve been led down many paths and we’ve become somewhat jaded by our expectations of the good life.

Most of us, here, grew up being taught that the American Dream of affluence and ease was ours if we studied hard, did our work and kept our noses clean. Prosperity was held up, not as a means for advancing civilization and bettering the whole world, but as the personal prize for having done our homework. We live in an age where lots of individuals have won that personal prize, but it has not helped any of us to get to the lights that are beyond the prisms of our five senses.

Even as a culture, we have won the prize, but the prize leaves us feeling empty, unfulfilled, frustrated and ever more disconnected. The virtual cyber world and its video games provide an extension of that alienation. Perhaps the WWF and its theatrical warfare provide a safety valve for that alienation. But the presidential campaign with its non-substantive, innuendo driven agendas provides a diversion, a dangerous diversion, that helps us to hide from our alienation.

The spiritual state of the nation is one of denial. The god of commerce, materialism and isolation is edging out the god of cooperation, community and connection. And we don’t really want to own that. So, we do a lot of projecting, and our presidential candidates end up looking a lot like Frederico Felini warriors with more style than substance, with less principle than persuasiveness. But they do accurately represent our theological denials and our lack of resolve to personally sacrifice for the common good.

What can be our religious response to the WWF syndrome in presidential politics? The truth of the matter is, whatever our level of denial, we are responsible for the outcome. Our religious response must be to take up that responsibility.

We each know within that we are called into this world to live a life of integrity. We are called to love our neighbor as ourselves, and to know that our neighbor is every man, woman and child. Emerson said, "The human heart requires a God. Some God, a true or a false one." The culture is selling a false god. We can be bought out, or we can hold true to the god of our yearnings.

With James Baldwin I believe that, "One day, perhaps, unimaginable generations hence, we will evolve into the knowledge that human beings are more important than real estate and will permit this knowledge to become the ruling principle of our lives. For I do not for an instant doubt, and I will go to my grave believing that we can build Jerusalem, if we will."

In a little over a month from now it will be Election Day. We can do our part to build Jerusalem by taking the election seriously, even perhaps more seriously than the candidates do themselves. If we bring honor to the process, the process will have more honor than if we sit and do nothing.

We can do our part to build Jerusalem by refusing to abdicate responsibility for the outcomes of our actions. If we remain connected to our actions, from start to finish, from the push of the button to the final impulse of its projections, we will see, and know and feel how we are participating in the creation of the world.

We can do our part to build Jerusalem by promoting the substance of principle over style. We can’t afford a presidency directed by national polls. "There is scarcely any absurdity so gross, whether in religion, politics, science, or manners, which [public opinion] will not bear." We need leaders who will dare to lead, and we desperately need to put our faith in their leadership.

We can do our part to build Jerusalem by questioning the status quo, and by connecting the pieces of the story that tell us how we are treating ourselves, each other, our communities and our planet. We do not have to abdicate to the spirit of cynicism; we build Jerusalem when we build our faith in the future.

We can do our part to build Jerusalem by working together to destroy the myths that all is well and that we deserve to use and abuse all the resources of the earth. All is not well; it can be, but it won’t be if we invest our future in the charade of the wrestling arena.

We can do our part to build Jerusalem by working together for religious ends. As Mark Morrison-Reed said,

We come together to build Jerusalem, not in isolation, but in community–committed to the vision of that Jerusalem where the fountains flow with healing waters of beauty, justice and joy–"keepsakes lasting beyond any hunger or death."

May we find our way through the many diversions to that wider vision and the fuller world. May we do our part to make it so.