Two articles in a recent edition of Nature attracted my attention. The first reports that some scientists wonder if eliminating the mosquito would have a significant, adverse effect on the environment. Research suggests that in each ecological subsystem in which the mosquito appears to play a critical role, one or more other species would quickly fill the cap if mosquitoes suddenly disappeared. (Janet Fang, “Ecology: A world without mosquitoes,” Nature, July 21, 2010)
Evolutionary biologists know that no species has endured forever. Regrettably – at least from the perspective of this human – mosquitoes have endured a very long time. They cause much human suffering and death; the spread of malaria is perhaps the most virulent and best known. The harm that mosquitoes now do seems to outweigh whatever good they once may have contributed to evolutionary development.
However, I have doubts about initiating a campaign to eradicate mosquitoes. If God looked at creation and said, “This is good,” do humans, themselves creatures, have the moral right to determine that what was once good has now become evil? If humans eradicate mosquitoes, what unintended, unforeseen adverse consequences may result? If humans eradicate mosquitoes, will we then target another species for eradication, perhaps with less sanguine results?
Good stewardship of the environment is an essential human responsibility to promote the well-being and happiness of all life. Good stewardship requires not a vain attempt to preserve the status quo but a consistent, thoroughgoing attempt to do no harm, to minimize or ameliorate the damage inflicted, to provide for all sentient beings, and perhaps even to leave the earth on a more solid ecological footing at our death than it was at our birth.
The second Nature article reports on efforts to enforce a law designed to stop animal rights activists’ terrorism (Emma Marris, “Animal rights 'terror' law challenged,” Nature, July 20, 2010). Committing violent, terrorist acts in defense of animal rights seems like an oxymoron to me. Humans, like all other species, are animals with rights. Violently attacking humans to defend the rights of other animals is logically consistent.
Promotion of animal rights, advocacy of animal rights, and even the defense of animal rights are all goals accomplishable without intentionally endangering other humans. Waging terrorism in support of those goals is morally indefensible.
The weak adopt terrorism as a tactic or strategy generally when no other tactic or strategy seems like to succeed. The battle for animal rights in the United States has admittedly been an uphill fight. Employing terrorist tactics have dramatized the plight of certain species and attracted much media attention. However, the terror tactics and strategy have generally failed to achieve their objectives, often producing a backlash against animal rights. Vigorous and appropriate law enforcement responses to animal rights activists and groups that employ terror tactics seem likely to minimize if not end the problem without needing to impose any restrictions on free speech.
Protecting the environment and other living species is an essential human responsibility. I’m thankful that the parish I serve has launched an environmental stewardship ministry. Thankfully, they aim to pursue that goal through peaceful means. In a nation that seeks to live under the rule of law, moral activists have no justifiable reason for resorting to violence to achieve their agenda, no matter how worthy that agenda. Activists should instead walk in the non-violent footsteps of Martin Luther King, Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, and Jesus.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Incarceration in America
Seven and one half Americans out of every one thousand (a total between 2.3 and 2.4 million people) are behind bars in jail or prison. That depressingly large percentage of the population means that the United States imprisons a higher percentage of its citizens than does any other country. By comparison, Russia is in second place with six out of one thousand citizens behind bars, Iran is fourth with 2.25 of every one thousand people in prison; China, Canada, France, and Germany all have less than 1.5 of every one thousand citizens in prison.
The proportion of Americans in prison has quadrupled since 1970.
Imprisoning someone is expensive for taxpayers – from an annual cost per year per inmate of $18,000 in Mississippi to over $50,000 in California. (Data from “Rough justice in America: Too many laws, too many prisoners,” The Economist, July 25, 2010 and “Rough justice in America,” The Economist, July 22, 2010)
Rejecting the premises that U.S. citizens are more prone to break laws than the citizens of other nations, more violent, and less amenable to other forms of correction, the American criminal justice system clearly needs a major overhaul. Here are a few suggestions:
• Give judges more discretion to tailor the punishment to the crime, e.g., not all drug offenses merit the same punishment.
• More narrowly focus “three strikes and your out” laws to permanently imprison only violent felons.
• Reduce the number of criminal offenses, e.g., legalize and then tax marijuana, thereby eliminating the criminal culture that now envelops the growth, distribution, marketing, and consumption of marijuana.
• Increase reliance on other forms of punishment, e.g., restitution and confinement at home that cost government less to implement.
• More broadly, improve opportunities for the least advantaged, making productive lives more attractive in comparison to lives of crime.
Imprisoning over 2,000,000 Americans at an annual cost of $600,000,000,000 ($600 billion) increases my tax burden while making me, at best, perhaps marginally safer. We must find a better, more Christian solution to crime.
The proportion of Americans in prison has quadrupled since 1970.
Imprisoning someone is expensive for taxpayers – from an annual cost per year per inmate of $18,000 in Mississippi to over $50,000 in California. (Data from “Rough justice in America: Too many laws, too many prisoners,” The Economist, July 25, 2010 and “Rough justice in America,” The Economist, July 22, 2010)
Rejecting the premises that U.S. citizens are more prone to break laws than the citizens of other nations, more violent, and less amenable to other forms of correction, the American criminal justice system clearly needs a major overhaul. Here are a few suggestions:
• Give judges more discretion to tailor the punishment to the crime, e.g., not all drug offenses merit the same punishment.
• More narrowly focus “three strikes and your out” laws to permanently imprison only violent felons.
• Reduce the number of criminal offenses, e.g., legalize and then tax marijuana, thereby eliminating the criminal culture that now envelops the growth, distribution, marketing, and consumption of marijuana.
• Increase reliance on other forms of punishment, e.g., restitution and confinement at home that cost government less to implement.
• More broadly, improve opportunities for the least advantaged, making productive lives more attractive in comparison to lives of crime.
Imprisoning over 2,000,000 Americans at an annual cost of $600,000,000,000 ($600 billion) increases my tax burden while making me, at best, perhaps marginally safer. We must find a better, more Christian solution to crime.
Interesting statistics about Facebook and U.S. Defense spending
The chart below (published in The Economist last week, found at this link) promoted me to wonder, as the world moves inexorably toward global community, will social networking sites hasten the demise of the old nationalism, perhaps creating an entirely new definition of “nation”?
First, movement toward a virtual rather than geographic definition of nation might indicate a developing symbiotic link between humans and computers. One of the original Star Trek episodes featured an alien race whose biological existence was only the brain; machines performed all other physical activities for them. Stark Trek: The Next Generation featured Cyborgs (part biological and part machine) as well as robots, like CDR Data, who seemed human apart from their lack of affective capacity. In any event, a virtual definition of nation will depend, at a minimum, upon computers becoming the medium for most interpersonal relationships.
Second, movement toward a virtual rather than geographic definition of nation might signal a move away from our current consumer culture that emphasizes the purchase of material items. If so, that would be good environmentally as it would almost certainly reduce carbon emissions. Production of material goods would also presumably decline, or, if constant, represent people in the less developed world attaining a standard of living comparable to the developed world’s standard. Furthermore, motor vehicles produce a disproportionately share of carbon emissions; people occupied with their virtual existence will presumably spend less time on highways.
Third, movement toward a virtual rather than geographic definition of nation might entail shifting patterns of employment. As implied in above, manufacturing would presumably employ fewer people; services and knowledge industries might employ more. Both of those shifts have already begun. Both shifts will cause suffering during transitions and dislocations. Concomitantly, technical and scientific educations will become ever more valuable.
Fourth, movement toward a virtual rather than geographic definition of nation might pose serious problems for many religions, accelerating the weakening of the link between place of birth and religion. In a virtual world, with broad exchanges of ideas and materials, religion would probably become more a matter of choice. In making that choice, these questions seem likely to become more important: What is the human spirit? How do humans manifest their spirit? What constitutes human community? Which religion – or syncretistic blend – best answers those questions for me?
Fifth, movement toward a virtual rather than geographic definition of nation would probably initiate a re-thinking of national defense. Militaries designed to protect territorial integrity might diminish in importance with cyber warfare representing the prime context for the next generation of warfighting.
Distressingly large sums of those funds have disappeared without adequate accounting in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Most recently, auditors report that they cannot account for $8.7 billion spend in Iraq (Steven Lee Myers, “U.S. Military Chief Presses Iraqis to End Political Deadlock,” New York Times, July 27, 2010). Those same dollars spent on programs designed to improve the quality of life for the least amongst those of us living in the United States would have resulted in better accountability and increased global happiness more than by having spent the money on warfighting and rebuilding corrupt nations.
If the world defines “nation” virtually rather than by geography or ethnicity, what are some possible consequences?
First, movement toward a virtual rather than geographic definition of nation might indicate a developing symbiotic link between humans and computers. One of the original Star Trek episodes featured an alien race whose biological existence was only the brain; machines performed all other physical activities for them. Stark Trek: The Next Generation featured Cyborgs (part biological and part machine) as well as robots, like CDR Data, who seemed human apart from their lack of affective capacity. In any event, a virtual definition of nation will depend, at a minimum, upon computers becoming the medium for most interpersonal relationships.
Second, movement toward a virtual rather than geographic definition of nation might signal a move away from our current consumer culture that emphasizes the purchase of material items. If so, that would be good environmentally as it would almost certainly reduce carbon emissions. Production of material goods would also presumably decline, or, if constant, represent people in the less developed world attaining a standard of living comparable to the developed world’s standard. Furthermore, motor vehicles produce a disproportionately share of carbon emissions; people occupied with their virtual existence will presumably spend less time on highways.
Third, movement toward a virtual rather than geographic definition of nation might entail shifting patterns of employment. As implied in above, manufacturing would presumably employ fewer people; services and knowledge industries might employ more. Both of those shifts have already begun. Both shifts will cause suffering during transitions and dislocations. Concomitantly, technical and scientific educations will become ever more valuable.
Fourth, movement toward a virtual rather than geographic definition of nation might pose serious problems for many religions, accelerating the weakening of the link between place of birth and religion. In a virtual world, with broad exchanges of ideas and materials, religion would probably become more a matter of choice. In making that choice, these questions seem likely to become more important: What is the human spirit? How do humans manifest their spirit? What constitutes human community? Which religion – or syncretistic blend – best answers those questions for me?
Fifth, movement toward a virtual rather than geographic definition of nation would probably initiate a re-thinking of national defense. Militaries designed to protect territorial integrity might diminish in importance with cyber warfare representing the prime context for the next generation of warfighting.
This last question is no idle one. The United States is now spending about two-thirds as much money on its military as at the height of WWII (cf. the New York Times chart below, published last week at this link):
The upward track of spending on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which have little to show in terms of making the United States more secure or either of those nations a better place, bodes ill for the U.S. Although we do not need more evidence of the poor prognoses for Afghanistan and Iraq, such evidence continues to flood the media. The documents released by Wikileaks shows in excruciating detail the lack of progress in Afghanistan (“View Is Bleaker Than Official Portrayal of War in Afghanistan,” New York Times, July 25, 2010). Five months after the Iraqi election, Nouri al-Maliki remains in power, heading a government nominally termed “caretaker” (Steven Lee Myers, “U.S. Military Chief Presses Iraqis to End Political Deadlock,” New York Times, July 27, 2010).
Distressingly large sums of those funds have disappeared without adequate accounting in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Most recently, auditors report that they cannot account for $8.7 billion spend in Iraq (Steven Lee Myers, “U.S. Military Chief Presses Iraqis to End Political Deadlock,” New York Times, July 27, 2010). Those same dollars spent on programs designed to improve the quality of life for the least amongst those of us living in the United States would have resulted in better accountability and increased global happiness more than by having spent the money on warfighting and rebuilding corrupt nations.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Women bishops and the Church of England
The Church of England moved closed to consecrating its first woman bishop this past weekend when its General Synod voted to require a two-thirds majority to pass any amendment to the draft legislation authorizing the consecration of women as bishops. The British press interpreted that vote as a significant rebuke to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York who had proposed an amendment to the act that would have created generous provisions for conservatives who object to women bishops. Those conservatives are now publicly threatening to exit the Church of England alleging that it no longer has room for them. (John F. Burns, “Anglican Group Hits Impasse on Women,” New York Times, July 10, 2010)
Viewing General Synod’s action in the broader context of the Anglican Communion suggests two significant consequences for Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and his efforts to keep the Communion from splitting. First, General Synod’s high profile rejection of Williams’ proposed compromise for the Church of England suggests that his efforts to preserve unity in his own province have faltered.
Second, the vote suggests that the fault lines are deeper than Williams appears to think, at least based on his actions. Sadly, some women priests were spit on while attending the Synod. One male bishop complained on a BBC radio broadcast that that Synod had been “swamped” with “ladies with time on their hands,” i.e., women priests. In fact, only about 20% of the priests present were women. (Simon Sarmiento, Thinking Anglicans: Bishop of Fulham profiled, July 20, 2010). This abusive, dismissive treatment of women priests is un-Christian (where is love for one’s neighbor?) and indicative of deep divisions within the Church of England.
Both assessments seem likely to be true for the Anglican Communion as a whole. In other words, the Anglican Communion is deeply polarized and efforts to hold it together seem destined to fail.
Viewing General Synod’s action in the broader context of the Anglican Communion suggests two significant consequences for Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and his efforts to keep the Communion from splitting. First, General Synod’s high profile rejection of Williams’ proposed compromise for the Church of England suggests that his efforts to preserve unity in his own province have faltered.
Second, the vote suggests that the fault lines are deeper than Williams appears to think, at least based on his actions. Sadly, some women priests were spit on while attending the Synod. One male bishop complained on a BBC radio broadcast that that Synod had been “swamped” with “ladies with time on their hands,” i.e., women priests. In fact, only about 20% of the priests present were women. (Simon Sarmiento, Thinking Anglicans: Bishop of Fulham profiled, July 20, 2010). This abusive, dismissive treatment of women priests is un-Christian (where is love for one’s neighbor?) and indicative of deep divisions within the Church of England.
Both assessments seem likely to be true for the Anglican Communion as a whole. In other words, the Anglican Communion is deeply polarized and efforts to hold it together seem destined to fail.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Exercising leadership in the Church
This spring, President Obama faced what commentators described as a difficult choice: should he fire General Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. general in charge of the fighting in Afghanistan? On the one hand, McChrystal had good working relationships with Afghan government leaders, a high profile role in shaping and leading the war, and his troops had confidence in his leadership. On the other hand, McChrystal publicly expressed contempt for senior political appointees in the Obama administration.
Military personnel owe their seniors honest advice, especially when the senior solicits an opinion or the subordinate fills a key leadership role. Theoretically, the military chain of command that stretches from the newest recruit to the President welcomes timely advice, even dissent, appropriately expressed. Timeliness requires communicating advice before the leader makes a decision; appropriate expression involves communicating that advice in a way that will not embarrass the boss. McChrystal’s opinions voiced in Michael Hastings’ “The Runaway General” (Rolling Stone, June 22, 2010) failed both tests.
Obama acted decisively yet not vindictively. He accepted McChrystal’s resignation and then graciously allowed the general to retire at his four star rank.
What can the Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church (TEC) learn about leadership from this incident?
Globally, the Anglican Communion, a lose federation of Churches in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, has no official “party line” or “chain of command.” The Anglican Covenant’s premise that no member of the Communion should act without consulting the other members seeks to impose new conformity on Communion members, stifling independent action. If the Anglican Communion were to adopt the current draft of the Covenant, the Communion would severely limit the freedom of TEC to follow God's call to practice a radical hospitality that welcomes and fully includes all.
Hoping that (1) the Covenant will die a bureaucratic death, (2) lengthy discursive and approval processes preceding adoption will produce a more acceptable amended Covenant, or (3) keeping a low profile will cause less gnashing of teeth among conservatives and temper their firm resolve to impose their will on the Communion are all naïve miscalculations. Instead, TEC and other, sympathetic Anglican Communion members need to model forthrightness by openly characterizing the proposed Covenant for what it is: an attempt to transform the Anglican Communion into a hierarchical body that enforces an un-Anglican conformity. TEC, like loyal military personnel, best fulfills its duty to Christ by courageously and loyally declaring its discernment of God’s leading.
Rumors of the Very Rev. Jeffrey John, Dean of St. Albans cathedral, nomination as the Church of England’s next Bishop of Southwark posed an interesting dilemma for the Archbishop of Canterbury. John, when nominated in 2003 as area Bishop for Reading, faced a torrent of conservative opposition. Unlike Bishops Robinson and Glasspool who live openly and fully with their partners, John, though partnered in a civil union, claims he is celibate. Short of constant video surveillance, nobody can verify that; I have no reason to doubt John’s honesty but find myself skeptical. Archbishop Williams felt sufficient pressure from the opposition that he spent six hours convincing John to withdraw his acceptance of the nomination as area Bishop for Reading.
The rumor prompted some Church of England conservatives to declare that if John were consecrated they would affiliate with another Anglican province. This barefaced ultimatum reflects the disunity that exists in both the Church of England and the Anglican Communion. Meanwhile, the British press reports that Archbishop Williams, angered by the leak from a supposedly confidential nominating process, has averred that he will not respond to coercive pressure. I’m enough of a cynic to wonder if the Archbishop isn’t secretly delighted with the leak because it effectively derailed John’s nomination without forcing Canterbury to take a no-win public stance for or against the nomination. Clearly, the Archbishop has not acted with the type of decisive and principled courage that Obama exemplified in dealing with McChrystal.
Nationally and in its dioceses, TEC needs to hold its own leaders accountable. Loyalty to TEC is a non-negotiable, sine qua non for leaders, clerical and lay. Loyalty does not necessitate agreement. TEC is a church that prays together using the forms established in the Book of Common Prayer without pretending that beliefs conform to any norm or fall within a particular set of parameters. Loyalty, however, does preclude both attempting to sow dissatisfaction or disenchantment with TEC as an institution and encouraging people or organizational structures to disaffiliate from TEC.
TEC has too often practiced a false kindness by tolerating active disloyalty rather than appropriately challenging disloyal behavior among its clergy and lay leaders. Actively disloyal individuals have decided to abandon TEC, a decision evident in actions if not in words, regardless of any protestations to the contrary. Disaffected dissidents who try to cling to structures or relationships that they believe they own misunderstand the concept of connectional Church that TEC incarnates. Furthermore, the actively disloyal manifest a lack of personal integrity, maintaining an affiliation with an institution that they believe has abandoned or significantly compromised its Christian identity or witness.
Addressing issues of disloyalty should proceed in a firm yet caring rather than vindictive manner; witch hunts and revenge have no place in Christ's Church. By addressing their lack of integrity in a timely, direct manner, TEC may actually help some of the disloyal to move toward improved spiritual health through greater integrity.
Concomitantly, TEC should continue to make room for the truly undecided as they discern whether they can in good conscience remain a part of TEC. This space should have no time or other artificial limits imposed. The one necessary boundary is that the undecided refrain from actively promoting disloyalty to TEC through words or actions.
Locally, clergy, wardens, vestry members, and other opinion makers must lead. In the 1970s, seminary instruction emphasized facilitation rather than leadership. Facilitation belongs in ecclesial tool kits. But leadership is even more important. A leader leads his/her followers toward actualizing the leader’s vision.
Pressures for leaders to sit on the sidelines, soft-pedal their views, or capitulate to the opposition certainly exist. A priest, for example, whose congregation splits over an issue may soon face a drastic reduction in stipend or unemployment with little probability of soon receiving another call. Emotional pressure on a leader may be more subtle but at least as powerful as economic pressure.
Instead of tolerating disloyalty, TEC should encourage loyalty. TEC, bishops, diocesan staff, elected leaders, and peers can proactively support clergy and laity working to keep people and parishes loyal. Support might include funding, spiritual or psychological counsel, outplacement options, public declarations of support, leadership training, etc. As I have previously argued in this forum, people are far more vital to the Church than is property. The Church will reap the largest dividends for Christ by investing its scarce resources in supporting its leaders battling to preserve and enhance loyalty to TEC.
General Convention 2009 resolutions and the consecration the Rt. Rev. Mary Glasspool in 2010 clearly indicate TEC’s present course. Now is not the time for waffling. Most TEC lay and clerical leaders, as well as many leaders in other Anglican Communion provinces, whether they agree with TEC’s direction or not, demonstrate their loyalty to Christ and fidelity to the Anglican way through visionary leadership that promotes proclaiming the kingdom of God, healing the sick, reconciling the estranged, and liberating the captive. The rest of us need to emulate their example.
Military personnel owe their seniors honest advice, especially when the senior solicits an opinion or the subordinate fills a key leadership role. Theoretically, the military chain of command that stretches from the newest recruit to the President welcomes timely advice, even dissent, appropriately expressed. Timeliness requires communicating advice before the leader makes a decision; appropriate expression involves communicating that advice in a way that will not embarrass the boss. McChrystal’s opinions voiced in Michael Hastings’ “The Runaway General” (Rolling Stone, June 22, 2010) failed both tests.
Obama acted decisively yet not vindictively. He accepted McChrystal’s resignation and then graciously allowed the general to retire at his four star rank.
What can the Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church (TEC) learn about leadership from this incident?
Globally, the Anglican Communion, a lose federation of Churches in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, has no official “party line” or “chain of command.” The Anglican Covenant’s premise that no member of the Communion should act without consulting the other members seeks to impose new conformity on Communion members, stifling independent action. If the Anglican Communion were to adopt the current draft of the Covenant, the Communion would severely limit the freedom of TEC to follow God's call to practice a radical hospitality that welcomes and fully includes all.
Hoping that (1) the Covenant will die a bureaucratic death, (2) lengthy discursive and approval processes preceding adoption will produce a more acceptable amended Covenant, or (3) keeping a low profile will cause less gnashing of teeth among conservatives and temper their firm resolve to impose their will on the Communion are all naïve miscalculations. Instead, TEC and other, sympathetic Anglican Communion members need to model forthrightness by openly characterizing the proposed Covenant for what it is: an attempt to transform the Anglican Communion into a hierarchical body that enforces an un-Anglican conformity. TEC, like loyal military personnel, best fulfills its duty to Christ by courageously and loyally declaring its discernment of God’s leading.
Rumors of the Very Rev. Jeffrey John, Dean of St. Albans cathedral, nomination as the Church of England’s next Bishop of Southwark posed an interesting dilemma for the Archbishop of Canterbury. John, when nominated in 2003 as area Bishop for Reading, faced a torrent of conservative opposition. Unlike Bishops Robinson and Glasspool who live openly and fully with their partners, John, though partnered in a civil union, claims he is celibate. Short of constant video surveillance, nobody can verify that; I have no reason to doubt John’s honesty but find myself skeptical. Archbishop Williams felt sufficient pressure from the opposition that he spent six hours convincing John to withdraw his acceptance of the nomination as area Bishop for Reading.
The rumor prompted some Church of England conservatives to declare that if John were consecrated they would affiliate with another Anglican province. This barefaced ultimatum reflects the disunity that exists in both the Church of England and the Anglican Communion. Meanwhile, the British press reports that Archbishop Williams, angered by the leak from a supposedly confidential nominating process, has averred that he will not respond to coercive pressure. I’m enough of a cynic to wonder if the Archbishop isn’t secretly delighted with the leak because it effectively derailed John’s nomination without forcing Canterbury to take a no-win public stance for or against the nomination. Clearly, the Archbishop has not acted with the type of decisive and principled courage that Obama exemplified in dealing with McChrystal.
Nationally and in its dioceses, TEC needs to hold its own leaders accountable. Loyalty to TEC is a non-negotiable, sine qua non for leaders, clerical and lay. Loyalty does not necessitate agreement. TEC is a church that prays together using the forms established in the Book of Common Prayer without pretending that beliefs conform to any norm or fall within a particular set of parameters. Loyalty, however, does preclude both attempting to sow dissatisfaction or disenchantment with TEC as an institution and encouraging people or organizational structures to disaffiliate from TEC.
TEC has too often practiced a false kindness by tolerating active disloyalty rather than appropriately challenging disloyal behavior among its clergy and lay leaders. Actively disloyal individuals have decided to abandon TEC, a decision evident in actions if not in words, regardless of any protestations to the contrary. Disaffected dissidents who try to cling to structures or relationships that they believe they own misunderstand the concept of connectional Church that TEC incarnates. Furthermore, the actively disloyal manifest a lack of personal integrity, maintaining an affiliation with an institution that they believe has abandoned or significantly compromised its Christian identity or witness.
Addressing issues of disloyalty should proceed in a firm yet caring rather than vindictive manner; witch hunts and revenge have no place in Christ's Church. By addressing their lack of integrity in a timely, direct manner, TEC may actually help some of the disloyal to move toward improved spiritual health through greater integrity.
Concomitantly, TEC should continue to make room for the truly undecided as they discern whether they can in good conscience remain a part of TEC. This space should have no time or other artificial limits imposed. The one necessary boundary is that the undecided refrain from actively promoting disloyalty to TEC through words or actions.
Locally, clergy, wardens, vestry members, and other opinion makers must lead. In the 1970s, seminary instruction emphasized facilitation rather than leadership. Facilitation belongs in ecclesial tool kits. But leadership is even more important. A leader leads his/her followers toward actualizing the leader’s vision.
Pressures for leaders to sit on the sidelines, soft-pedal their views, or capitulate to the opposition certainly exist. A priest, for example, whose congregation splits over an issue may soon face a drastic reduction in stipend or unemployment with little probability of soon receiving another call. Emotional pressure on a leader may be more subtle but at least as powerful as economic pressure.
Instead of tolerating disloyalty, TEC should encourage loyalty. TEC, bishops, diocesan staff, elected leaders, and peers can proactively support clergy and laity working to keep people and parishes loyal. Support might include funding, spiritual or psychological counsel, outplacement options, public declarations of support, leadership training, etc. As I have previously argued in this forum, people are far more vital to the Church than is property. The Church will reap the largest dividends for Christ by investing its scarce resources in supporting its leaders battling to preserve and enhance loyalty to TEC.
General Convention 2009 resolutions and the consecration the Rt. Rev. Mary Glasspool in 2010 clearly indicate TEC’s present course. Now is not the time for waffling. Most TEC lay and clerical leaders, as well as many leaders in other Anglican Communion provinces, whether they agree with TEC’s direction or not, demonstrate their loyalty to Christ and fidelity to the Anglican way through visionary leadership that promotes proclaiming the kingdom of God, healing the sick, reconciling the estranged, and liberating the captive. The rest of us need to emulate their example.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Conscientious objectors if DADT is repealed
A new type of conscientious objector has begun to appear in the United States armed forces: the service member who morally objects to serving with openly gay personnel. The House of Representatives voted in May to repeal the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law (DADT) that currently establishes the conditions under which non-heterosexuals may serve in the U.S. military. That vote prompted calls to the GI Rights Hotline at the Center on Conscience & War from military personnel, primarily conservative Christians, who claim that they cannot in good conscience serve alongside non-heterosexuals. (Tamar Levin, “Hot Line Handling Evolving Pleas for Conscientious Objector Status,” New York Times, July 16, 2010)
For the Department of Defense or federal courts to construe the current law governing conscientious objection to cover personnel who morally object to non-heterosexuals openly serving in the military seems highly unlikely. The Center for Conscience & War’s attorneys quickly reached the same conclusion.
That personnel have contacted the Center with such inquiries shows that the issue of gays in the military has become sadly and unnecessarily both visceral and polarizing. Sexual issues are often emotionally charged. They thus tend to attract demagogues who use such issues to build constituencies, motivate their followers to move from thinking to acting, and to create an enemy to hate. Fundamentalist Christian preachers and pastors who tell their flocks that repeal of DADT means that Christians can no longer serve in the military are clearly in the ranks of those demagogues.
The truth is that non-heterosexuals have probably always served in various militaries, often with great distinction and effectiveness. For example, Alexander the Great, by most accounts, was gay. Today, the U.S. military has many non-heterosexual members living and working alongside heterosexuals. If followed by everyone all of the time, the DADT policy would prevent anyone from knowing for sure who is and is not gay. The imperfectly adhered to DADT policy does not seem to have diminished the fighting effectiveness of U.S. forces at all.
Arguments that heterosexuals and homosexuals cannot share living quarters are bogus in a military force in which they already share living quarters. Furthermore, men and women live in close quarters, a proximity that may cause emotional difficulties for young heterosexual adults but does not pose a moral problem. At worse, non-heterosexuals may experience such emotional difficulties. Laws and regulations against rape, assault, molestation, harassment, etc., apply equally to all, regardless of gender orientation, theoretically creating a safe work environment.
In most high schools, teens shower with peers of the same sex. Almost inevitably, some of those teens will have a same sex orientation, i.e., be gay or lesbian. Young adults, often of both genders, share bathroom facilities in many college and university dorms. I’m certainly unaware of any moral protest against such policies. What’s different about the military?
In my experience, military personnel in a moment of crisis react as almost all humans will react. They grab at any available lifeline. In that moment when life seems to hang in the balance, sexuality is unimportant. The instinct for survival takes over. Help is help, regardless of a person’s sexual orientation.
For the Department of Defense or federal courts to construe the current law governing conscientious objection to cover personnel who morally object to non-heterosexuals openly serving in the military seems highly unlikely. The Center for Conscience & War’s attorneys quickly reached the same conclusion.
That personnel have contacted the Center with such inquiries shows that the issue of gays in the military has become sadly and unnecessarily both visceral and polarizing. Sexual issues are often emotionally charged. They thus tend to attract demagogues who use such issues to build constituencies, motivate their followers to move from thinking to acting, and to create an enemy to hate. Fundamentalist Christian preachers and pastors who tell their flocks that repeal of DADT means that Christians can no longer serve in the military are clearly in the ranks of those demagogues.
The truth is that non-heterosexuals have probably always served in various militaries, often with great distinction and effectiveness. For example, Alexander the Great, by most accounts, was gay. Today, the U.S. military has many non-heterosexual members living and working alongside heterosexuals. If followed by everyone all of the time, the DADT policy would prevent anyone from knowing for sure who is and is not gay. The imperfectly adhered to DADT policy does not seem to have diminished the fighting effectiveness of U.S. forces at all.
Arguments that heterosexuals and homosexuals cannot share living quarters are bogus in a military force in which they already share living quarters. Furthermore, men and women live in close quarters, a proximity that may cause emotional difficulties for young heterosexual adults but does not pose a moral problem. At worse, non-heterosexuals may experience such emotional difficulties. Laws and regulations against rape, assault, molestation, harassment, etc., apply equally to all, regardless of gender orientation, theoretically creating a safe work environment.
In most high schools, teens shower with peers of the same sex. Almost inevitably, some of those teens will have a same sex orientation, i.e., be gay or lesbian. Young adults, often of both genders, share bathroom facilities in many college and university dorms. I’m certainly unaware of any moral protest against such policies. What’s different about the military?
In my experience, military personnel in a moment of crisis react as almost all humans will react. They grab at any available lifeline. In that moment when life seems to hang in the balance, sexuality is unimportant. The instinct for survival takes over. Help is help, regardless of a person’s sexual orientation.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Korean ship sinking controversy
Controversy continues to swirl around the sinking of the South Korean Navy vessel, CHEONAN. Some South Korean scientists and others contend that the South Korean conclusion that a North Korean torpedo sank the CHEONAN rests on shoddy analysis. For example, the heat of the explosion would most likely have melted painted markings on the side of the torpedo and torpedo fragments should have crystallized aluminum on them because of the explosive impact. (David Cyrankoski, “Controversy over South Korea's sunken ship,” Nature, July 8, 2010)
If the South Korean claim that a North Korean torpedo sank the CEONAN lacks credibility, this may provide a way for both sides to back away from a confrontation that otherwise appears to offer little hope of a good resolution.
If the South Korean claim that a North Korean torpedo sank the CEONAN lacks credibility, this may provide a way for both sides to back away from a confrontation that otherwise appears to offer little hope of a good resolution.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Building in Israel and Palestine
Building in Israel and the Palestinian territories is vastly different than is undertaking a construction project in most other countries. In the Gaza strip, Israel has imposed a blockade on building materials. In response to that move, the Palestinians have established numerous tunnels that keep commerce and people moving, as highlighted in this video from The Economist:
Concurrently, Israel continues to build more housing on Palestinian lands. One of the mechanisms Israel uses to achieve this objective is the permitting process, a process highly contingent upon religion, race, and sometimes gender. (“Jerusalem's settlements: Permission granted,” The Economist, July 2, 2010)
“Jawboning” by U.S. officials and temporizing by the Israeli Prime Minister do little to change these realities. Yet genuine progress toward peace in the Middle East will not occur until Israel adopts policies consonant with establishing two nations, Israel and Palestine. Those policies will provide for equal treatment of people regardless of race or religion; those policies will ensure that everyone has fair opportunity for housing.
Significantly, the reporter implies that the Israelis view the tunnels and associated traffic as providing justification for military incursions into Gaza and for continuing their blockade. If correct, that allegation underscores the dysfunctional nature of the Israeli-Palestinian relationship and the dim prospects for hope in the region.
Concurrently, Israel continues to build more housing on Palestinian lands. One of the mechanisms Israel uses to achieve this objective is the permitting process, a process highly contingent upon religion, race, and sometimes gender. (“Jerusalem's settlements: Permission granted,” The Economist, July 2, 2010)
“Jawboning” by U.S. officials and temporizing by the Israeli Prime Minister do little to change these realities. Yet genuine progress toward peace in the Middle East will not occur until Israel adopts policies consonant with establishing two nations, Israel and Palestine. Those policies will provide for equal treatment of people regardless of race or religion; those policies will ensure that everyone has fair opportunity for housing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)