CHRISTMAS DECORATIONS AT THE WHITE HOUSE INCLUDE A Crèche IN THE EAST ROOM (DESPITE REPORTS THAT WHITE HOUSE SOCIAL SECRETARY Desiree ROGERS SUGGESTED THAT THE OBAMAS WERE PLANNING A "NON-RELIGIOUS CHRISTMAS.") SHOULD THE WHITE HOUSE, WHO’S RESIDENTS SERVE ALL AMERICANS, DISPLAY a Crèche OR a MENORAH OR ANY STRICTLY RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS DURING THE HOLIDAYS?
Like it or not, Christmas is actually a religious holiday. I know it is easy to forget that amid the hustle and bustle of chasing hot deals on gifts, trips to the mall to see Santa and 25 days of made-for-TV holiday specials running on multiple cable channels. But the very word “Christmas” is in itself an acknowledgement that this is a day to celebrate Christ – a strictly religious persona. So despite hints from Desiree Rogers to the contrary, I would argue there was never anyway in which the Obama’s’ could have held a “non-religious Christmas”.
Also it so happens that the Obama’s are actually Christians and therefore it is perfectly natural for them to celebrate Christmas as well as all of the other Christian holidays. While it is true that President Obama is the President for all Americans, most of us knew that he was a Christian when we voted for him and I’m assuming that we expected he would participate in the typical Christian traditions. Similarly I expect that he will do many of the things that men, fathers, and people of color traditionally do, despite the fact that he serves a country that is not made up exclusively of men, fathers or people of color.
What I have been pleasantly surprised by however is that he is so comfortable and confident in his faith that he can be proactive in welcoming others of different faith traditions. Displaying a “strictly religious” symbol of his faith helps remind other Christians what Christmas is really all about, i.e. the birth of the Christ child as a tangible manifestation of God’s love for all of humanity and the possibility for the power of love to transform the world.. As a Christian I like to think our country’s leader pauses to think of such things when he sees the Crèche on display in the East room as he’s on his way to meetings to develop strategies for “winning” the war in Afghanistan, revamping the healthcare system in the U.S., reviving the global economy and slowing climate change.
But importantly it’s not just symbols of Christianity that he might stop to glance at on his way to these policy-setting discussions. Realizing that America is a religiously pluralistic country, he’ll hopefully also pass “strictly religious” symbols of Judaism, Islam, etc. And hopefully these will also give him pause and enrich his decision-making with the ideals that those religions treasure as central to their faiths. America is a country of many faiths, and he is the President for all of America.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Is there more to the Tiger Woods story than meets the eye?
No, I don't mean whether there are more women waiting in the wings to tell all about their tryst with Tiger. I have no idea and frankly, I'm not even curious about that.
What I do find curious however is that according to news reports and speculation, Tiger's wife chased him down the street wielding a golf club as a weapon, with every intention of doing him physical harm. In fact the only way we know about the story is because she apparently did cause him to have a car accident, resulting in injuries that sent him to the hospital. Yet when the story breaks it is his wife who is portrayed as the victim - Tiger is unquestionably convicted as the bad guy.
Now I'm not going to condone cheating on one's spouse, and I guess that cheating multiple times is exponentially worse than cheating once. But since when has it been acceptable to settle a marital dispute by beating one's spouse with a golf club? My guess is that if Tiger had been chasing her down the street with an intent to beat her up, he would have been arrested for attempted battery and she would have been portrayed as the victim.
So how does that work - no matter what, she's the victim?
And what's with the national fascination with their story? He's not the first man nor first celebrity to be unfaithful to his wife. And he's certainly not the first sports superstar to be caught with multiple counts of infidelity. So why is this one getting so much attention and early predictions of this as the end of his career because he's now "damaged goods"? Michael Jordan was widely reputed to have cheated on his ex-wife Juanita for MANY years yet he wasn't villianized for his behavior the way Tiger has been. Did he just have a better press agent?
I suspect that the aggressive response to Tiger's infidelity is due in part to the fact that he's a man of color and his wife is White. I think subconsciously, or in some cases consciously, the media has played on the old stereotypes of Black man as super stud as his wife as the lilly-white damsel in distress. I also think that the enthusiasm for pronouncing the death of Tiger's career is related to the fact that this man of color was unquestionably one of the best to play a White man's game, i.e. golf. He came onto traditional White turf (with his skills and his choice of a mate) and was more successful than most knew they could ever be. It was annoying but he is so undeniably awesome at golf that they had to give him his props. And he was also known as squeakly clean. I can only imagine how that must have added insult to injury for some.
So now the waiting of those who were jealous of his talent and success has been rewarded. At the end of the day, Tiger has proved to be human. Maybe not a surprise, but disappointing nonetheless. What has been a surprise is the speed and viciousness with which the media and some of his "friends" have publicly turned upon him.
Yesterday he announced a break from golf. I hope he gets a break from all of us as well.
What I do find curious however is that according to news reports and speculation, Tiger's wife chased him down the street wielding a golf club as a weapon, with every intention of doing him physical harm. In fact the only way we know about the story is because she apparently did cause him to have a car accident, resulting in injuries that sent him to the hospital. Yet when the story breaks it is his wife who is portrayed as the victim - Tiger is unquestionably convicted as the bad guy.
Now I'm not going to condone cheating on one's spouse, and I guess that cheating multiple times is exponentially worse than cheating once. But since when has it been acceptable to settle a marital dispute by beating one's spouse with a golf club? My guess is that if Tiger had been chasing her down the street with an intent to beat her up, he would have been arrested for attempted battery and she would have been portrayed as the victim.
So how does that work - no matter what, she's the victim?
And what's with the national fascination with their story? He's not the first man nor first celebrity to be unfaithful to his wife. And he's certainly not the first sports superstar to be caught with multiple counts of infidelity. So why is this one getting so much attention and early predictions of this as the end of his career because he's now "damaged goods"? Michael Jordan was widely reputed to have cheated on his ex-wife Juanita for MANY years yet he wasn't villianized for his behavior the way Tiger has been. Did he just have a better press agent?
I suspect that the aggressive response to Tiger's infidelity is due in part to the fact that he's a man of color and his wife is White. I think subconsciously, or in some cases consciously, the media has played on the old stereotypes of Black man as super stud as his wife as the lilly-white damsel in distress. I also think that the enthusiasm for pronouncing the death of Tiger's career is related to the fact that this man of color was unquestionably one of the best to play a White man's game, i.e. golf. He came onto traditional White turf (with his skills and his choice of a mate) and was more successful than most knew they could ever be. It was annoying but he is so undeniably awesome at golf that they had to give him his props. And he was also known as squeakly clean. I can only imagine how that must have added insult to injury for some.
So now the waiting of those who were jealous of his talent and success has been rewarded. At the end of the day, Tiger has proved to be human. Maybe not a surprise, but disappointing nonetheless. What has been a surprise is the speed and viciousness with which the media and some of his "friends" have publicly turned upon him.
Yesterday he announced a break from golf. I hope he gets a break from all of us as well.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
when in switzerland, do as the swiss do - or else?
Q: What's your reaction to Sunday's decision by voters in Switzerland toban construction of minarets, the slender towers from which Muslims arecalled to daily prayers?
A. Sad. Disappointed. And a frankly, more than a little afraid. Ironically however my growing apprehension isn’t about the Muslims but rather about the Swiss people and more broadly, the re-emergence and validation of societal mob-action motivated by fear. The posters created by proponents of the ban are menacing – and to think that they are in reference to a prayer tower is absolutely terrifying to me as an example of propaganda created by leadership in a country that we normally think of as the poster child for tolerance.
As a Christian, upper middle class privileged American living in a predominantly White suburban neighborhood and working as a senior executive in a multi-billion dollar corporation, I can relate to the visceral fear that the close presence of a people that has publicly denied many of my cultural values evokes. When I’m at my best I see Muslims as my neighbors, but I’m always aware that there’s a strong underlying thread of difference between us and sometimes that difference has provoked “them” to violent actions against “us”. So if we’re all going to live together peaceably it seems reasonable that the best course is for them to minimize my discomfort with our differences by acting more like me – after all, if they came to live in my neighborhood I’m assuming that they like what we have to offer and they should work hard to fit in. Establishing architectural permanent markers of our differences, i.e. a minaret, is clearly contraindicated with assimilation from that perspective. And this is one of the arguments that the proponents of the ban persuasively made.
But then I recall childhood memories of when my family became the first African Americans to move into an all-White neighborhood in the far western Chicago suburbs in 1967. The fear of our soon-to-be neighbors was palatable. There were neighborhood meetings, some of which devolved into threats – and that was before we even physically had moved in and begun to make any changes to the property or entice our stereotypical Black friends to visit from the city or the South and change the tenor of the safe haven that our neighbors had created for themselves, blocking out the discomfort that the civil rights movement was creating in other parts of the area. Their approach to our presence was to suggest, and then insist, on 100% assimilation. We were welcome as long as we were willing to leave our “Blackness” behind when we moved in.
Of course that didn’t really work. Both because we didn’t want to and probably because we couldn’t have authentically done so anyway. But that worked out better for the neighbors anyway because we all were enhanced and transformed by forced exposure to the ways of those we feared. We had a base of commonality (i.e. we both wanted the things that brought us to live in the same neighborhood) and that gave us a neutral zone from which to acknowledge, explore, and in some cases even appreciate, our differences.
I’d like to believe that this same sort of transformation was beginning to take place in Switzerland, and in other places, where people of different faith traditions are getting to know and appreciate each other as human beings vs. stereotypes. Perhaps that is why Mutalip Karaademi finally felt comfortable enough with his neighbors to request that a minaret be added to the local mosque.
But clearly his neighbors didn’t feel nearly as comfortable. And reaction of the Swiss people seems to send the message that Switzerland is and should be for the Swiss, and those who wish to re-create themselves in the Swiss image – the “right” image. And that is what I find frightening. Not just the lack of tolerance but the implication that assimilation is the gold standard – and those who can’t or won’t assimilate are the enemy.
What is my reaction to the vote in Switzerland? Sadness, disappointment and fear that somehow tolerance becomes redefined as “sameness” and fear of difference becomes a valid rationale for restriction of human and civil rights.
But also hope - based on the reaction of many in the international community to the vote. Perhaps this will just mark the painful beginning of a new phase of dialogue in the global community.
A. Sad. Disappointed. And a frankly, more than a little afraid. Ironically however my growing apprehension isn’t about the Muslims but rather about the Swiss people and more broadly, the re-emergence and validation of societal mob-action motivated by fear. The posters created by proponents of the ban are menacing – and to think that they are in reference to a prayer tower is absolutely terrifying to me as an example of propaganda created by leadership in a country that we normally think of as the poster child for tolerance.
As a Christian, upper middle class privileged American living in a predominantly White suburban neighborhood and working as a senior executive in a multi-billion dollar corporation, I can relate to the visceral fear that the close presence of a people that has publicly denied many of my cultural values evokes. When I’m at my best I see Muslims as my neighbors, but I’m always aware that there’s a strong underlying thread of difference between us and sometimes that difference has provoked “them” to violent actions against “us”. So if we’re all going to live together peaceably it seems reasonable that the best course is for them to minimize my discomfort with our differences by acting more like me – after all, if they came to live in my neighborhood I’m assuming that they like what we have to offer and they should work hard to fit in. Establishing architectural permanent markers of our differences, i.e. a minaret, is clearly contraindicated with assimilation from that perspective. And this is one of the arguments that the proponents of the ban persuasively made.
But then I recall childhood memories of when my family became the first African Americans to move into an all-White neighborhood in the far western Chicago suburbs in 1967. The fear of our soon-to-be neighbors was palatable. There were neighborhood meetings, some of which devolved into threats – and that was before we even physically had moved in and begun to make any changes to the property or entice our stereotypical Black friends to visit from the city or the South and change the tenor of the safe haven that our neighbors had created for themselves, blocking out the discomfort that the civil rights movement was creating in other parts of the area. Their approach to our presence was to suggest, and then insist, on 100% assimilation. We were welcome as long as we were willing to leave our “Blackness” behind when we moved in.
Of course that didn’t really work. Both because we didn’t want to and probably because we couldn’t have authentically done so anyway. But that worked out better for the neighbors anyway because we all were enhanced and transformed by forced exposure to the ways of those we feared. We had a base of commonality (i.e. we both wanted the things that brought us to live in the same neighborhood) and that gave us a neutral zone from which to acknowledge, explore, and in some cases even appreciate, our differences.
I’d like to believe that this same sort of transformation was beginning to take place in Switzerland, and in other places, where people of different faith traditions are getting to know and appreciate each other as human beings vs. stereotypes. Perhaps that is why Mutalip Karaademi finally felt comfortable enough with his neighbors to request that a minaret be added to the local mosque.
But clearly his neighbors didn’t feel nearly as comfortable. And reaction of the Swiss people seems to send the message that Switzerland is and should be for the Swiss, and those who wish to re-create themselves in the Swiss image – the “right” image. And that is what I find frightening. Not just the lack of tolerance but the implication that assimilation is the gold standard – and those who can’t or won’t assimilate are the enemy.
What is my reaction to the vote in Switzerland? Sadness, disappointment and fear that somehow tolerance becomes redefined as “sameness” and fear of difference becomes a valid rationale for restriction of human and civil rights.
But also hope - based on the reaction of many in the international community to the vote. Perhaps this will just mark the painful beginning of a new phase of dialogue in the global community.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Christmas is about the good news, not about being good
Q. What do you think of the American humanist association's new "godless holiday" campaign? The ads, displayed on transit systems in five major U.S cities, will say: "no god? . . . No problem! Be good for goodness'
sake. Humanism is the idea that you can be good without a belief in god." Another front in the so-called secular "war on Christmas"? Another example of the pluralistic strength of america? And would you agree with the premise, "no god, no problem"?
A. “He sees you when you’re sleeping, he knows when you’re awake. He knows if you’ve been bad or good so be good for goodness sake”.
This carol has been used for years to help motivate small children to good behavior during the holiday season so that they can win Santa’s favor. The point isn’t really to be “good for goodness sake” but rather to be good so that Santa will bring you the presents that you requested for Christmas. Bluntly put, it is an admonition to be good so that you can get what you want. Apparently goodness as its own reward is insufficient, particularly at this time of year when we’ve come to believe that the entire U.S. economy depends on the retail sales that we rack up between Black Friday and the start of the New Year.
That being said, it is hard to argue with anyone putting up signs in public places that remind humans to show more humanity to each other. The opportunities for people to be good are endless and universal – they aren’t confined to one particular time of year or people with one particular set of beliefs. I don’t believe that you have to believe in God in order to be good. I’m not even sure that it always makes it any easier to be good.
But I am 100% sure that believing in God is about more than just being good. And Christmas is about more than being good so that you can get more stuff. It is a birthday celebration for the one who came to bring the world good news so that we might have everlasting life if we believe – arguably the best present anyone could ever offer you.
Ironically this good news comes with a cost however. First you have to believe. But that’s only part of it. You have to actually follow the rules of the faith and act on those beliefs. The two most important rules are to love God with all your heart and to love your neighbor as yourself. Certainly being good is one way of demonstrating your faith and your love, of God and neighbor, but it’s only a start. In addition to being good Christians are called to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, provide shelter for the homeless and affordable healthcare for the sick – and perhaps the hardest one, love your enemies.
Simply “being good” would certainly be a lot easier. But not nearly as rewarding.
sake. Humanism is the idea that you can be good without a belief in god." Another front in the so-called secular "war on Christmas"? Another example of the pluralistic strength of america? And would you agree with the premise, "no god, no problem"?
A. “He sees you when you’re sleeping, he knows when you’re awake. He knows if you’ve been bad or good so be good for goodness sake”.
This carol has been used for years to help motivate small children to good behavior during the holiday season so that they can win Santa’s favor. The point isn’t really to be “good for goodness sake” but rather to be good so that Santa will bring you the presents that you requested for Christmas. Bluntly put, it is an admonition to be good so that you can get what you want. Apparently goodness as its own reward is insufficient, particularly at this time of year when we’ve come to believe that the entire U.S. economy depends on the retail sales that we rack up between Black Friday and the start of the New Year.
That being said, it is hard to argue with anyone putting up signs in public places that remind humans to show more humanity to each other. The opportunities for people to be good are endless and universal – they aren’t confined to one particular time of year or people with one particular set of beliefs. I don’t believe that you have to believe in God in order to be good. I’m not even sure that it always makes it any easier to be good.
But I am 100% sure that believing in God is about more than just being good. And Christmas is about more than being good so that you can get more stuff. It is a birthday celebration for the one who came to bring the world good news so that we might have everlasting life if we believe – arguably the best present anyone could ever offer you.
Ironically this good news comes with a cost however. First you have to believe. But that’s only part of it. You have to actually follow the rules of the faith and act on those beliefs. The two most important rules are to love God with all your heart and to love your neighbor as yourself. Certainly being good is one way of demonstrating your faith and your love, of God and neighbor, but it’s only a start. In addition to being good Christians are called to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, provide shelter for the homeless and affordable healthcare for the sick – and perhaps the hardest one, love your enemies.
Simply “being good” would certainly be a lot easier. But not nearly as rewarding.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Religion isn't above the law
U.S. Catholic bishops are defending their direct involvement in congressional deliberations over health-care reform, saying that church leaders have a duty to raise moral concerns on any issue, including abortion rights and health care for the poor. Do you agree? What role should religious leaders have -- or not have -- in government policymaking?
When issues of morality come up, religious leaders are often looked to as the experts. We somehow sense that they have a better grasp on right vs. wrong than the common man or woman, perhaps because they’ve spent more time studying the rules (in the Bible, Torah or Koran).
We often turn to them on questions of individual ethics so it makes sense that as a country we also look for their guidance on questions of national policy. And as leaders I would agree that they have a duty to raise moral concerns even when they aren’t asked if they feel that it is a major issue that could impact a significant number of people.
However their moral authority doesn’t give them carte blanche in terms of how they raise these issues. It’s one thing to exercise their freedom of speech on their home turf – in their churches, among their community of parishioners, at town hall meetings as concerned community leaders. But if they cross the line between clergy and lobbyist, new rules will – and should – apply.
The laws governing behavior, taxing and reporting for lobbyists are different from those governing non-profit religious organizations because presumably the primary objectives of each are different. It would appear that the rules regarding lobbyists were intended to give transparency to the process and safeguard the broader interests of the American public. If the Bishops want to follow their moral argument all the way to the floor of Congress that’s great, but at some point they then need to stop hiding behind the veil of the church (and the tax breaks that come with being a church) and join the other lobbyists in following the rules.
Christian religious leaders, including the Catholic bishops, are called to engage and provide thought leadership on the critical moral issues of their time. Jesus set this example with his teachings which profoundly challenged the political status quo 2000 years ago. From the synagogues and the streets he preached a message that inspired the people to question their political system and ethics. In the end his message was so effective that it led to charges of treason from the government. All this without ever going to Rome and speaking on the senate floor!
The Catholic Bishops, and all other religious leaders are certainly called to raise the moral and ethical questions that we should be attending to as a nation. The question is not “should they” but “how should they”.
When issues of morality come up, religious leaders are often looked to as the experts. We somehow sense that they have a better grasp on right vs. wrong than the common man or woman, perhaps because they’ve spent more time studying the rules (in the Bible, Torah or Koran).
We often turn to them on questions of individual ethics so it makes sense that as a country we also look for their guidance on questions of national policy. And as leaders I would agree that they have a duty to raise moral concerns even when they aren’t asked if they feel that it is a major issue that could impact a significant number of people.
However their moral authority doesn’t give them carte blanche in terms of how they raise these issues. It’s one thing to exercise their freedom of speech on their home turf – in their churches, among their community of parishioners, at town hall meetings as concerned community leaders. But if they cross the line between clergy and lobbyist, new rules will – and should – apply.
The laws governing behavior, taxing and reporting for lobbyists are different from those governing non-profit religious organizations because presumably the primary objectives of each are different. It would appear that the rules regarding lobbyists were intended to give transparency to the process and safeguard the broader interests of the American public. If the Bishops want to follow their moral argument all the way to the floor of Congress that’s great, but at some point they then need to stop hiding behind the veil of the church (and the tax breaks that come with being a church) and join the other lobbyists in following the rules.
Christian religious leaders, including the Catholic bishops, are called to engage and provide thought leadership on the critical moral issues of their time. Jesus set this example with his teachings which profoundly challenged the political status quo 2000 years ago. From the synagogues and the streets he preached a message that inspired the people to question their political system and ethics. In the end his message was so effective that it led to charges of treason from the government. All this without ever going to Rome and speaking on the senate floor!
The Catholic Bishops, and all other religious leaders are certainly called to raise the moral and ethical questions that we should be attending to as a nation. The question is not “should they” but “how should they”.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
A New Type of National Security Concern
For most of us Thanksgiving is a holiday that is as much focused on eating as it is giving thanks. Because it isn't a religious holiday there's no devotional books or pagents to get ready for. Nor candy and costumes to buy, presents to wrap, or frankly parties to go to. It is really all centered on the big meal - what to serve, where to eat, who to invite to dinner. And boy do we eat! In many cases limiting our calories on the days leading up to it so that we can feel free to eat with abandon and no guilt.
But according to the USDA there are at least 17 million households in the US who are suffering from "food insecurity" who probably are thinking about Thanksgiving this year in a very different light. This number represents a 31% increase vs. just last year, caused by a combination of soaring food prices and global recession that has left many unemployed or underemployed. The recent survey suggests that almost 15% of U.S. households had trouble putting enough food on their table which means about 49 million people, including 17 million children, worried about getting enough to eat last year. Thanks goodness many were able to access federal nutrition programs, like food stamps, free-lunch programs in schools, and local food pantries. But at least one-third are estimated to have experienced real hunger - their insecurity about ability to get food was realized and they didn't get enough.
Amazing that in this country where we have so much, and in fact, are using more than our fair share of the entire world's resources, we still have so many people who don't know exactly where their next meal will come from, or even when it will come. They go to sleep at night not worrying about border control or foreign terrorists but rather asking, when will my neighbor care for me as they care for themselves?
What if we took food insecurity as serious as we take other forms of national security? What would that mean for the way we allocate our tax dollars and the standards to which we'd hold our local and national politicians? Donating to food pantries is certainly an important form of aid but its far from a solution to such a systemic problem. We have to continue to support, fund and as appropriate, expand the federal and state programs that provide food to those living in this country that need it.
So as we sit down to our Thanksgiving feasts this Thursday let us pause to give thanks that we live in a country that has such abundance that we can peacefully enjoy our annual food extravaganza with family and friends, and that while we have neighbors that are not always so fortunate we are thankful that we have the power to change that - through how we vote, how we contribute our money and how we volunteer our time. And then let's do it!
But according to the USDA there are at least 17 million households in the US who are suffering from "food insecurity" who probably are thinking about Thanksgiving this year in a very different light. This number represents a 31% increase vs. just last year, caused by a combination of soaring food prices and global recession that has left many unemployed or underemployed. The recent survey suggests that almost 15% of U.S. households had trouble putting enough food on their table which means about 49 million people, including 17 million children, worried about getting enough to eat last year. Thanks goodness many were able to access federal nutrition programs, like food stamps, free-lunch programs in schools, and local food pantries. But at least one-third are estimated to have experienced real hunger - their insecurity about ability to get food was realized and they didn't get enough.
Amazing that in this country where we have so much, and in fact, are using more than our fair share of the entire world's resources, we still have so many people who don't know exactly where their next meal will come from, or even when it will come. They go to sleep at night not worrying about border control or foreign terrorists but rather asking, when will my neighbor care for me as they care for themselves?
What if we took food insecurity as serious as we take other forms of national security? What would that mean for the way we allocate our tax dollars and the standards to which we'd hold our local and national politicians? Donating to food pantries is certainly an important form of aid but its far from a solution to such a systemic problem. We have to continue to support, fund and as appropriate, expand the federal and state programs that provide food to those living in this country that need it.
So as we sit down to our Thanksgiving feasts this Thursday let us pause to give thanks that we live in a country that has such abundance that we can peacefully enjoy our annual food extravaganza with family and friends, and that while we have neighbors that are not always so fortunate we are thankful that we have the power to change that - through how we vote, how we contribute our money and how we volunteer our time. And then let's do it!
Community trust trumps individual faith
Q. The Fort Hood shootings have raised questions again about how the military should handle the personal religious beliefs of its soldiers, whether they are evangelical Christians, Muslims, Wiccans, and so on. What is the proper role of religion -- and personal religious belief -- in the U.S. armed forces? Should a particular religious affiliation disqualify someone from active military service? How far should the military go to accommodate personal religious beliefs and practices?
A. Religion has a role wherever matters of life and death are present, and that certainly describes military service. All members of the armed services, both those that expect to see active duty and those that serve in staff roles that are far from the front lines, have to realize that the possibility of death is their constant companion. For those of faith, their religious doctrine and spiritual disciplines provide wingman-like support as they head into daily battle.
Accommodating the religious beliefs and practices of those in the military within reason is a sound management practice because it can provide a coping mechanism that helps make sense of the insanity of war. Priests, pastors, clerics and rabbis play a unique role in times of crisis by helping to put the violence, loss and anger into a larger framework with a purpose that is more enduring than the immediate pain. They are some of the resources that can facilitate a “normal” life on base after a day of fighting in the field. The benefits they provide have the potential to enhance life for the whole community simply by tending to the spiritual needs of the individual.
But what defines “within reason”? I would argue that it is anything that aligns with the objectives above, i.e. providing the resources and accommodations required to address the spiritual needs of the individuals in order to make a positive impact on the military community as a whole. That would include the presence of religious leadership, conduct of regular worship activities, celebration of key religious holidays, and accommodations for special dietary practices that are motivated by religious beliefs. However accommodations that privilege one religious sect over another or feed historic tensions between the religions are not “within reason” because in this type of life or death context, the building up of the community must take priority over the building up of the individual. To be effective against the enemy, the enemy must be external – not within. The ability to have faith in and trust ones fellow soldiers is a critical enabler in an effective military; perhaps even more important for some than faith in a higher power.
As long as a soldier can demonstrate that his/her religious beliefs align with and support the goals of the larger military community they should be allowed to serve in active duty. However if there is any evidence that the impact of their religious beliefs will prevent them from full participation in achieving the collective mission of the community then they should be excluded for the safety of all involved. In this case the needs of the whole have to take priority over the desires of the individual as a sign of respect for the willingness of those in the military to make the ultimate sacrifice for their fellow countrymen and women.
A. Religion has a role wherever matters of life and death are present, and that certainly describes military service. All members of the armed services, both those that expect to see active duty and those that serve in staff roles that are far from the front lines, have to realize that the possibility of death is their constant companion. For those of faith, their religious doctrine and spiritual disciplines provide wingman-like support as they head into daily battle.
Accommodating the religious beliefs and practices of those in the military within reason is a sound management practice because it can provide a coping mechanism that helps make sense of the insanity of war. Priests, pastors, clerics and rabbis play a unique role in times of crisis by helping to put the violence, loss and anger into a larger framework with a purpose that is more enduring than the immediate pain. They are some of the resources that can facilitate a “normal” life on base after a day of fighting in the field. The benefits they provide have the potential to enhance life for the whole community simply by tending to the spiritual needs of the individual.
But what defines “within reason”? I would argue that it is anything that aligns with the objectives above, i.e. providing the resources and accommodations required to address the spiritual needs of the individuals in order to make a positive impact on the military community as a whole. That would include the presence of religious leadership, conduct of regular worship activities, celebration of key religious holidays, and accommodations for special dietary practices that are motivated by religious beliefs. However accommodations that privilege one religious sect over another or feed historic tensions between the religions are not “within reason” because in this type of life or death context, the building up of the community must take priority over the building up of the individual. To be effective against the enemy, the enemy must be external – not within. The ability to have faith in and trust ones fellow soldiers is a critical enabler in an effective military; perhaps even more important for some than faith in a higher power.
As long as a soldier can demonstrate that his/her religious beliefs align with and support the goals of the larger military community they should be allowed to serve in active duty. However if there is any evidence that the impact of their religious beliefs will prevent them from full participation in achieving the collective mission of the community then they should be excluded for the safety of all involved. In this case the needs of the whole have to take priority over the desires of the individual as a sign of respect for the willingness of those in the military to make the ultimate sacrifice for their fellow countrymen and women.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
A "Good Death"
Proposed health-care reform legislation includes a provision that allows Medicare to pay for "end-of-life" counseling for seniors and their families who request it. The provision -- which Sarah Palin erroneously described as "death panels" for seniors -- nearly derailed President Obama's health-care initiative. Some Republicans still argue that the provision would ration health care for the elderly. Does end-of-life care prolong life or does it prolong suffering? Should it be a part of health-care reform?
A “good death” sounds like the ultimate oxymoron but I can say that I’ve personally witnessed a few as a student chaplain in a hospital. Two stand out in particular. In one case the patient was a woman nearly 100 years old but in relatively good health given her age. In fact the only thing really wrong with her was that she was old, but that was enough. The end was around the corner and the patient was ready, although her family was not. As she explained to me, she was tired and wanted to use the last bit of energy she could muster to make sure that her wishes were followed, despite the fact that they might well contradict the wishes of her beloved family. She was ready to go and she wanted end-of-life counseling for her children and grandchildren to help them let her go peacefully. She had lived a good life and now wanted a good death.
The other case was much tougher because it was a trauma patient who had been in a car accident and suffered severe injuries which would likely eventually prove fatal. The patient had not been at all prepared for death and therefore had expressed no wishes, and his wife was at a complete loss as to what do next. Thanks to modern medical technology he did not appear to be suffering but his state of existence could hardly be called living. And his wife was clearly suffering. The doctors quoted medical statistics that gave only infinitesimal chances for him regaining consciousness and no hope of him ever being able to return to any semblance of “a normal life”. End-of-life counseling helped his wife thoughtfully, and prayerfully, discern how he would want to die based on how he had tried to live. She was empowered to help create the type of death that he might have defined as “good”.
Death is a natural phase of life, and therefore should be naturally addressed as a part of healthcare. There are often not many choices in death, but end-of-life counseling and care does offer one way to help take some of the sting out of the experience for all affected, and give them one last choice. The definition of a “good death” is individual and subjective; historically those with money had an advantage in trying to create a good death, much as they had an advantage in creating a good life. Healthcare reform can and should bring that option to more people by provides end-of-life care options for all.
A “good death” sounds like the ultimate oxymoron but I can say that I’ve personally witnessed a few as a student chaplain in a hospital. Two stand out in particular. In one case the patient was a woman nearly 100 years old but in relatively good health given her age. In fact the only thing really wrong with her was that she was old, but that was enough. The end was around the corner and the patient was ready, although her family was not. As she explained to me, she was tired and wanted to use the last bit of energy she could muster to make sure that her wishes were followed, despite the fact that they might well contradict the wishes of her beloved family. She was ready to go and she wanted end-of-life counseling for her children and grandchildren to help them let her go peacefully. She had lived a good life and now wanted a good death.
The other case was much tougher because it was a trauma patient who had been in a car accident and suffered severe injuries which would likely eventually prove fatal. The patient had not been at all prepared for death and therefore had expressed no wishes, and his wife was at a complete loss as to what do next. Thanks to modern medical technology he did not appear to be suffering but his state of existence could hardly be called living. And his wife was clearly suffering. The doctors quoted medical statistics that gave only infinitesimal chances for him regaining consciousness and no hope of him ever being able to return to any semblance of “a normal life”. End-of-life counseling helped his wife thoughtfully, and prayerfully, discern how he would want to die based on how he had tried to live. She was empowered to help create the type of death that he might have defined as “good”.
Death is a natural phase of life, and therefore should be naturally addressed as a part of healthcare. There are often not many choices in death, but end-of-life counseling and care does offer one way to help take some of the sting out of the experience for all affected, and give them one last choice. The definition of a “good death” is individual and subjective; historically those with money had an advantage in trying to create a good death, much as they had an advantage in creating a good life. Healthcare reform can and should bring that option to more people by provides end-of-life care options for all.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
why bother to be good?
Most of us like to think that we do the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do. But how do we know what is right? Last week's Washington Post question hypothesized that our sense of right and wrong comes from our understanding of God. As I've been thinking about it more this week, I have decided I disagree. I think our sense of right and wrong is more connected to our beliefs about what we can get away with than they are our desire to do what is right in the sight of God.
As Christians we're at least somewhat familiar with the 10 Commandments, the Greatest Commandment (love God with all your heart, mind and soul and your neighbor as yourself), and the stories of how God disciplined/destroyed those who did evil (i.e. wrong) in His sight. And as citizens we're at least somewhat familiar with civil law and the penalties that go with breaking the law. Yet as I've been observing human behavior this past week I've become pretty convinced that our knowledge of these commandments and laws isn't really the primary driver of our day-to-day behavior. We know it is wrong to lie, yet we tell "little white lies" because it just makes life easier sometimes. We know we're supposed to love our neighbor but we don't give the panhandler money because we're not sure he's going to really use it for food instead of liquor. And we know that we're not supposed to drive over the speed limit/when tired/while talking on our cell phone/after having two beers but we do because "everyone does it". And frankly, we don't think we'll get caught.
Our sense of right and wrong may come from God but our good behavior pushes the limits of bad - because sometimes being good is inconvenient, costly, more work, etc. When the advantages to us are clear, when it takes no extra effort, and when we're afraid that we'll be punished for being bad, then we are good. The advantages to being good can take many forms - praise from parents/teachers, popularity with peers, external admiration, internal satisfaction of making someone else happy etc. Somewhere on that list is hopefully an understanding that being good is pleasing to God but I suspect it isn't top of mind.
Therefore my observations this week affirmed my post last week. An understanding of God and religion is not a prerequisite for goodness. It doesn't hurt - but it also provides no guarantee.
As Christians we're at least somewhat familiar with the 10 Commandments, the Greatest Commandment (love God with all your heart, mind and soul and your neighbor as yourself), and the stories of how God disciplined/destroyed those who did evil (i.e. wrong) in His sight. And as citizens we're at least somewhat familiar with civil law and the penalties that go with breaking the law. Yet as I've been observing human behavior this past week I've become pretty convinced that our knowledge of these commandments and laws isn't really the primary driver of our day-to-day behavior. We know it is wrong to lie, yet we tell "little white lies" because it just makes life easier sometimes. We know we're supposed to love our neighbor but we don't give the panhandler money because we're not sure he's going to really use it for food instead of liquor. And we know that we're not supposed to drive over the speed limit/when tired/while talking on our cell phone/after having two beers but we do because "everyone does it". And frankly, we don't think we'll get caught.
Our sense of right and wrong may come from God but our good behavior pushes the limits of bad - because sometimes being good is inconvenient, costly, more work, etc. When the advantages to us are clear, when it takes no extra effort, and when we're afraid that we'll be punished for being bad, then we are good. The advantages to being good can take many forms - praise from parents/teachers, popularity with peers, external admiration, internal satisfaction of making someone else happy etc. Somewhere on that list is hopefully an understanding that being good is pleasing to God but I suspect it isn't top of mind.
Therefore my observations this week affirmed my post last week. An understanding of God and religion is not a prerequisite for goodness. It doesn't hurt - but it also provides no guarantee.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
God doesn't have a monopoly on goodness
--Is there good without God? Can people be good without God? How can people be good, in the moral and ethical sense, without being grounded in some sort of belief in a being which is greater than they are? Where do concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, come from if not from religion? From where do you get your sense of good and evil, right and wrong?
God certainly is good, however all things good don’t necessarily find their roots in God. Our physical existence enables us to experience the world through our senses and to declare at a very visceral level that some things are good simply because they make us feel good. There is a cause and effect to good and evil, right and wrong, that doesn’t require an understanding of God in order to fully appreciate the differences between the two. We’ve rather successfully taught our excitable young dog right from wrong but we’ve made much less progress on developing his concept of the divine!
However beyond the personal definition and experience of good and evil there is the community experience which actually shapes a significant portion of our moral and ethical perspective. Our morals and ethics are grounded in a belief in some “thing” greater than we are, but that “thing” can be the family we grew up in, the neighborhood we live in, the city we vote in, etc. It doesn’t necessarily have to be God.
The community craves good and employs strategies to increase the common good, including punishing those who behave in ways that are harmful to the community. The community to which we belong shapes our sense of right vs. wrong – and they let us know in no uncertain terms where the boundaries are. And just as an individual can physically experience good and evil, so can the community in the form of uncontrollable, unexplainable human or “natural” events. When these uncontrollable events are bad we tend to label them as “evil” and to seek a place to lay the blame. In my experience we are very happy to take all the credit for good but then to look outside the community to identify the source of evil.
And this is where religion and God often enter the picture. In seeking to explain the unexplainable suffering and hardship that will eventually occur in any community we name God as the one with enough power to have caused this tragedy – and then look at each other to figure out what someone among us did to incur God’s wrath. The witch hunt for the agent of evil begins. But that doesn’t make good and evil a religious issue but rather we turn to religion to help make sense of the evil in particular that we observe in the world.
God certainly is good, however all things good don’t necessarily find their roots in God. Our physical existence enables us to experience the world through our senses and to declare at a very visceral level that some things are good simply because they make us feel good. There is a cause and effect to good and evil, right and wrong, that doesn’t require an understanding of God in order to fully appreciate the differences between the two. We’ve rather successfully taught our excitable young dog right from wrong but we’ve made much less progress on developing his concept of the divine!
However beyond the personal definition and experience of good and evil there is the community experience which actually shapes a significant portion of our moral and ethical perspective. Our morals and ethics are grounded in a belief in some “thing” greater than we are, but that “thing” can be the family we grew up in, the neighborhood we live in, the city we vote in, etc. It doesn’t necessarily have to be God.
The community craves good and employs strategies to increase the common good, including punishing those who behave in ways that are harmful to the community. The community to which we belong shapes our sense of right vs. wrong – and they let us know in no uncertain terms where the boundaries are. And just as an individual can physically experience good and evil, so can the community in the form of uncontrollable, unexplainable human or “natural” events. When these uncontrollable events are bad we tend to label them as “evil” and to seek a place to lay the blame. In my experience we are very happy to take all the credit for good but then to look outside the community to identify the source of evil.
And this is where religion and God often enter the picture. In seeking to explain the unexplainable suffering and hardship that will eventually occur in any community we name God as the one with enough power to have caused this tragedy – and then look at each other to figure out what someone among us did to incur God’s wrath. The witch hunt for the agent of evil begins. But that doesn’t make good and evil a religious issue but rather we turn to religion to help make sense of the evil in particular that we observe in the world.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
wanted: hope for the middle class
I've been reading a lot about the plight of the poor in a class on Theology of Hope, and I've got to tell you, it's getting harder and harder to find hope the more that I read. But the interesting thing is that it is relatively easy to find hope among the poor. After all, in many cases just surviving another day is something to be thankful for and inspires them to hope for a better tomorrow. The bigger challenge is for me to find hope for the "haves", i.e. the non-poor.
Who would have thought that those of us who are fortunate enough to have more than we need would find ourselves in need of hope? We just expect that tomorrow will be better than today - hope actually doesn't play into the picture because we have something better. We have 'certainty'. And what makes us so certain? Well in some cases it is because prosperity is all we've ever known so we just expect it to continue and don't even recognize how lucky we are. But in many cases we feel that we've gotten what we have through the sweat of our brow, and as long as we continue to put forth the effort we'll get the reward we deserve. So we don't need to hope because we're in control.
But what about when we're not in control? When jobs are lost due to the larger economy. Or health fails and there doesn't appear to be a way to stave off the death that we all logically know will come someday but we're emotionally unprepared for on this day. Will our "hope muscles" be strong enough to keep us going or will we simply fall into despair. Has our belief in self-reliance diminished our capacity to hope in something larger than ourselves?
I wonder about this when I see the resiliance of spirit among poor people who've suffered great tragedy and compare it to the tendency of millenials to become nearly clinically depressed at the thought of their vacation benefits being reduced from 4 to 3 weeks per year. Or getting a "c" on a paper conjures up thoughts of suicide for a well-heeled high school student who's feeling peer and parental pressure to succeed.
I'm not suggesting that we measure the problems of the middle class against those of the poor, but rather that perhaps the middle class can learn something from the poor about faith and hope in something beyond themselves as individuals. Because if you live long enough eventually you'll be confronted by seriously bad news that is beyond your control, and the capacity to hope will be the only source you can tap into for a solution.
Who would have thought that those of us who are fortunate enough to have more than we need would find ourselves in need of hope? We just expect that tomorrow will be better than today - hope actually doesn't play into the picture because we have something better. We have 'certainty'. And what makes us so certain? Well in some cases it is because prosperity is all we've ever known so we just expect it to continue and don't even recognize how lucky we are. But in many cases we feel that we've gotten what we have through the sweat of our brow, and as long as we continue to put forth the effort we'll get the reward we deserve. So we don't need to hope because we're in control.
But what about when we're not in control? When jobs are lost due to the larger economy. Or health fails and there doesn't appear to be a way to stave off the death that we all logically know will come someday but we're emotionally unprepared for on this day. Will our "hope muscles" be strong enough to keep us going or will we simply fall into despair. Has our belief in self-reliance diminished our capacity to hope in something larger than ourselves?
I wonder about this when I see the resiliance of spirit among poor people who've suffered great tragedy and compare it to the tendency of millenials to become nearly clinically depressed at the thought of their vacation benefits being reduced from 4 to 3 weeks per year. Or getting a "c" on a paper conjures up thoughts of suicide for a well-heeled high school student who's feeling peer and parental pressure to succeed.
I'm not suggesting that we measure the problems of the middle class against those of the poor, but rather that perhaps the middle class can learn something from the poor about faith and hope in something beyond themselves as individuals. Because if you live long enough eventually you'll be confronted by seriously bad news that is beyond your control, and the capacity to hope will be the only source you can tap into for a solution.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Hate has the power to transform violent crime into domestic terrorism
Congress is expected to expand federal hate crimes laws to add "sexual orientation" to a list that already includes "race, color, religion or national origin." Is this necessary? Should there be special laws against crimes motivated by intolerance, bigotry and hatred? Isn't a crime a crime?
A crime is more than just a crime when it impacts not just the immediate victim but also contributes to a reign of terror meant to keep an entire group of people “in their place”. All violent crimes are tragic and should be punished. But hate crimes are a special category of crime. “Hate” is the ultimate enemy of “love”, the greatest commandment, and so it deserves the greatest punishment.
A hate crime is defined as a traditional violent crime with a twist of bias. Hate itself is not the crime, although it is presumed to be the motivation for the crime and a sin. The crime is the violation of the person’s human rights and the civil rights of the group to which they belong. This type of crime is obviously meant to harm the individual who is the object of the violence, but in addition it is meant to send a signal to the group about their place in society and the consequences of being different. It is meant to be a threat, a form of terror.
Ironic that the U.S. government has been able to garner support for a war on terror against the U.S., however it has taken many years and the overcoming of significant political and religious leader opposition to pass a bill to combat domestic terrorism! Even more surprising is the reason often cited for the opposition – because there is concern that “hate” may become illegal under the guise of curtailing freedom of speech.
These leaders have no reason to fear for their rights, although they might want to pause to consider the risk to their souls. It’s not a hate crime until there’s an actual crime and at that point it is our obligation to protect those who are most different from us from being terrorized simply because they are different. We don’t have to agree with them or even like them but they are our neighbor. Like it or not, most hate crimes are perpetuated by Americans on other Americans. We would never stand for such behavior from an external threat to our wellbeing and we should be just a vigorous in our defense of “the other” that is treated as an outsider within our own community. They are our neighbors. We are called to love and care for them as ourselves. Because they are us.
A crime is more than just a crime when it impacts not just the immediate victim but also contributes to a reign of terror meant to keep an entire group of people “in their place”. All violent crimes are tragic and should be punished. But hate crimes are a special category of crime. “Hate” is the ultimate enemy of “love”, the greatest commandment, and so it deserves the greatest punishment.
A hate crime is defined as a traditional violent crime with a twist of bias. Hate itself is not the crime, although it is presumed to be the motivation for the crime and a sin. The crime is the violation of the person’s human rights and the civil rights of the group to which they belong. This type of crime is obviously meant to harm the individual who is the object of the violence, but in addition it is meant to send a signal to the group about their place in society and the consequences of being different. It is meant to be a threat, a form of terror.
Ironic that the U.S. government has been able to garner support for a war on terror against the U.S., however it has taken many years and the overcoming of significant political and religious leader opposition to pass a bill to combat domestic terrorism! Even more surprising is the reason often cited for the opposition – because there is concern that “hate” may become illegal under the guise of curtailing freedom of speech.
These leaders have no reason to fear for their rights, although they might want to pause to consider the risk to their souls. It’s not a hate crime until there’s an actual crime and at that point it is our obligation to protect those who are most different from us from being terrorized simply because they are different. We don’t have to agree with them or even like them but they are our neighbor. Like it or not, most hate crimes are perpetuated by Americans on other Americans. We would never stand for such behavior from an external threat to our wellbeing and we should be just a vigorous in our defense of “the other” that is treated as an outsider within our own community. They are our neighbors. We are called to love and care for them as ourselves. Because they are us.
Monday, October 19, 2009
In this case, being a doubting Thomas could be fatal
Q. Polls show a majority of Americans are concerned about the H1N1 virus (swine flu), but also about the safety and efficacy of the swine flu vaccine. Is it ethical to say no to this or any vaccine? Are there valid religious reasons to accept or decline a vaccine? Will you get a swine flu shot? Will your children?
Concerns about whether or not to get the swine flu vaccine all come down to a matter of trust. Do you believe the government when “they” say that the swine flu is deadly? When “they” brand it a pandemic? When “they” say that the vaccine is safe? Or are you waiting for proof that you can see for yourself – to physically witness the serious illness of an acquaintance, a friend, a loved one. Or maybe even to feel it in your own body when you yourself catch the virus. Without visible proof it seems quite rational to doubt that all the hoopla is necessary. But unfortunately in this case, waiting for that type of proof risks putting you and others in life-threatening danger. It is selfish, irresponsible and unethical.
Skepticism about the severity of the H1N1 flu is a key contributor to the public’s ambivalence about getting the vaccine. Health experts readily admit that for most, the illness does not present a serious threat. However some become so ill that they need to be treated in intensive care – in fact that is the fate of one in four Americans who were hospitalized with swine flu. And then there are those that die. Children seem to be at particular risk of dying. The new H1N1 virus caused the death of 19 children and teenagers last week alone, pushing the number of fatalities in 2009 to 76. Seasonal flu typically claims the lives of 46-88 children per year so we’re running way ahead of schedule given that we’re just at the beginning of this flu season. Pregnant women and those inflicted with other health problems, e.g. diabetes, asthma, muscular dystrophy, cerebral palsy, etc. are also among those who are more likely to suffer serious consequences from catching this virus. Truly it is the most vulnerable in our population who need to be protected the most –both by receiving the vaccination directly and by those of us who are more fortunate taking the appropriate precautions to avoid transmitting the virus to them. Our moral responsibility is to care for them by doing what we can to prevent infecting them. There are also concerns about the safety of the vaccine, but experts tell us that these fears are unfounded and point to statistics that show this is much safer than the last swine flu vaccine and on par with the seasonal flu vaccine in terms of potential side effects.
But for about 60% of Americans, this proof of the potentially deadly effects of H1N1 just doesn’t seem to be enough to convince them to get the vaccination. These statistics are reported in the media, which is generally perceived as a reliable source, but in this case it just isn’t enough. Similar to the reports of the sighting of a risen Jesus that Thomas received from his good friends, the other disciples, the fact that the proof is being provided by a normally trustworthy source sometimes just isn’t enough for everyone. In the case of Thomas this makes some sense. It takes a huge leap of faith to believe that someone who was clearly dead is now clearly alive again. So one can’t blame Thomas for demanding physical proof before believing this seemingly outrageous tale. But believing that the swine flu can kill you simply isn’t that outrageous, especially when it has already become accepted knowledge that the seasonal flu can kill you. So what else might be behind the current unhealthy skepticism of the H1N1 vaccine?
I suspect that the skepticism about the vaccine is rooted in skepticism about the government’s enthusiasm for trying to get as many American’s vaccinated as humanly possible. This has been portrayed as the government’s vaccination plan. Not only is the government racing to get the vaccine ready and shipped out to a location near you, they are also subsidizing the cost of immunization. It is a voluntary program but via the public service announcements, the media appearances by members of the CDC and the federal governments pledge to buy enough vaccine to vaccinate everyone in the country if there is sufficient demand, it is hard not to feel coerced. It can start to feel a lot like we’re standing at the top of the slippery slope of socialized medicine, and given the current debate over healthcare reform that image evokes concerns that are much scarier to some than getting a bad case of the flu. One may begin to doubt that all this hoopla is about the H1N1 virus but rather it could be a leading edge example of increasing government involvement in private healthcare.
Whether that hypothesis is true or not, the unfortunate reality is that when it comes to dealing with at highly contagious and potentially lethal virus, doubting can become deadly. For you and for others that you come into contact with. Everyone in my family will get the vaccine, i.e. me, my husband, and my three children. For our protection and for the protection of those we knowingly interact with and unknowingly come into contact with. Because it is the right moral choice for the common good.
Concerns about whether or not to get the swine flu vaccine all come down to a matter of trust. Do you believe the government when “they” say that the swine flu is deadly? When “they” brand it a pandemic? When “they” say that the vaccine is safe? Or are you waiting for proof that you can see for yourself – to physically witness the serious illness of an acquaintance, a friend, a loved one. Or maybe even to feel it in your own body when you yourself catch the virus. Without visible proof it seems quite rational to doubt that all the hoopla is necessary. But unfortunately in this case, waiting for that type of proof risks putting you and others in life-threatening danger. It is selfish, irresponsible and unethical.
Skepticism about the severity of the H1N1 flu is a key contributor to the public’s ambivalence about getting the vaccine. Health experts readily admit that for most, the illness does not present a serious threat. However some become so ill that they need to be treated in intensive care – in fact that is the fate of one in four Americans who were hospitalized with swine flu. And then there are those that die. Children seem to be at particular risk of dying. The new H1N1 virus caused the death of 19 children and teenagers last week alone, pushing the number of fatalities in 2009 to 76. Seasonal flu typically claims the lives of 46-88 children per year so we’re running way ahead of schedule given that we’re just at the beginning of this flu season. Pregnant women and those inflicted with other health problems, e.g. diabetes, asthma, muscular dystrophy, cerebral palsy, etc. are also among those who are more likely to suffer serious consequences from catching this virus. Truly it is the most vulnerable in our population who need to be protected the most –both by receiving the vaccination directly and by those of us who are more fortunate taking the appropriate precautions to avoid transmitting the virus to them. Our moral responsibility is to care for them by doing what we can to prevent infecting them. There are also concerns about the safety of the vaccine, but experts tell us that these fears are unfounded and point to statistics that show this is much safer than the last swine flu vaccine and on par with the seasonal flu vaccine in terms of potential side effects.
But for about 60% of Americans, this proof of the potentially deadly effects of H1N1 just doesn’t seem to be enough to convince them to get the vaccination. These statistics are reported in the media, which is generally perceived as a reliable source, but in this case it just isn’t enough. Similar to the reports of the sighting of a risen Jesus that Thomas received from his good friends, the other disciples, the fact that the proof is being provided by a normally trustworthy source sometimes just isn’t enough for everyone. In the case of Thomas this makes some sense. It takes a huge leap of faith to believe that someone who was clearly dead is now clearly alive again. So one can’t blame Thomas for demanding physical proof before believing this seemingly outrageous tale. But believing that the swine flu can kill you simply isn’t that outrageous, especially when it has already become accepted knowledge that the seasonal flu can kill you. So what else might be behind the current unhealthy skepticism of the H1N1 vaccine?
I suspect that the skepticism about the vaccine is rooted in skepticism about the government’s enthusiasm for trying to get as many American’s vaccinated as humanly possible. This has been portrayed as the government’s vaccination plan. Not only is the government racing to get the vaccine ready and shipped out to a location near you, they are also subsidizing the cost of immunization. It is a voluntary program but via the public service announcements, the media appearances by members of the CDC and the federal governments pledge to buy enough vaccine to vaccinate everyone in the country if there is sufficient demand, it is hard not to feel coerced. It can start to feel a lot like we’re standing at the top of the slippery slope of socialized medicine, and given the current debate over healthcare reform that image evokes concerns that are much scarier to some than getting a bad case of the flu. One may begin to doubt that all this hoopla is about the H1N1 virus but rather it could be a leading edge example of increasing government involvement in private healthcare.
Whether that hypothesis is true or not, the unfortunate reality is that when it comes to dealing with at highly contagious and potentially lethal virus, doubting can become deadly. For you and for others that you come into contact with. Everyone in my family will get the vaccine, i.e. me, my husband, and my three children. For our protection and for the protection of those we knowingly interact with and unknowingly come into contact with. Because it is the right moral choice for the common good.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
"Just Abortion" theology
Wow, that title felt odd even as I wrote it. This week however I was reading about different ways to frame the pro-life/pro-choice debate and this comparison to "Just War" theology really struck a cord with me. I've always considered myself pro-choice because I strongly believe that a person, even a woman, should have the right to make decisions about ones own body. However, as a person of faith I've always felt a little uncomfortable about the implied casualness of "choice" - it seems kind of whimsical, like I'm choosing which shoes to wear with this outfit or which fast food drive through to pull into. And I've always wondered if the opposite of pro-life isn't actually pro-death and that makes me REALLY uncomfortable!
Reframing pro-choice under the rubric of Just Abortion however brings the same level of gravitas to the discussion as you get with Just War. Clearly war isn't a frivolous choice and neither is abortion. But what I like best is that thinking about abortion this way requires the woman to ponder two questions: Will the value of your actions outweigh the intermediate costs? Will the ends justify the means? These are deeply personal and situational questions. One size clearly won't fit all and that is where the role of discernment and choice will enter. But I find it a very helpful way to frame the pastoral conversation and provide the decision-making support that a woman facing this very tough choice needs - and to do so in a nurturing and forward going way vs. simply offering platitudes or worse yet, pushing my values on someone else. It is thought-provoking yet non-judgmental. And it affirms that we believe that women want to do the right thing but that it isn't always so easy to figure out what the right thing is.
Just Abortion theology also elevates the seriousness of the decision by equating it with the decision to wage war. Now some may think that is a serious exaggeration given that in deciding to have an abortion only one life is threatened yet a war will cost thousands or even millions of lives. But to the woman facing an unwanted pregnancy it can feel like the same weight of the world is on her shoulders, especially if others around her judge her or trivialize the situation as "no big deal".
This feels to me like a much more faith based approach to considering the abortion debate. What do you think?
Reframing pro-choice under the rubric of Just Abortion however brings the same level of gravitas to the discussion as you get with Just War. Clearly war isn't a frivolous choice and neither is abortion. But what I like best is that thinking about abortion this way requires the woman to ponder two questions: Will the value of your actions outweigh the intermediate costs? Will the ends justify the means? These are deeply personal and situational questions. One size clearly won't fit all and that is where the role of discernment and choice will enter. But I find it a very helpful way to frame the pastoral conversation and provide the decision-making support that a woman facing this very tough choice needs - and to do so in a nurturing and forward going way vs. simply offering platitudes or worse yet, pushing my values on someone else. It is thought-provoking yet non-judgmental. And it affirms that we believe that women want to do the right thing but that it isn't always so easy to figure out what the right thing is.
Just Abortion theology also elevates the seriousness of the decision by equating it with the decision to wage war. Now some may think that is a serious exaggeration given that in deciding to have an abortion only one life is threatened yet a war will cost thousands or even millions of lives. But to the woman facing an unwanted pregnancy it can feel like the same weight of the world is on her shoulders, especially if others around her judge her or trivialize the situation as "no big deal".
This feels to me like a much more faith based approach to considering the abortion debate. What do you think?
Sunday, October 11, 2009
God's Mailbox
This weekend I went on our All-church retreat to Tower Hill which is at the Michigan Dunes. The weather was beautiful but very chilly, so most of the adults spent the majority of the weekend inside conversing. But the youth were undaunted by the temperatures and the lure of Mt. Baldy was strong, so they spent most of their time out enjoying nature.
One of their activities was a worship service at God's Mailbox! I've never been to this particular landmark but my daughter went so it gave me the chance to talk to her about how she communicates with God and vice versa. I've always thought of prayer as the most direct way to communicate with God, but perhaps God appreciates mail as much of the rest of us.
Turns out that she did write a letter, a confession to be exact, and put it in the mailbox. Tradition says that God will send a reply within a few days, although it wasn't clear if one was to go back to the mailbox to pick it up or if it would come directly to ones home, etc. Either way my daughter was pretty sure that God wasn't going to write back because she figured, "he's got better things to do than watch us all the time. i'm sure he's too busy". However she wasn't exactly sure what he was so busy doing, and the longer we talked the more it seemed like God's mailbox and Santa's mailbox might be just a little too similiar for my taste. Send out a request. Be judged as naughty or nice. And then if you're lucky, you'll get a response in the form of what you asked for.
I think this is a very dangerous image of God to plant in our children's minds. And while the landmark of God's Mailbox is clever, I think it sends 100% the wrong message about the relationship that we should aspire to have with God. Perhaps a better (and more contemporary analogy) would be Facebook - you friend God, God friends you, and now you both post at will. Even the smallest status updates are read, commented on, and shared with other friends in your joint community. It's both a personal relationship but also an open one. And one that can keep expanding infinitely. (okay, maybe only to 5000 but then you can set up a second, third, fourth, etc. site. )
Maybe it's just because the only letters I write any more are Christmas cards, but i prefer thinking that God and I have a pathway that is direct and constantly open. And best of all it is portable. I don't have to go all the way back to Michigan to send or recieve communication!
One of their activities was a worship service at God's Mailbox! I've never been to this particular landmark but my daughter went so it gave me the chance to talk to her about how she communicates with God and vice versa. I've always thought of prayer as the most direct way to communicate with God, but perhaps God appreciates mail as much of the rest of us.
Turns out that she did write a letter, a confession to be exact, and put it in the mailbox. Tradition says that God will send a reply within a few days, although it wasn't clear if one was to go back to the mailbox to pick it up or if it would come directly to ones home, etc. Either way my daughter was pretty sure that God wasn't going to write back because she figured, "he's got better things to do than watch us all the time. i'm sure he's too busy". However she wasn't exactly sure what he was so busy doing, and the longer we talked the more it seemed like God's mailbox and Santa's mailbox might be just a little too similiar for my taste. Send out a request. Be judged as naughty or nice. And then if you're lucky, you'll get a response in the form of what you asked for.
I think this is a very dangerous image of God to plant in our children's minds. And while the landmark of God's Mailbox is clever, I think it sends 100% the wrong message about the relationship that we should aspire to have with God. Perhaps a better (and more contemporary analogy) would be Facebook - you friend God, God friends you, and now you both post at will. Even the smallest status updates are read, commented on, and shared with other friends in your joint community. It's both a personal relationship but also an open one. And one that can keep expanding infinitely. (okay, maybe only to 5000 but then you can set up a second, third, fourth, etc. site. )
Maybe it's just because the only letters I write any more are Christmas cards, but i prefer thinking that God and I have a pathway that is direct and constantly open. And best of all it is portable. I don't have to go all the way back to Michigan to send or recieve communication!
Saturday, October 10, 2009
How to be a good neighbor
Q-- Eight years after the U.S. attacked Afghanistan, fighting continues. Religious extremists in the Taliban and al-Qaeda retain significant power there. What is our moral responsibility to the people of Afghanistan? If religion is part of the problem there, how can it be part of the solution?
The enemy in Afghanistan is the Taliban. They have declared the U.S. to be their enemy and demonstrated their willingness to inflict pain and killing upon us. The people of Afghanistan however are not all members of the Taliban and many have been innocent casualties in this seemingly endless war that the U.S. is waging against the insurgents. The Taliban has committed crimes for which they should pay however the people of Afghanistan are simply hostages in this war. .
We would like to believe that the misery of the Afghanistan people is all the fault of the Taliban. But the reality is that we have been co-conspirators in destroying their home and their ability to live what we treasure as a “normal” life. The length and nature of this war threatens to create a culture of despair. Our moral responsibility to the people of Afghanistan is to refocus on the initial mission to find and punish the perpetrators of 9/11 and then get out of their country.
It has been said that we are at a critical juncture in our military strategy; that if we don’t commit to winning and send in more troops now that window of opportunity for us gain the upper hand against the enemy will close forever. This is what our military leaders tell us based on their experience and understanding of the cadence of war. A similar cadence exists in matters of the human spirit. I fear that we are facing a similar closing window of opportunity in which to restore hope for the Afghanistan people. The U.S. needs to pursue whatever strategy will enable the military to find its targets with minimal impact on the civilians and then leave. Developing a democratic government for Afghanistan was not part of the original reason for invasion and should not be the reason for outstaying our welcome.
The greatest commandment is to love the Lord with all your heart and to love your neighbor as yourself. Muslims are our neighbors. Although we may be separated by great geographic distance we share a common ancestor (Abraham) and a common belief in the One True God. However their ways are not our ways, and they shouldn’t have to be. One of the reasons that good fences make good neighbors is that it keeps each side from overstepping boundaries. The U.S. should redouble efforts to stop terrorism against America but not continue the futile investments in nation building a form of government that is pleasing to us but contrary to the way of life that is familiar and traditional to the people of Afghanistan.
The enemy in Afghanistan is the Taliban. They have declared the U.S. to be their enemy and demonstrated their willingness to inflict pain and killing upon us. The people of Afghanistan however are not all members of the Taliban and many have been innocent casualties in this seemingly endless war that the U.S. is waging against the insurgents. The Taliban has committed crimes for which they should pay however the people of Afghanistan are simply hostages in this war. .
We would like to believe that the misery of the Afghanistan people is all the fault of the Taliban. But the reality is that we have been co-conspirators in destroying their home and their ability to live what we treasure as a “normal” life. The length and nature of this war threatens to create a culture of despair. Our moral responsibility to the people of Afghanistan is to refocus on the initial mission to find and punish the perpetrators of 9/11 and then get out of their country.
It has been said that we are at a critical juncture in our military strategy; that if we don’t commit to winning and send in more troops now that window of opportunity for us gain the upper hand against the enemy will close forever. This is what our military leaders tell us based on their experience and understanding of the cadence of war. A similar cadence exists in matters of the human spirit. I fear that we are facing a similar closing window of opportunity in which to restore hope for the Afghanistan people. The U.S. needs to pursue whatever strategy will enable the military to find its targets with minimal impact on the civilians and then leave. Developing a democratic government for Afghanistan was not part of the original reason for invasion and should not be the reason for outstaying our welcome.
The greatest commandment is to love the Lord with all your heart and to love your neighbor as yourself. Muslims are our neighbors. Although we may be separated by great geographic distance we share a common ancestor (Abraham) and a common belief in the One True God. However their ways are not our ways, and they shouldn’t have to be. One of the reasons that good fences make good neighbors is that it keeps each side from overstepping boundaries. The U.S. should redouble efforts to stop terrorism against America but not continue the futile investments in nation building a form of government that is pleasing to us but contrary to the way of life that is familiar and traditional to the people of Afghanistan.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Hospitality with strings attached may be practical but not particularly Christian
Walk long enough in an urban neighborhood and you'll be approached by someone asking for something - money for food, money for bus fare, or just plain money. Some have a story to tell or a sign that tells the story of why they need your money. Others simply just ask for it with no explanation other than, "I need it".
These types of folks always present a bit of a moral dilemma for me when I stop to think about it. Many times I just walk past without even really seeing them. But when I do pause to actually acknowledge them I have a quick debate in my head. Am I really going to help them by giving them money? Do they really need it? Instead of cash should I take them into the restaurant and buy them food so that I'm really sure they are spending the money wisely?
And then of course, WWJD? That's the one that makes my head hurt because deep down inside I'm pretty sure that Jesus wouldn't pretend they don't exist but would some how find a way to minister to them. But I feel ill-equipped and short on time, so maybe the least I should do is give them money?
This issue came up in our Sunday School class today because we're doing a mission project for refugees. The organization we're fundraising for has a scripture quote as part of their description of why they do what they do. It's Hebrews 13:2 "Do not neglect hospitality, for through it some have unknowingly entertained angels". I told my 7th & 8th graders that I always wondered about that when I am approached by a person asking for a handout. I was quite surprised by the response. Apparently yesterday at the UCC gathering for youth this very issue came up. And the general consensus was to NOT give people money because so many of them are scam artists, use it for illegal/unhealthy behaviors, etc.
Not only do I disagree with this position, I find it offensive as a Christian and am embarrassed that it was the advice given to the youth by our denominational leadership. Part of the rationale was that if you/the church gives money to the people who ask that aren't worthy then there won't be any money left to give those that truly are in need. But here's my question - how and who will determine who's really in need and therefore "worthy" of your hospitality? While no one wants to be taken advantage of, if I'm giving out of the abundance of blessing that I believe I've received from the Lord, my job is to love my neighbor, not judge him/her to see if they are fit to receive my love.
I'm not saying that walking around giving out cash is the answer. Certainly there are systemic issues that need to be addressed to clean up the streets - to get the people who really need help connected with resources, and to lock up those who are basically stealing by scamming good hearted folk. But I don't feel the need to concern myself with that. I love because first I was loved. And while it would probably be better to have the time and fearlessness to engage all the people who approach me and minister to them individually, sometimes a dollar or some spare change is the best I can do. It feels very wrong to not at least do that.
These types of folks always present a bit of a moral dilemma for me when I stop to think about it. Many times I just walk past without even really seeing them. But when I do pause to actually acknowledge them I have a quick debate in my head. Am I really going to help them by giving them money? Do they really need it? Instead of cash should I take them into the restaurant and buy them food so that I'm really sure they are spending the money wisely?
And then of course, WWJD? That's the one that makes my head hurt because deep down inside I'm pretty sure that Jesus wouldn't pretend they don't exist but would some how find a way to minister to them. But I feel ill-equipped and short on time, so maybe the least I should do is give them money?
This issue came up in our Sunday School class today because we're doing a mission project for refugees. The organization we're fundraising for has a scripture quote as part of their description of why they do what they do. It's Hebrews 13:2 "Do not neglect hospitality, for through it some have unknowingly entertained angels". I told my 7th & 8th graders that I always wondered about that when I am approached by a person asking for a handout. I was quite surprised by the response. Apparently yesterday at the UCC gathering for youth this very issue came up. And the general consensus was to NOT give people money because so many of them are scam artists, use it for illegal/unhealthy behaviors, etc.
Not only do I disagree with this position, I find it offensive as a Christian and am embarrassed that it was the advice given to the youth by our denominational leadership. Part of the rationale was that if you/the church gives money to the people who ask that aren't worthy then there won't be any money left to give those that truly are in need. But here's my question - how and who will determine who's really in need and therefore "worthy" of your hospitality? While no one wants to be taken advantage of, if I'm giving out of the abundance of blessing that I believe I've received from the Lord, my job is to love my neighbor, not judge him/her to see if they are fit to receive my love.
I'm not saying that walking around giving out cash is the answer. Certainly there are systemic issues that need to be addressed to clean up the streets - to get the people who really need help connected with resources, and to lock up those who are basically stealing by scamming good hearted folk. But I don't feel the need to concern myself with that. I love because first I was loved. And while it would probably be better to have the time and fearlessness to engage all the people who approach me and minister to them individually, sometimes a dollar or some spare change is the best I can do. It feels very wrong to not at least do that.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Nuclear disarmament, the ultimate act of faith
The arguments for creating nuclear weapons always seem to center on matters of national security. Owning nuclear weapons provides a sense of protection for a country on two fronts. The most obvious is that they can be used to defend one’s country when under attack. However, the more persuasive argument for nuclear build up is as an offensive strategy, i.e. if we have nuclear weapons it will discourage foreign countries from attacking us because they know that if they do, we’ll blow them to kingdom come.
How can a reasonable citizen disagree with that argument? There is a seductive logic in believing that a rational enemy will avoid certain death by attacking us and therefore by owning the most deadly and destructive weapons currently available we have guaranteed our national security. We have taken control of the situation by preparing wisely and therefore can now rest easy knowing that our fate is in our own hands.
But can we? One of the annoying challenges to our position is that our enemies refuse to behave rationally! So owning a powerful nuclear arsenal doesn’t seem to be nearly as effective at deterring deadly terrorist attacks as we had planned. Perhaps it is because our enemies know that we are reluctant to actually use the weapons of mass destruction because once mass destruction begins, it is impossible to contain. And while many might be able to agree that having the weapons to wage war is a “sensible security measure”, using them to initiate Armageddon is fraught with ethical issues for even the most aggressive nationalist because in the end, everyone is likely to lose. The loss of life and level of human tragedy will be on an unimaginable scale, particularly the loss of innocent lives. Therefore, one could argue that there is a strong religious pro-life argument to be made for nuclear disarmament based on the desire to adhere to God’s commandment, “thou shall not kill”.
Nuclear disarmament however is a higher order still because it requires countries to do more than promise not to make more weapons or use the ones they already have. It requires powerful countries, like the U.S. to commit to destroy the weapons they already have! It is not a call for a truce – it is a call for a rebalancing of power. And that takes faith in a higher power to believe that when we give up control of our manmade weapons of mass destruction we will not be immediately delivered over to what we perceive to be the enemy for them to destroy us at their will. President Obama and the UN Security Council have asked the world to take a bold step towards creating a new future where the lion can truly lay down with the lamb. The lion will still clearly be stronger and more powerful than the lamb but both can come to the table without fear of annihilation by the other and therefore the possibilities of new types of relationships are endless.
A fairy tale ending? Perhaps. But our faith leads us to believe that even this is possible. And it is clear that the alternative ending could be an endless nightmare.
How can a reasonable citizen disagree with that argument? There is a seductive logic in believing that a rational enemy will avoid certain death by attacking us and therefore by owning the most deadly and destructive weapons currently available we have guaranteed our national security. We have taken control of the situation by preparing wisely and therefore can now rest easy knowing that our fate is in our own hands.
But can we? One of the annoying challenges to our position is that our enemies refuse to behave rationally! So owning a powerful nuclear arsenal doesn’t seem to be nearly as effective at deterring deadly terrorist attacks as we had planned. Perhaps it is because our enemies know that we are reluctant to actually use the weapons of mass destruction because once mass destruction begins, it is impossible to contain. And while many might be able to agree that having the weapons to wage war is a “sensible security measure”, using them to initiate Armageddon is fraught with ethical issues for even the most aggressive nationalist because in the end, everyone is likely to lose. The loss of life and level of human tragedy will be on an unimaginable scale, particularly the loss of innocent lives. Therefore, one could argue that there is a strong religious pro-life argument to be made for nuclear disarmament based on the desire to adhere to God’s commandment, “thou shall not kill”.
Nuclear disarmament however is a higher order still because it requires countries to do more than promise not to make more weapons or use the ones they already have. It requires powerful countries, like the U.S. to commit to destroy the weapons they already have! It is not a call for a truce – it is a call for a rebalancing of power. And that takes faith in a higher power to believe that when we give up control of our manmade weapons of mass destruction we will not be immediately delivered over to what we perceive to be the enemy for them to destroy us at their will. President Obama and the UN Security Council have asked the world to take a bold step towards creating a new future where the lion can truly lay down with the lamb. The lion will still clearly be stronger and more powerful than the lamb but both can come to the table without fear of annihilation by the other and therefore the possibilities of new types of relationships are endless.
A fairy tale ending? Perhaps. But our faith leads us to believe that even this is possible. And it is clear that the alternative ending could be an endless nightmare.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
And they will tell we are Christians by....?
This past week i've been thinking a lot about what it means to live a Christian life in today's world. My reflection hasn't been caused by any major crisis or event but rather has been inspired by my wondering what to write about on this blog!
At any rate, here are two observations that i'd like to share. The first thing that has struck me this week is how some of the teachings i had as a child about the way Christians behave just aren't nearly as exclusive as i was initially led to believe. The hymn i recall is that "they'll know we are Christians by our love" just doesn't work for me if i assume that it means that non-Christians aren't nearly as loving. As i look around at all the good that is done for others and the charity work i see in my community, but also those who are willing to sacrifice for others in distant communities, i often see non-Christian or even non-religious drivers of good. Clearly good deeds are not limited to Christians and not all Christians seem devoted to doing good deeds or demonstrating love for others.
My second observation however is that there do appear to be a wide variety of different motivations for doing good. My liberal Christian friends cite social justice causes in the model of Jesus' caring for the outsider, the widow, the orphan. My conservative Christian friends cite scripture. My non-Christian and non-religious friends talk about our responsibility - to the world, to the future, to our neighbor. Different motivations to the same end. But if the end is the same, how will "they" know we are Christians? What distinguishes us? Is it even important to be able to tell who is who?
I think it probably is important to be able to identify who is who, but not for "them" - it is important for "us". I think it is important for the same reason it is important for us to claim as part of our identity our family, our race, our gender etc. Who we are directly influences how we view the world and how we behave in the world.
I also think it is important to be able to have a visible identity. For us to express who we are by what we do, not just what we privately believe or are willing to share secretly with others who agree with us.
But i think i would modify the song to say, "and they/we will know we are Christians by our faith" because the one thing that strikes me as a different is that Christian good works are undergirded by our faith and beliefs about what our God calls us to do and frankly, what the consequences will be of failing to live up to God's expectations to the best of our limited human abilities.
On our best days i think you can tell we are Christians because we put our faith into action.
At any rate, here are two observations that i'd like to share. The first thing that has struck me this week is how some of the teachings i had as a child about the way Christians behave just aren't nearly as exclusive as i was initially led to believe. The hymn i recall is that "they'll know we are Christians by our love" just doesn't work for me if i assume that it means that non-Christians aren't nearly as loving. As i look around at all the good that is done for others and the charity work i see in my community, but also those who are willing to sacrifice for others in distant communities, i often see non-Christian or even non-religious drivers of good. Clearly good deeds are not limited to Christians and not all Christians seem devoted to doing good deeds or demonstrating love for others.
My second observation however is that there do appear to be a wide variety of different motivations for doing good. My liberal Christian friends cite social justice causes in the model of Jesus' caring for the outsider, the widow, the orphan. My conservative Christian friends cite scripture. My non-Christian and non-religious friends talk about our responsibility - to the world, to the future, to our neighbor. Different motivations to the same end. But if the end is the same, how will "they" know we are Christians? What distinguishes us? Is it even important to be able to tell who is who?
I think it probably is important to be able to identify who is who, but not for "them" - it is important for "us". I think it is important for the same reason it is important for us to claim as part of our identity our family, our race, our gender etc. Who we are directly influences how we view the world and how we behave in the world.
I also think it is important to be able to have a visible identity. For us to express who we are by what we do, not just what we privately believe or are willing to share secretly with others who agree with us.
But i think i would modify the song to say, "and they/we will know we are Christians by our faith" because the one thing that strikes me as a different is that Christian good works are undergirded by our faith and beliefs about what our God calls us to do and frankly, what the consequences will be of failing to live up to God's expectations to the best of our limited human abilities.
On our best days i think you can tell we are Christians because we put our faith into action.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
so what is "faith between the lines"?
This is my very first experience with blogs (unless you count watching the movie Julie & Julia) and so i was looking for a title that would describe what i hope to write about, but recognizing that since i have never done this before i'm not exactly sure where it will head. My goal is to explore quesitions of faith in a non-conventional, non-intuitive way. Questions that relate to my everyday life. Questions that try to find a current and pragmatic application for the conceptual topics that i've learned in church, sunday school and seminary.
So what are "the lines"? My original thought was that like the phrase "reading between the lines", i would try to read between the lines of scripture to find implications for my faith and actions today. But the more i think about it i see the lines as the two sides that are typically drawn in discussions of faith - the separation of church and state, religion vs. public policy, etc. I think what i really want to contemplate (and therefore write about) is how to live a faithful life caught between these two worlds, or lines. Only in modern times are we forced to make this distinction and compartimentalize our religious-self from our secular-self. In the old days, not necessarily the good old days but simply in previous generations, we were expected to live out our faith beliefs in our real lives. I think that is what i've been called to do but let's face it, that's pretty politically incorrect in most settings outside the church or a not-for-profit organization.
So my plan at the moment is to try to bring a faith based analytical approach to issues that will blur the lines of "good religion" vs. "good business", "church" vs. "state". Faith and analytics are terms i haven't always associated but i'd like to give it a try.
Let's see what happens:)
So what are "the lines"? My original thought was that like the phrase "reading between the lines", i would try to read between the lines of scripture to find implications for my faith and actions today. But the more i think about it i see the lines as the two sides that are typically drawn in discussions of faith - the separation of church and state, religion vs. public policy, etc. I think what i really want to contemplate (and therefore write about) is how to live a faithful life caught between these two worlds, or lines. Only in modern times are we forced to make this distinction and compartimentalize our religious-self from our secular-self. In the old days, not necessarily the good old days but simply in previous generations, we were expected to live out our faith beliefs in our real lives. I think that is what i've been called to do but let's face it, that's pretty politically incorrect in most settings outside the church or a not-for-profit organization.
So my plan at the moment is to try to bring a faith based analytical approach to issues that will blur the lines of "good religion" vs. "good business", "church" vs. "state". Faith and analytics are terms i haven't always associated but i'd like to give it a try.
Let's see what happens:)
Saturday, September 19, 2009
THE LORD'S PRAYER
Rather cleverly done.
This is in two parts,
the prayer (regular case) and
GOD (in CAPS)
in response.
It is very, very good.
*********
Our Father Who Art In Heaven.
YES?
Don't interrupt me. I'm praying.
BUT -- YOU CALLED ME!
Called you?
No, I didn't call you.
I'm praying.
Our Father who art in Heaven.
THERE -- YOU DID IT AGAIN!
Did what?
CALLED ME.
YOU SAID,
"OUR FATHER WHO ART IN HEAVEN"
WELL, HERE I AM.
WHAT'S ON YOUR MIND?
But I didn't mean anything by it.
I was, you know, just saying my prayers for the day.
I always say the Lord's Prayer.
It makes me feel good,
kind of like fulfilling a duty.
WELL, ALL RIGHT.
GO ON.
Okay, Hallowed be thy name . .
HOLD IT RIGHT THERE.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?
By what?
BY "HALLOWED BE THY NAME"?
It means, it means . . good grief,
I don't know what it means.
How in the world should I know?
It's just a part of the prayer.
By the way, what does it mean?
IT MEANS HONORED, HOLY, WONDERFUL.
Hey, that makes sense.
I never thought about what 'hallowed' meant before.
Thanks.
Thy Kingdom come,
Thy will be done,
on earth as it is in Heaven.
DO YOU REALLY MEAN THAT?
Sure, why not?
WHAT ARE YOU DOING ABOUT IT?
Doing? Why, nothing, I guess.
I just think it would be kind of neat if you got control,
of everything down here like you have up there.
We're kinda in a mess down here you know.
YES, I KNOW;
BUT, HAVE I GOT CONTROL OF YOU?
Well, I go to church.
THAT ISN'T WHAT I ASKED YOU.
WHAT ABOUT YOUR BAD TEMPER?
YOU'VE REALLY GOT A PROBLEM THERE, YOU KNOW.
AND THEN THERE'S THE WAY YOU SPEND YOUR MONEY --
ALL ON YOURSELF.
AND WHAT ABOUT THE KIND OF BOOKS YOU READ ?
Now hold on just a minute!
Stop picking on me!
I'm just as good as some of the rest of those people at church!
EXCUSE ME.
I THOUGHT YOU WERE PRAYING
FOR MY WILL TO BE DONE.
IF THAT IS TO HAPPEN,
IT WILL HAVE TO START WITH THE ONES
WHO ARE PRAYING FOR IT.
LIKE YOU -- FOR EXAMPLE ..
Oh, all right. I guess I do have some hang-ups.
Now that you mention it,
I could probably name some others.
SO COULD I.
I haven't t hought about it very much until now,
but I really would like to cut out some of those things.
I would like to, you know, be really free.
GOOD.
NOW WE'RE GETTING SOMEWHERE.WE'LL WORK TOGETHER -- YOU AND ME.
I'M PROUD OF YOU.
Look, Lord, if you don't mind,
I need to finish up here.
This is taking a lot longer than it usually does.
Give us this day, our daily bread.
YOU NEED TO CUT OUT THE BREAD.
YOU'RE OVERWEIGHT AS IT IS.
Hey, wait a minute! What is this?
Here I was doing my religious duty,
and all of a sudden you break in
and remind me of all my hang-ups.
PRAYING IS A DANGEROUS THING.
YOU JUST MIGHT GET WHAT YOU ASK FOR.
REMEMBER,
YOU CALLED ME -- AND HERE I AM.
IT'S TOO LATE TO STOP NOW.
KEEP PRAYING. ( . PAUSE . . )
WELL, GO ON.
I'm scared to.
SCARED? OF WHAT?
I know what you'll say.
TRY ME.
Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us.
WHAT ABOUT ANN?
See? I knew it!
I knew you would bring her up!
Why, Lord, she's told lies about me, spread stories.
She never paid back the money she owes me.
I've sworn to get even with her!
BUT -- YOUR PRAYER --
WHAT ABOUT YOUR PRAYER?
I didn't -- mean it.
WELL, AT LEAST YOU'RE HONEST.
BUT, IT'S QUITE A LOAD CARRYING AROUND ALL THAT BITTERNESS
AND RESENTMENT ISN'T IT?
Yes, but I'll feel better as soon as I get even with her.
Boy, have I got some plans for her.
She'll wish she had never been born.
NO, YOU WON'T FEEL ANY BETTER.
YOU'LL FEEL WORSE.
REVENGE ISN'T SWEET.
YOU KNOW HOW UNHAPPY YOU ARE --
WELL, I CAN CHANGE THAT.
You can? How?
FORGIVE ANN.
THEN, I'LL FORGIVE YOU;
AND THE HATE AND THE SIN,
WILL BE ANN'S PROBLEM -- NOT YOURS.
YOU WILL HAVE SETTLED THE PROBLEM
AS FAR AS YOU ARE CONCERNED.
Oh, you know, you're right.
You always are.
And more than I want revenge,
I want to be right with You . . (sigh).
All right all right . .
I forgive her.
THERE NOW!
WONDERFUL!
HOW DO YOU FEEL?
Hmmmm. Well, not bad.
Not bad at all!
In fact, I feel pretty great!
You know, I don't think I'll go to bed uptight tonight.
I haven't been getting much rest, you know.
YEAH, I KNOW.
BUT, YOU'RE NOT THROUGH WITH YOUR PRAYER ARE YOU? GO ON.
Oh, all right.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
GOOD! GOOD! I'LL DO THAT.
JUST DON'T PUT YOURSELF IN A PLACE
WHERE YOU CAN BE TEMPTED.
What do you mean by that?
YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.
Yeah. I know.
OKAY.
GO AHEAD. FINISH YOUR PRAYER.
For Thine is the kingdom,
and the power,
and the glory forever.
Amen.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT WOULD BRING ME GLORY --
WHAT WOULD REALLY MAKE ME HAPPY?
No, but I'd like to know.
I want to please you now.
I've really made a mess of things.
I want to truly follow you.
I can see now how great that would be.
So, tell me . . .
How do I make you happy?
YOU JUST DID.
______________________________
Rather cleverly done.
This is in two parts,
the prayer (regular case) and
GOD (in CAPS)
in response.
It is very, very good.
*********
Our Father Who Art In Heaven.
YES?
Don't interrupt me. I'm praying.
BUT -- YOU CALLED ME!
Called you?
No, I didn't call you.
I'm praying.
Our Father who art in Heaven.
THERE -- YOU DID IT AGAIN!
Did what?
CALLED ME.
YOU SAID,
"OUR FATHER WHO ART IN HEAVEN"
WELL, HERE I AM.
WHAT'S ON YOUR MIND?
But I didn't mean anything by it.
I was, you know, just saying my prayers for the day.
I always say the Lord's Prayer.
It makes me feel good,
kind of like fulfilling a duty.
WELL, ALL RIGHT.
GO ON.
Okay, Hallowed be thy name . .
HOLD IT RIGHT THERE.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?
By what?
BY "HALLOWED BE THY NAME"?
It means, it means . . good grief,
I don't know what it means.
How in the world should I know?
It's just a part of the prayer.
By the way, what does it mean?
IT MEANS HONORED, HOLY, WONDERFUL.
Hey, that makes sense.
I never thought about what 'hallowed' meant before.
Thanks.
Thy Kingdom come,
Thy will be done,
on earth as it is in Heaven.
DO YOU REALLY MEAN THAT?
Sure, why not?
WHAT ARE YOU DOING ABOUT IT?
Doing? Why, nothing, I guess.
I just think it would be kind of neat if you got control,
of everything down here like you have up there.
We're kinda in a mess down here you know.
YES, I KNOW;
BUT, HAVE I GOT CONTROL OF YOU?
Well, I go to church.
THAT ISN'T WHAT I ASKED YOU.
WHAT ABOUT YOUR BAD TEMPER?
YOU'VE REALLY GOT A PROBLEM THERE, YOU KNOW.
AND THEN THERE'S THE WAY YOU SPEND YOUR MONEY --
ALL ON YOURSELF.
AND WHAT ABOUT THE KIND OF BOOKS YOU READ ?
Now hold on just a minute!
Stop picking on me!
I'm just as good as some of the rest of those people at church!
EXCUSE ME.
I THOUGHT YOU WERE PRAYING
FOR MY WILL TO BE DONE.
IF THAT IS TO HAPPEN,
IT WILL HAVE TO START WITH THE ONES
WHO ARE PRAYING FOR IT.
LIKE YOU -- FOR EXAMPLE ..
Oh, all right. I guess I do have some hang-ups.
Now that you mention it,
I could probably name some others.
SO COULD I.
I haven't t hought about it very much until now,
but I really would like to cut out some of those things.
I would like to, you know, be really free.
GOOD.
NOW WE'RE GETTING SOMEWHERE.WE'LL WORK TOGETHER -- YOU AND ME.
I'M PROUD OF YOU.
Look, Lord, if you don't mind,
I need to finish up here.
This is taking a lot longer than it usually does.
Give us this day, our daily bread.
YOU NEED TO CUT OUT THE BREAD.
YOU'RE OVERWEIGHT AS IT IS.
Hey, wait a minute! What is this?
Here I was doing my religious duty,
and all of a sudden you break in
and remind me of all my hang-ups.
PRAYING IS A DANGEROUS THING.
YOU JUST MIGHT GET WHAT YOU ASK FOR.
REMEMBER,
YOU CALLED ME -- AND HERE I AM.
IT'S TOO LATE TO STOP NOW.
KEEP PRAYING. ( . PAUSE . . )
WELL, GO ON.
I'm scared to.
SCARED? OF WHAT?
I know what you'll say.
TRY ME.
Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us.
WHAT ABOUT ANN?
See? I knew it!
I knew you would bring her up!
Why, Lord, she's told lies about me, spread stories.
She never paid back the money she owes me.
I've sworn to get even with her!
BUT -- YOUR PRAYER --
WHAT ABOUT YOUR PRAYER?
I didn't -- mean it.
WELL, AT LEAST YOU'RE HONEST.
BUT, IT'S QUITE A LOAD CARRYING AROUND ALL THAT BITTERNESS
AND RESENTMENT ISN'T IT?
Yes, but I'll feel better as soon as I get even with her.
Boy, have I got some plans for her.
She'll wish she had never been born.
NO, YOU WON'T FEEL ANY BETTER.
YOU'LL FEEL WORSE.
REVENGE ISN'T SWEET.
YOU KNOW HOW UNHAPPY YOU ARE --
WELL, I CAN CHANGE THAT.
You can? How?
FORGIVE ANN.
THEN, I'LL FORGIVE YOU;
AND THE HATE AND THE SIN,
WILL BE ANN'S PROBLEM -- NOT YOURS.
YOU WILL HAVE SETTLED THE PROBLEM
AS FAR AS YOU ARE CONCERNED.
Oh, you know, you're right.
You always are.
And more than I want revenge,
I want to be right with You . . (sigh).
All right all right . .
I forgive her.
THERE NOW!
WONDERFUL!
HOW DO YOU FEEL?
Hmmmm. Well, not bad.
Not bad at all!
In fact, I feel pretty great!
You know, I don't think I'll go to bed uptight tonight.
I haven't been getting much rest, you know.
YEAH, I KNOW.
BUT, YOU'RE NOT THROUGH WITH YOUR PRAYER ARE YOU? GO ON.
Oh, all right.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
GOOD! GOOD! I'LL DO THAT.
JUST DON'T PUT YOURSELF IN A PLACE
WHERE YOU CAN BE TEMPTED.
What do you mean by that?
YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.
Yeah. I know.
OKAY.
GO AHEAD. FINISH YOUR PRAYER.
For Thine is the kingdom,
and the power,
and the glory forever.
Amen.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT WOULD BRING ME GLORY --
WHAT WOULD REALLY MAKE ME HAPPY?
No, but I'd like to know.
I want to please you now.
I've really made a mess of things.
I want to truly follow you.
I can see now how great that would be.
So, tell me . . .
How do I make you happy?
YOU JUST DID.
______________________________
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)