Captain Edward Latimer Beach, U.S. Navy (Ret.), was: President Eisenhower’s Naval Aide; Commanding Officer of the first submarine to circumnavigate the globe, while submerged traveling over thirty thousand miles in 61 days: a World War II hero who earned the Navy Cross; and the best-selling author of Run Silent, Run Deep. During World War II, submarines in which Captain Beach was serving damaged or sank 45 enemy ships. The war’s conclusion found him in command of the USS PIPER, underway in the East China Sea. There, just as they were entering Japanese waters, he received this message from his wife: Daughter was born August 10th X Both well X Congratulations. In his words, “The war had come to an end, and life, for some of us, was beginning.”
I am always bemused when people invariably comment about a newborn child, Isn’t he beautiful? or Isn’t she cute? One does not have to see very many newborns to realize that those comments do not connote physical attractiveness. Instead, I have come to think that people intend their comments to convey a sense of the wonder they feel in the presence of a new life. That something so fragile and helpless as a newborn has the potential to grow into an adult, perhaps to become a great artist, powerful leader, wealthy tycoon, or spiritual guru, is truly wondrous.
When privileged to hold a newborn, I have often pondered whether this small bundle of life, usually the sum of many dreams and hopes, will survive everything that life will throw at it. Will this baby live to maturity? If so, what will be his or her fate? Those questions have felt especially poignant with respect to the infants that I have baptized in neonatal critical care units. Yet mystery always shrouds birth; nobody, not even purported soothsayers, astrologers, or other alleged practitioners of the psychic arts knows what the future holds for a child.
To survive, a baby requires much love, love that provides food, warmth, protection, and, most importantly, emotional nurture. A newborn, unable at first even to differentiate self from environment depends totally upon others. This dependency is so complete that the love people claim to receive from a two or three day old baby is in fact the projection of both the person’s own love onto the child and an imagined reciprocal response from the child.
Working with baby chimpanzees, psychologists have conducted experiments in which they removed newborns from the mother. Food, warmth, and protection were insufficient to allow the baby chimp to thrive. To thrive, the baby required at least the semblance of a mother, e.g., receiving milk from a heated, cloth covered frame. Even that substitute helped the baby chimp develop only to a minimal level. Further development required real interaction.
Thankfully, I am unaware of anybody who has suggested conducting similar experiments with human children. Instead, we tenderly cradle a newborn in our arms, wrap the baby with blankets for warmth, and often make cooing sounds, almost instinctively trying to give love.
The feelings of wonder, mystery, and love that newborn babies evoke in us resonate deeply, I suspect, because they touch our basic, primal nature. Our feeling of wonder at the beginning of a new life, a function of human consciousness, of the self-awareness that is an integral dimension of the human spirit, reminds us that we are spiritual beings. Our sense of the mystery that shrouds a newborn future reminds us of a power greater than ourselves, a power that transcends life itself, God. Our experience of a love so strong that it envisions its own completion fills us with hope, for we know, perhaps without ever saying the words, that this is how truly and unconditionally God loves us.
Recall, for a moment, the story of Captain Ed Beach, with whom I began this sermon. He, who had never seen his daughter but knew too well the horrors of war, insightfully wrote, “The war had come to an end, and life, for some of us, was beginning.” In those few words, Captain Beach unwittingly alluded to this day’s real meaning:
• The wonder we feel at God's continuing activity in the world, manifest in the Christ child’s birth;
• The mystery of how we, linked in Holy Baptism and Holy Eucharist to the Christ child, will be part of what God does next;
• And the love, complete and unconditional, that is transforming us into the image of the Christ child.
May the wonder, mystery, and love of Christmas be yours today and every day.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Monday, December 22, 2008
Christmas feelings
“I just don't feel like Christmas,” is a frequent lament. Exactly how should one feel at Christmas?
William Willimon, when Duke University Chaplain and a professor at Duke Divinity School described his and his wife’s longing and anticipation for the birth of their first child:
“It had been a long, frustrating wait: the tests, the treatments, the discouragement, the unknowing. We wanted a child. But we were learning that a child is one blessing that is a gift - unearned, unachieved, undemanded. ‘We know more about how to help couples not have children than how to help them have children,’ the doctor had said.
“But at last the hoped-for, prayed-for dream became reality. The gynecologist, who in today's upside-down world had spent his day helping people avoid pregnancy, gave my wife the news.
“Through the fall, she grew bigger – ‘great with child,’ as Matthew or Luke would have said. As the December days grew short and cold, we watched this mystery of mysteries unfold.
“Patsy said that she knew the Christmas cantata was not written for our child, but as our little church choir struggled through John Peterson's maudlin Love Transcending, sometimes she caught herself singing for our baby, growing in her womb, rather than for Mary's baby. And on the night of the cantata, when she processed in with the choir, she knew that she was on her way to Bethlehem. When the lector spoke of Mary's being "blessed among women," Patsy said Gabriel was speaking to her. And we rejoiced, like Elizabeth and Mary before us, when they had talked about the advent of their babies.
“That December, we found that there is no better time to be waiting for a child than Advent, when the whole world waits for a baby.”
Too often our images of Christmas have more to do with romantic Currier and Ives prints of a surreal idyllic New England life in the late 1800's than with Scripture or waiting for a child to be born. Popular music echoes this hopeless romanticism in songs like the popular Christmas standard, “It’s beginning to feel a lot like Christmas.” Family, food, and gifts are all good things and may enrich our feelings of Christmas.
However, the real feeling of Christmas is the nervous anticipation that accompanies the birth of a child. The child for whom we wait is to be no ordinary child. In this newborn "the hopes and fears of all the years" are met by a God who meets us where we live. In this newborn, God says, “I love you” to a very messy, broken, world. In this child, God offers the hope of God's continuing activity in a world that seems to have lost its way.
May this Christmas help us all to experience anew the joys, the cries, and the love of that long-awaited child.
William Willimon, when Duke University Chaplain and a professor at Duke Divinity School described his and his wife’s longing and anticipation for the birth of their first child:
“It had been a long, frustrating wait: the tests, the treatments, the discouragement, the unknowing. We wanted a child. But we were learning that a child is one blessing that is a gift - unearned, unachieved, undemanded. ‘We know more about how to help couples not have children than how to help them have children,’ the doctor had said.
“But at last the hoped-for, prayed-for dream became reality. The gynecologist, who in today's upside-down world had spent his day helping people avoid pregnancy, gave my wife the news.
“Through the fall, she grew bigger – ‘great with child,’ as Matthew or Luke would have said. As the December days grew short and cold, we watched this mystery of mysteries unfold.
“Patsy said that she knew the Christmas cantata was not written for our child, but as our little church choir struggled through John Peterson's maudlin Love Transcending, sometimes she caught herself singing for our baby, growing in her womb, rather than for Mary's baby. And on the night of the cantata, when she processed in with the choir, she knew that she was on her way to Bethlehem. When the lector spoke of Mary's being "blessed among women," Patsy said Gabriel was speaking to her. And we rejoiced, like Elizabeth and Mary before us, when they had talked about the advent of their babies.
“That December, we found that there is no better time to be waiting for a child than Advent, when the whole world waits for a baby.”
Too often our images of Christmas have more to do with romantic Currier and Ives prints of a surreal idyllic New England life in the late 1800's than with Scripture or waiting for a child to be born. Popular music echoes this hopeless romanticism in songs like the popular Christmas standard, “It’s beginning to feel a lot like Christmas.” Family, food, and gifts are all good things and may enrich our feelings of Christmas.
However, the real feeling of Christmas is the nervous anticipation that accompanies the birth of a child. The child for whom we wait is to be no ordinary child. In this newborn "the hopes and fears of all the years" are met by a God who meets us where we live. In this newborn, God says, “I love you” to a very messy, broken, world. In this child, God offers the hope of God's continuing activity in a world that seems to have lost its way.
May this Christmas help us all to experience anew the joys, the cries, and the love of that long-awaited child.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Rick Warren and the Obama Inaugural
The firestorm that President-elect Obama ignited by selecting Pastor Rick Warren to offer the invocation at the Inauguration is a sad commentary on American life:
• The controversy emphasizes the importance that single issue politics has attained – Obama campaigned on a platform to unite, a goal that necessarily includes reaching out to those with whom one profoundly disagrees;
• The controversy reveals the extent to which a single issue can distort one’s image of God – Bishop Robinson, a man whom I greatly respect, has written in today’s New York Times that the God to whom Warren prays is not the God to whom Robinson prays, a claim that makes no sense to a true monotheist, for God's identity is not contingent upon humans accurately interpreting God's will;
• The controversy puzzles me because of the silence of others who might object to Warren – those who support a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion have largely remained on the sidelines of this fight;
• The vituperative language of some who oppose Obama’s choice underscores the painfully deep fissures that exist in American political and communal life.
I think Obama made a most regrettable choice when he invited Rick Warren to offer the Inaugural invocation. However, that choice does not end the world nor does it signal a dramatic change in the President-elect’s values or opinions. The choice seems to express an effort to build bridges, to bring disparate elements of a deeply divided nation together.
Barack Obama and his team will not make every decision with the wisdom of a Solomon. The Christian religion underscores that verity by teaching the pervasiveness of human sin. No matter how good, how wise Obama and his team may be, they will err. This is not cynicism. Progress is possible. But consistent, unerring progress is impossible.
The Christian religion emphasizes the importance of reconciliation. Condemning Rick Warren and likeminded individuals for their wrong opinions exacerbates division rather than moving us toward reconciliation. The United States at this time needs bridge builders. People of faith should lead the way in building bridges. Ironically, Warren modeled bridge building when he invited both McCain and Obama to answer the same questions at Saddleback Church. Bridge building does not require one to change basic opinions, to pretend real differences don’t exist. Bridge building does require mutual respect (in the Book of Common Prayer’s Baptismal Covenant Christians promise to “respect the dignity of EVERY human being”) and dialogue.
In this instance, hoping to find a conservative or evangelical religious leader to pray at the Inauguration who did not share most of Warren’s views about vital social issues such as gay marriage and abortion was probably impossible. Could Obama have found another, more fortuitous venue for bridge building? Certainly. However, he made this choice; bridges need building; God calls us to emulate Jesus in building bridges to the least among us – even evangelicals!
• The controversy emphasizes the importance that single issue politics has attained – Obama campaigned on a platform to unite, a goal that necessarily includes reaching out to those with whom one profoundly disagrees;
• The controversy reveals the extent to which a single issue can distort one’s image of God – Bishop Robinson, a man whom I greatly respect, has written in today’s New York Times that the God to whom Warren prays is not the God to whom Robinson prays, a claim that makes no sense to a true monotheist, for God's identity is not contingent upon humans accurately interpreting God's will;
• The controversy puzzles me because of the silence of others who might object to Warren – those who support a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion have largely remained on the sidelines of this fight;
• The vituperative language of some who oppose Obama’s choice underscores the painfully deep fissures that exist in American political and communal life.
I think Obama made a most regrettable choice when he invited Rick Warren to offer the Inaugural invocation. However, that choice does not end the world nor does it signal a dramatic change in the President-elect’s values or opinions. The choice seems to express an effort to build bridges, to bring disparate elements of a deeply divided nation together.
Barack Obama and his team will not make every decision with the wisdom of a Solomon. The Christian religion underscores that verity by teaching the pervasiveness of human sin. No matter how good, how wise Obama and his team may be, they will err. This is not cynicism. Progress is possible. But consistent, unerring progress is impossible.
The Christian religion emphasizes the importance of reconciliation. Condemning Rick Warren and likeminded individuals for their wrong opinions exacerbates division rather than moving us toward reconciliation. The United States at this time needs bridge builders. People of faith should lead the way in building bridges. Ironically, Warren modeled bridge building when he invited both McCain and Obama to answer the same questions at Saddleback Church. Bridge building does not require one to change basic opinions, to pretend real differences don’t exist. Bridge building does require mutual respect (in the Book of Common Prayer’s Baptismal Covenant Christians promise to “respect the dignity of EVERY human being”) and dialogue.
In this instance, hoping to find a conservative or evangelical religious leader to pray at the Inauguration who did not share most of Warren’s views about vital social issues such as gay marriage and abortion was probably impossible. Could Obama have found another, more fortuitous venue for bridge building? Certainly. However, he made this choice; bridges need building; God calls us to emulate Jesus in building bridges to the least among us – even evangelicals!
Thursday, December 18, 2008
What Would Jesus Do?
Many Christians claim that they attempt to shape their lives by living as they think Jesus would, i.e., they allege that they live in answer to the question, What would Jesus do?
I used to inquire of these individuals, How do you know what Jesus would do? Who was Jesus? I have largely quit asking those questions because almost nobody to whom I asked the questions had a coherent response.
A new scholarly consensus about Jesus, that helps to answer the second of those questions (Who was Jesus?), is emerging. Biblical scholars like Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan have led in the development of that consensus; ecclesiastics like Bishop Spong have helped to popularize it. A synopsis of that consensus portrays Jesus as a Jewish first century Mediterranean peasant who was a mystic, healer, wisdom teacher, and prophet.
That portrait of the historical Jesus provides a substantive foundation for answering the first question, What would Jesus do? The portrait affirms Jesus’ identity as a passionate monotheist, an opponent of domination and proponent of inclusion, a courage denouncer of all that diminishes life and proclaimer of all that enriches or gives life.
Those who would act in Jesus’ name will do well to meditate on this portrait of the Galilean.
I used to inquire of these individuals, How do you know what Jesus would do? Who was Jesus? I have largely quit asking those questions because almost nobody to whom I asked the questions had a coherent response.
A new scholarly consensus about Jesus, that helps to answer the second of those questions (Who was Jesus?), is emerging. Biblical scholars like Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan have led in the development of that consensus; ecclesiastics like Bishop Spong have helped to popularize it. A synopsis of that consensus portrays Jesus as a Jewish first century Mediterranean peasant who was a mystic, healer, wisdom teacher, and prophet.
That portrait of the historical Jesus provides a substantive foundation for answering the first question, What would Jesus do? The portrait affirms Jesus’ identity as a passionate monotheist, an opponent of domination and proponent of inclusion, a courage denouncer of all that diminishes life and proclaimer of all that enriches or gives life.
Those who would act in Jesus’ name will do well to meditate on this portrait of the Galilean.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Further thoughts on an Anglican Province
“This is simply a reminder that what we are called to is not our stuff. This is a cleansing by fire.”
- Brother Joseph Brown, one of seven Benedictine Anglican monks who lived at Mount Calvary Monastery in Montecito, which was destroyed by fires that swept through southern California (New York Times, November 19)
I wonder how many Christians really understand Brother Joseph’s remark?
My recent essay at the Episcopal Café, “An Alternative Province? Why Not?” sparked a surprisingly large and disappointing response, leaving me pessimistic about the number who understood Brother Joseph’s comment. The response to my essay was surprising in that a couple of conservative websites republished the post suggesting their approval. I had not expected conservatives to find my perspective agreeable. Let me be clear. Those leaving the Episcopal Church (like those remaining) are equally wrong to pursue property issues in the courts. Indeed, departing dissidents should honor the branch of Christendom that heretofore has nurtured them in the faith and depart by respecting a polity that assigns moral (and arguably legal) ownership of property and other assets to the national church through its dioceses. Individuals are free to depart; Church canons provide no mechanism for a parish or diocese to depart, as these are integral elements of the national body. Attempting to secede violates the trust that binds us together as God's family.
Those departing need to remember that even as their views about gender determining eligibility for ordination or the morality of same sex relationships do not put them outside the pale of the body of Christ, the converse is also true: those with whom they disagree remain part of the body of Christ. None of those issues, no matter how passionate or strong one’s views are, is a litmus test or definition of Christian identity.
Funds given to the Church are just that, given. That is, monies once donated become the Church’s property. Who contributed the money or other assets is irrelevant in Anglican polity. Once received, the resources belong to the Church for use in God's work, a truth symbolized in terming donations received in worship “offerings” and the priest blessing them.
Frittering away precious resources in a physically and spiritually starving world is equally scandalous, whether the Church or dissidents pay the legal bills. My local newspaper’s front page this morning featured two stories that nearly brought me to tears: a teenaged Eagle Scout allegedly murdered by four friends and the Zimbabwean cholera outbreak. Court battles over who owns what Church property provides no hope in either situation. Nor will court battles, regardless of who prevails, change anyone’s views about the issues that divide us. Courts and lawyers are important instruments of social justice; however, the scriptures exhort Christians to resolve their disputes without litigation.
The Presiding Bishop has helpfully observed that departures number only about one hundred thousand in a Church of twenty-three hundred thousand. Those leaving are a small percentage of the whole Church and their exit in no way threatens the Episcopal Church’s existence or vitality. Furthermore, the Archbishop of Canterbury has emphatically clarified that those who have left, should they wish to become an Anglican province, must comply with all established procedures for achieving that status, a process requiring years. In sum, the remarks of the Most Reverends Jefferts Schori and Williams suggest that the Episcopal Church should focus on its ministry and mission rather than devoting substantial and unwarranted time and energy to the sad but inevitable departure of the unhappy and bigoted few.
Normally, an author feels gratified when his or her writing attracts considerable attention. Yet the obvious depth of attachment, both among those departing and those remaining in the Episcopal Church, to property and other assets disappointed me. Material resources are important. However, my experience and observation is that human commitment and vision, not lack of material resources, are the real limits on Church ministry and mission. People, within and without the Church, respond enthusiastically and generously when afforded meaningful opportunities to engage in life-giving ministry and mission.
The relative handful of those leaving with their mutually incompatible theologies, to their dismay, has not caused the Episcopal Church’s numerical decline over the last fifty years. Part of the real explanation for that decline is that a Church caricatured as the party of the wealthy and powerful at prayer should expect inner conflict and pain when it strives to incarnate more fully God's inclusive love that transcends wealth, race, gender orientation, ethnicity, etc. Part of the explanation is also that we Episcopalians have focused on internal issues and institutional maintenance (conventions trying to legislate theology and ethics; attempting to preserve an aging, poorly located physical plant; perpetuating once useful activities that no longer serve today’s needs; etc.) rather than ministry and mission.
Perhaps, God has a badly needed message for us in the sad departure of our more narrow-minded brothers and sisters, a poignant reminder to prioritize ministry and mission ahead of institutional maintenance. Like the monks of Mount St. Calvary whose hospitality and ministry I have enjoyed and cherished, all parties in the current controversies can benefit from a painful and costly lesson in keeping one’s priorities correctly ordered. The monks will continue to serve, moving in the direction they sense God leading. The Episcopal Church should do the same, declaring the truth about property ownership but prepared to exercise costly grace in our actions rather than to compromise our priorities. Now is the time, the season, for us in the Episcopal Church to respond to God's vision for us, God's calling, to incarnate Christ's inclusive, life-giving love for all, at home and abroad. To do otherwise has intangible costs that far exceed the dollar value of any disputed assets.
- Brother Joseph Brown, one of seven Benedictine Anglican monks who lived at Mount Calvary Monastery in Montecito, which was destroyed by fires that swept through southern California (New York Times, November 19)
I wonder how many Christians really understand Brother Joseph’s remark?
My recent essay at the Episcopal Café, “An Alternative Province? Why Not?” sparked a surprisingly large and disappointing response, leaving me pessimistic about the number who understood Brother Joseph’s comment. The response to my essay was surprising in that a couple of conservative websites republished the post suggesting their approval. I had not expected conservatives to find my perspective agreeable. Let me be clear. Those leaving the Episcopal Church (like those remaining) are equally wrong to pursue property issues in the courts. Indeed, departing dissidents should honor the branch of Christendom that heretofore has nurtured them in the faith and depart by respecting a polity that assigns moral (and arguably legal) ownership of property and other assets to the national church through its dioceses. Individuals are free to depart; Church canons provide no mechanism for a parish or diocese to depart, as these are integral elements of the national body. Attempting to secede violates the trust that binds us together as God's family.
Those departing need to remember that even as their views about gender determining eligibility for ordination or the morality of same sex relationships do not put them outside the pale of the body of Christ, the converse is also true: those with whom they disagree remain part of the body of Christ. None of those issues, no matter how passionate or strong one’s views are, is a litmus test or definition of Christian identity.
Funds given to the Church are just that, given. That is, monies once donated become the Church’s property. Who contributed the money or other assets is irrelevant in Anglican polity. Once received, the resources belong to the Church for use in God's work, a truth symbolized in terming donations received in worship “offerings” and the priest blessing them.
Frittering away precious resources in a physically and spiritually starving world is equally scandalous, whether the Church or dissidents pay the legal bills. My local newspaper’s front page this morning featured two stories that nearly brought me to tears: a teenaged Eagle Scout allegedly murdered by four friends and the Zimbabwean cholera outbreak. Court battles over who owns what Church property provides no hope in either situation. Nor will court battles, regardless of who prevails, change anyone’s views about the issues that divide us. Courts and lawyers are important instruments of social justice; however, the scriptures exhort Christians to resolve their disputes without litigation.
The Presiding Bishop has helpfully observed that departures number only about one hundred thousand in a Church of twenty-three hundred thousand. Those leaving are a small percentage of the whole Church and their exit in no way threatens the Episcopal Church’s existence or vitality. Furthermore, the Archbishop of Canterbury has emphatically clarified that those who have left, should they wish to become an Anglican province, must comply with all established procedures for achieving that status, a process requiring years. In sum, the remarks of the Most Reverends Jefferts Schori and Williams suggest that the Episcopal Church should focus on its ministry and mission rather than devoting substantial and unwarranted time and energy to the sad but inevitable departure of the unhappy and bigoted few.
Normally, an author feels gratified when his or her writing attracts considerable attention. Yet the obvious depth of attachment, both among those departing and those remaining in the Episcopal Church, to property and other assets disappointed me. Material resources are important. However, my experience and observation is that human commitment and vision, not lack of material resources, are the real limits on Church ministry and mission. People, within and without the Church, respond enthusiastically and generously when afforded meaningful opportunities to engage in life-giving ministry and mission.
The relative handful of those leaving with their mutually incompatible theologies, to their dismay, has not caused the Episcopal Church’s numerical decline over the last fifty years. Part of the real explanation for that decline is that a Church caricatured as the party of the wealthy and powerful at prayer should expect inner conflict and pain when it strives to incarnate more fully God's inclusive love that transcends wealth, race, gender orientation, ethnicity, etc. Part of the explanation is also that we Episcopalians have focused on internal issues and institutional maintenance (conventions trying to legislate theology and ethics; attempting to preserve an aging, poorly located physical plant; perpetuating once useful activities that no longer serve today’s needs; etc.) rather than ministry and mission.
Perhaps, God has a badly needed message for us in the sad departure of our more narrow-minded brothers and sisters, a poignant reminder to prioritize ministry and mission ahead of institutional maintenance. Like the monks of Mount St. Calvary whose hospitality and ministry I have enjoyed and cherished, all parties in the current controversies can benefit from a painful and costly lesson in keeping one’s priorities correctly ordered. The monks will continue to serve, moving in the direction they sense God leading. The Episcopal Church should do the same, declaring the truth about property ownership but prepared to exercise costly grace in our actions rather than to compromise our priorities. Now is the time, the season, for us in the Episcopal Church to respond to God's vision for us, God's calling, to incarnate Christ's inclusive, life-giving love for all, at home and abroad. To do otherwise has intangible costs that far exceed the dollar value of any disputed assets.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Religious education
"A few years ago I was standing around the photocopier in Boston University’s Department of Religion when a visiting professor from Austria offered a passing observation about American undergraduates. They are very religious, he told me, but they know next to nothing about religion." - Stephen Prothero, Religious Literacy, 2007
Prothero, a professor of religious studies at Boston University and bestselling author, echoed the Austrian professor’s assessment. Pollster George Gallup similarly terms the United States “a nation of biblical illiterates.”
Over the course of several years, I asked various groups (Naval Academy midshipmen, mid-career military officers, congregations) to name the Ten Commandments. I administered this pop quiz in response to people frequently telling me that they used the Ten Commandments as the source of moral guidance in their lives. The quiz unfortunately discomfited many. Fewer than half of any group to whom I administered the quiz could actually name all Ten Commandments. Some people could only name one or two Commandments. Perhaps the most creative response I received was from a frustrated Naval Academy midshipman who replied, Beat Army!
Concomitantly, I often hear clergy from the Church’s conservative and liberal wings lament the laity’s ignorance of theology, liturgics, and other ecclesiastical subjects. In other words, clergy believe that lay people should receive more instruction in both the content and practice of Christianity. Unfortunately, we clergy have nobody to blame but ourselves for this sad state of affairs. Many of the conflicts in the larger Church and in the Episcopal Church would not have occurred had the clergy been more diligent in teaching the laity. For example, too many clergy over the last three centuries have not dared (or worse yet, cared enough to bother) to introduce their congregations to the historical-critical method of studying scripture. Instead, clergy and laity alike have persisted in a devotional reading of scripture that lends itself to literalism and legalism rather than opening us to the living, loving word.
On occasion, I catch myself taking for granted aspects of belief and practice with which I deal frequently, but that are less frequent for many, e.g., why the Church offers God's blessing on human relationships or the meaning of Holy Baptism. At other times, the press of feeling that I had too much to do in too little time has led me to shorten the time I spend with people. Sometimes I simply tire of preaching about a topic (walking people through the how and whys of prayer book services) and want to focus on what Christianity says about a current issue or what, for me, is a fresh spiritual insight. I also know that some subjects (e.g., death and the burial office) are unpopular, or can make people uncomfortable.
Yet, all of those are ultimately just excuses. My calling is not to be popular or to make people comfortable. The fresh and timely are important, but so is the old, if basic to our pilgrimage as God's people. Feeling overwhelmed and stressed out speaks volumes about me and my desire for people to need me; God only asks that I – or anyone else – accomplish the possible. Being mindful of others, and where they are, what they know, is essential for me truly to love them. In other words, like it or not, teaching is central to a priest’s ministry, a task to which the priest explicitly commits him or herself in ordination.
We clergy should give more thought to comprehensive and consistent teaching. Laity should not hesitate to ask about what they do not understand, e.g., why stand for the gospel reading and not the other lessons, especially since we affirm that the other lessons are “The word of the Lord.” (Historically, the Church thought the gospels to contain Jesus’ words; the gospels arguably testify to Jesus more clearly than do other books of the Bible.) A good beginning, easily implemented, is to include at least one piece of teaching in every homily/sermon.
Similarly, the laity need to take Christianity more seriously, expending the time and effort to learn not only the Ten Commandments but also to read the Bible by benefitting from the historical-critical method, the story of the Church for the last two thousand years, the debates that shape our thinking about God, etc. A good beginning, easily implemented, is to read at least a substantive book a year on Christianity or to participate in a meaningful Christian education program annually.
Prothero, a professor of religious studies at Boston University and bestselling author, echoed the Austrian professor’s assessment. Pollster George Gallup similarly terms the United States “a nation of biblical illiterates.”
Over the course of several years, I asked various groups (Naval Academy midshipmen, mid-career military officers, congregations) to name the Ten Commandments. I administered this pop quiz in response to people frequently telling me that they used the Ten Commandments as the source of moral guidance in their lives. The quiz unfortunately discomfited many. Fewer than half of any group to whom I administered the quiz could actually name all Ten Commandments. Some people could only name one or two Commandments. Perhaps the most creative response I received was from a frustrated Naval Academy midshipman who replied, Beat Army!
Concomitantly, I often hear clergy from the Church’s conservative and liberal wings lament the laity’s ignorance of theology, liturgics, and other ecclesiastical subjects. In other words, clergy believe that lay people should receive more instruction in both the content and practice of Christianity. Unfortunately, we clergy have nobody to blame but ourselves for this sad state of affairs. Many of the conflicts in the larger Church and in the Episcopal Church would not have occurred had the clergy been more diligent in teaching the laity. For example, too many clergy over the last three centuries have not dared (or worse yet, cared enough to bother) to introduce their congregations to the historical-critical method of studying scripture. Instead, clergy and laity alike have persisted in a devotional reading of scripture that lends itself to literalism and legalism rather than opening us to the living, loving word.
On occasion, I catch myself taking for granted aspects of belief and practice with which I deal frequently, but that are less frequent for many, e.g., why the Church offers God's blessing on human relationships or the meaning of Holy Baptism. At other times, the press of feeling that I had too much to do in too little time has led me to shorten the time I spend with people. Sometimes I simply tire of preaching about a topic (walking people through the how and whys of prayer book services) and want to focus on what Christianity says about a current issue or what, for me, is a fresh spiritual insight. I also know that some subjects (e.g., death and the burial office) are unpopular, or can make people uncomfortable.
Yet, all of those are ultimately just excuses. My calling is not to be popular or to make people comfortable. The fresh and timely are important, but so is the old, if basic to our pilgrimage as God's people. Feeling overwhelmed and stressed out speaks volumes about me and my desire for people to need me; God only asks that I – or anyone else – accomplish the possible. Being mindful of others, and where they are, what they know, is essential for me truly to love them. In other words, like it or not, teaching is central to a priest’s ministry, a task to which the priest explicitly commits him or herself in ordination.
We clergy should give more thought to comprehensive and consistent teaching. Laity should not hesitate to ask about what they do not understand, e.g., why stand for the gospel reading and not the other lessons, especially since we affirm that the other lessons are “The word of the Lord.” (Historically, the Church thought the gospels to contain Jesus’ words; the gospels arguably testify to Jesus more clearly than do other books of the Bible.) A good beginning, easily implemented, is to include at least one piece of teaching in every homily/sermon.
Similarly, the laity need to take Christianity more seriously, expending the time and effort to learn not only the Ten Commandments but also to read the Bible by benefitting from the historical-critical method, the story of the Church for the last two thousand years, the debates that shape our thinking about God, etc. A good beginning, easily implemented, is to read at least a substantive book a year on Christianity or to participate in a meaningful Christian education program annually.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Partitioning Iraq
News reports the last few days have revealed the fraying of the relative calm in Iraq that created the appearance of the surge in U.S. forces having produced the desired result. First, tensions and violence are rising in areas like Mosul that lie on fault lines between Sunni and Shiite parts of Iraq. Second, the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al Maliki, is acquiring the trappings of power typically associated with authoritarian Arab rulers.
Outbreaks of violence underscore the superficiality of the Bush administration’s solution that did not address the basic Iraqi problems of sectarian, ethnic, and tribal divides. The Parliament, for example, remains unable to pass a bill that would apportion oil revenues among various stakeholders in Iraq.
If Iraq cannot function as a tripartite nation – Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites agreeing to live together in a loose confederation with little central authority – then the only alternative to chaos is for a strong dictator to emerge, a new Saddam Hussein. Nouri al Maliki appears that prime contender in that contest. He probably views his support for a continued American presence as a necessary evil to give him the time to strengthen his own grip on the nation. Competing forces and factions that would like to impose their rule on Iraq include other Shiite factions as well as Sunni groups and foreign insurgents linked with al Qaeda.
If the United States wants to achieve a lasting, more positive legacy in Iraq in these rapidly waning days of the Bush administration, the only option is to deal honestly with the real situation in that strife-torn nation. Perhaps it is not too late for the United States to help the Iraqis form a tripartite confederation. Otherwise, the war, hundreds of thousands of deaths, a diminution in the quality of life for the average Iraqi, and hundreds of billions of U.S. tax dollars will have purchased only the exchange of one dictator for another.
Outbreaks of violence underscore the superficiality of the Bush administration’s solution that did not address the basic Iraqi problems of sectarian, ethnic, and tribal divides. The Parliament, for example, remains unable to pass a bill that would apportion oil revenues among various stakeholders in Iraq.
If Iraq cannot function as a tripartite nation – Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites agreeing to live together in a loose confederation with little central authority – then the only alternative to chaos is for a strong dictator to emerge, a new Saddam Hussein. Nouri al Maliki appears that prime contender in that contest. He probably views his support for a continued American presence as a necessary evil to give him the time to strengthen his own grip on the nation. Competing forces and factions that would like to impose their rule on Iraq include other Shiite factions as well as Sunni groups and foreign insurgents linked with al Qaeda.
If the United States wants to achieve a lasting, more positive legacy in Iraq in these rapidly waning days of the Bush administration, the only option is to deal honestly with the real situation in that strife-torn nation. Perhaps it is not too late for the United States to help the Iraqis form a tripartite confederation. Otherwise, the war, hundreds of thousands of deaths, a diminution in the quality of life for the average Iraqi, and hundreds of billions of U.S. tax dollars will have purchased only the exchange of one dictator for another.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Treatment of Detainees
Most of the public debate regarding the treatment of detainees in the effort to combat terrorism has emphasized the advantages or disadvantages of granting those detainees the protections of the Geneva Convention. Advocates of euphemistically termed “coercive interrogation measures” point to useful, life-saving information allegedly obtained utilizing those techniques. Opponents of those techniques, often referring to the same techniques as forms of torture, note that using those techniques jeopardizes the well-being of any U.S. military personnel who may in the future be enemy prisoners of war.
Both arguments are flawed. Information obtained under duress is notoriously unreliable. The cost of futile, wild goose chases can easily exceed the benefits of helpful information. Many enemies, terrorists and others, have already chosen to ignore the Geneva Conventions.
However, the basic problem with both arguments is they focus on the costs and benefits of using or not using “coercive interrogation measures.” Christians rightly reject this approach to ethics, known as utilitarianism. The premise of utilitarianism is that the end justifies the means. In this case, the laudable end of protecting U.S. national security supposedly justifies the means of obtaining vital information through techniques repugnant to most Americans, prohibited by international law, and un-Constitutional if used on U.S. citizens.
The legal and Constitutional prohibitions against those techniques rely on a second approach to ethics, rules. As Christians, our rule book is the Bible as understood through prayer, reason, and tradition. The Baptismal covenant in the Book of Common Prayer neatly summarizes Scriptural teaching on how we are to treat others:
Celebrant: Will you seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving your neighbor as yourself?
People: I will, with God's help.
Celebrant: Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?
People: I will, with God's help.
Loving one’s neighbor and respecting the dignity of every human being for the faithful Christian excludes coercive interrogation methods. The accused and the guilty remain God's children, persons for whom the Christ died, just like each of us. Utilitarianism, by itself, sets no moral floor below which potential deeds, no matter how alluringly attractive, are off limits. The promise of helpful information does not justify an un-Christian xenophobia.
Other Christians find their ethical compass in the question, What would Jesus do? This approach to ethics, also known as virtue ethics, seeks to model one’s behavior on the patterns set by a moral exemplar. Would Jesus torture or use coercive interrogation techniques on someone, no matter how terrible that person might be? Would Jesus use those techniques to avoid horrendous evil? Answering either question in the affirmative stretches one’s credibility to the breaking point. Jesus brought healing to multitudes and consistently overcame evil.
None of us has Jesus’ power. Yet the paradox of the gospel that causes the wise to scorn Christianity as foolishness is the Gospel’s demand that we walk in Jesus’ footsteps without any assurance that no evil lies ahead. Succumbing to temptation and deviating from following in Jesus’ footsteps, we admit that fear has overwhelmed us, trust fails us, and we desperately seek assistance.
Terrorists win when they make us so fearful that we compromise our moral identity and standards. Abandoning the moral high ground, we become no better than our enemies. We achieve real victory over the forces of evil only by walking in the footsteps of the one whose name we bear, the one who not only died on a cross but who also rose victorious from death’s grasp.
The evil of terrorism has no simple solution. Moral compromises that appear to offer simple solutions are insidious intrusions of evil masquerading as good. Christians can contribute to the ongoing public discourse about the treatment of detainees by boldly denouncing those moral compromises. Only by insisting on maintaining our moral integrity do we have any real hope for ending terrorism and for establishing genuine, secure peace.
Both arguments are flawed. Information obtained under duress is notoriously unreliable. The cost of futile, wild goose chases can easily exceed the benefits of helpful information. Many enemies, terrorists and others, have already chosen to ignore the Geneva Conventions.
However, the basic problem with both arguments is they focus on the costs and benefits of using or not using “coercive interrogation measures.” Christians rightly reject this approach to ethics, known as utilitarianism. The premise of utilitarianism is that the end justifies the means. In this case, the laudable end of protecting U.S. national security supposedly justifies the means of obtaining vital information through techniques repugnant to most Americans, prohibited by international law, and un-Constitutional if used on U.S. citizens.
The legal and Constitutional prohibitions against those techniques rely on a second approach to ethics, rules. As Christians, our rule book is the Bible as understood through prayer, reason, and tradition. The Baptismal covenant in the Book of Common Prayer neatly summarizes Scriptural teaching on how we are to treat others:
Celebrant: Will you seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving your neighbor as yourself?
People: I will, with God's help.
Celebrant: Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?
People: I will, with God's help.
Loving one’s neighbor and respecting the dignity of every human being for the faithful Christian excludes coercive interrogation methods. The accused and the guilty remain God's children, persons for whom the Christ died, just like each of us. Utilitarianism, by itself, sets no moral floor below which potential deeds, no matter how alluringly attractive, are off limits. The promise of helpful information does not justify an un-Christian xenophobia.
Other Christians find their ethical compass in the question, What would Jesus do? This approach to ethics, also known as virtue ethics, seeks to model one’s behavior on the patterns set by a moral exemplar. Would Jesus torture or use coercive interrogation techniques on someone, no matter how terrible that person might be? Would Jesus use those techniques to avoid horrendous evil? Answering either question in the affirmative stretches one’s credibility to the breaking point. Jesus brought healing to multitudes and consistently overcame evil.
None of us has Jesus’ power. Yet the paradox of the gospel that causes the wise to scorn Christianity as foolishness is the Gospel’s demand that we walk in Jesus’ footsteps without any assurance that no evil lies ahead. Succumbing to temptation and deviating from following in Jesus’ footsteps, we admit that fear has overwhelmed us, trust fails us, and we desperately seek assistance.
Terrorists win when they make us so fearful that we compromise our moral identity and standards. Abandoning the moral high ground, we become no better than our enemies. We achieve real victory over the forces of evil only by walking in the footsteps of the one whose name we bear, the one who not only died on a cross but who also rose victorious from death’s grasp.
The evil of terrorism has no simple solution. Moral compromises that appear to offer simple solutions are insidious intrusions of evil masquerading as good. Christians can contribute to the ongoing public discourse about the treatment of detainees by boldly denouncing those moral compromises. Only by insisting on maintaining our moral integrity do we have any real hope for ending terrorism and for establishing genuine, secure peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)