Another promising sign of possible progress towards peace between Israelis and Palestinians received publicity today. The head of Hamas announced: “…that his political party and military wing would commit to an immediate reciprocal cease-fire with Israel, as well as a prisoner swap that would return Hamas fighters for kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. He also said his organization would accept and respect a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders as part of a broader peace agreement with Israel—provided Israeli negotiators accept the right of return for millions of Palestinian refugees and the establishment of a capital for the Palestinian state in East Jerusalem.” (Jay Solomon and Julian Barnes-Dacey, “Hamas Chief Outlines Terms for Talks on Arab-Israeli Peace,” Wall Street Journal, July 31, 2009)
Regrettably, both Israel and the United States refuse to negotiate with Hamas until Hamas recognizes Israel’s right to exist. As I’ve argued before, that pre-condition may sound sensible but in fact creates a very one-sided playing field because Israel refuses the right of a sovereign, viable Palestine state to exist.
Even as God loves all equally, so should we attempt to emulate that love. Loving Israel more than Palestinians sows seeds of discord rather than seeds of peace.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Conflict resolution
Members of two ultra-orthodox communities located in Jerusalem’s West Bank may be willing, according to a New York Times report, to consider relocating to land that belongs to Israel. (Ethan Bronner and Isabel Kershner, “Unsettled - In 2 West Bank Settlements, Sign of Hope for a Deal,” New York Times, July 27, 2009) The ultra-orthodox are and have not been not Zionists; they do not believe that Israel should reoccupy the promised land.
This encouraging sign helpfully reminds negotiators and other interested parties – not only in this situation but other geo-conflicts as well – that a macro-view often hides or distorts the true picture. Settler advocates staunchly maintain that the ultra-orthodox in the two communities share common values with all Jewish settlers occupying Palestinian territory. However, that is clearly not the case.
How many other fault lines divide both the settlers and Israel’s population?
Similarly, tarring all Palestinians with the stigma of terrorism unhelpfully masks divisions within the Palestinian community. Progress in tractable solutions demands the painstakingly hard work of seeing the problem in sufficient granularity that important divisions and fault lines become visible.
The same comments apply to the issues currently polarizing the Anglican Communion. Many African Christians live in hostile environments dominated by Islamicist radicals. These radicals severely distort the Koran’s teachings, summarily dividing the world into two camps: Muslims, i.e., people who adhere to their narrow interpretation of Islam; the enemies of Islam, i.e., everybody else.
One of the issues at the forefront of some confrontations in Africa between Muslims and Christians is open acceptance by western Christians of GLBT people and lifestyles. However, if that were not at the fore, then another issue would be. Christians are not radical Islamicists, whatever the Christian view of GLBT people and lifestyles; ipso facto, Christians are enemies of Islam.
In other words, arguing that western Christians have a moral obligation to revise their understanding of the acceptability of GLBT people and lifestyles out of concern for the struggles of African Christians is a non-starter. African Christians face an incredibly difficult challenge; I regularly pray for them. However, seeking to mollify radical Islamicists will prove no more effective than did attempts to mollify Hitler and the Nazis prior to WWII. Furthermore, Christians must always remember that even as the Nazis claimed a Christian identity for themselves and sought to use the church to for their own ends, so the radical Islamicists do not represent Islam but instead have adopted a grossly distorted version of Islam and seek to use it for their own ends.
This encouraging sign helpfully reminds negotiators and other interested parties – not only in this situation but other geo-conflicts as well – that a macro-view often hides or distorts the true picture. Settler advocates staunchly maintain that the ultra-orthodox in the two communities share common values with all Jewish settlers occupying Palestinian territory. However, that is clearly not the case.
How many other fault lines divide both the settlers and Israel’s population?
Similarly, tarring all Palestinians with the stigma of terrorism unhelpfully masks divisions within the Palestinian community. Progress in tractable solutions demands the painstakingly hard work of seeing the problem in sufficient granularity that important divisions and fault lines become visible.
The same comments apply to the issues currently polarizing the Anglican Communion. Many African Christians live in hostile environments dominated by Islamicist radicals. These radicals severely distort the Koran’s teachings, summarily dividing the world into two camps: Muslims, i.e., people who adhere to their narrow interpretation of Islam; the enemies of Islam, i.e., everybody else.
One of the issues at the forefront of some confrontations in Africa between Muslims and Christians is open acceptance by western Christians of GLBT people and lifestyles. However, if that were not at the fore, then another issue would be. Christians are not radical Islamicists, whatever the Christian view of GLBT people and lifestyles; ipso facto, Christians are enemies of Islam.
In other words, arguing that western Christians have a moral obligation to revise their understanding of the acceptability of GLBT people and lifestyles out of concern for the struggles of African Christians is a non-starter. African Christians face an incredibly difficult challenge; I regularly pray for them. However, seeking to mollify radical Islamicists will prove no more effective than did attempts to mollify Hitler and the Nazis prior to WWII. Furthermore, Christians must always remember that even as the Nazis claimed a Christian identity for themselves and sought to use the church to for their own ends, so the radical Islamicists do not represent Islam but instead have adopted a grossly distorted version of Islam and seek to use it for their own ends.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Ethics education
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has announced a pilot program that will give school pupils the choice of studying religion or secular ethics. (Mansur Mirovalev, “Russian pupils to have choice of religion, ethics,” Washington Post, July 22, 2009) This program is Russia’s response to the widespread turbulence and moral chaos that has followed the demise of the officially atheist Soviet Union.
Although humans may have a genetic predisposition toward reciprocal altruism, that by itself seems insufficient to shape an ethical foundation and structures on which a society and its members can lead lives that promote human flourishing. Ethical instruction in families, schools, and religious institutions is important if we wish to teach succeeding generations our accumulated wisdom about human flourishing.
Christianity implicitly recognized this need for ethical formation through its doctrine of original sin. Original sin refers to the idea that the first sin, mythically depicted in Genesis as Adam and Eve sharing in the forbidden fruit, has destroyed, from birth, the relationship between every human and God.
This concept of original sin impelled the belief that a newborn in peril for its life should receive Holy Baptism as soon as possible in order to receive forgiveness and enter into the everlasting fellowship of God's people. In time, people recognized that whatever original sin may mean, God’s love certainly extends to innocent newborns; both the unbaptized infant and the baptized infant that die tragic, premature deaths enters the fullness of God's embrace.
More recently, some Christian scholars have recovered Irenaeus’ suggestion that the story of Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit represents a step in human development, becoming like God in that humans achieved self-awareness, a necessary component of free choice, creativity, and other human qualities that reflect the Creator’s image. Rabbi Harold Kushner advocates the same belief. This understanding of the Garden of Eden story coheres better with evolution, the widely accepted modern scientific theory about how creation occurred.
From this perspective, we can more helpfully think about original sin as our collective inheritance of millennia of rebellion against God, an inheritance deeply embedded in our cultural milieu that lures each successive generation away from God. This luring counterbalances the human genetic predisposition toward reciprocal altruism and makes ethical (and spiritual!) formation essential.
Although humans may have a genetic predisposition toward reciprocal altruism, that by itself seems insufficient to shape an ethical foundation and structures on which a society and its members can lead lives that promote human flourishing. Ethical instruction in families, schools, and religious institutions is important if we wish to teach succeeding generations our accumulated wisdom about human flourishing.
Christianity implicitly recognized this need for ethical formation through its doctrine of original sin. Original sin refers to the idea that the first sin, mythically depicted in Genesis as Adam and Eve sharing in the forbidden fruit, has destroyed, from birth, the relationship between every human and God.
This concept of original sin impelled the belief that a newborn in peril for its life should receive Holy Baptism as soon as possible in order to receive forgiveness and enter into the everlasting fellowship of God's people. In time, people recognized that whatever original sin may mean, God’s love certainly extends to innocent newborns; both the unbaptized infant and the baptized infant that die tragic, premature deaths enters the fullness of God's embrace.
More recently, some Christian scholars have recovered Irenaeus’ suggestion that the story of Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit represents a step in human development, becoming like God in that humans achieved self-awareness, a necessary component of free choice, creativity, and other human qualities that reflect the Creator’s image. Rabbi Harold Kushner advocates the same belief. This understanding of the Garden of Eden story coheres better with evolution, the widely accepted modern scientific theory about how creation occurred.
From this perspective, we can more helpfully think about original sin as our collective inheritance of millennia of rebellion against God, an inheritance deeply embedded in our cultural milieu that lures each successive generation away from God. This luring counterbalances the human genetic predisposition toward reciprocal altruism and makes ethical (and spiritual!) formation essential.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
America's broken social contract
Two seemingly unrelated events have attracted much news media attention this week. First, Cambridge, MA, police arrested a prominent black scholar, Henry Louis Gates, for disorderly conduct. This resulted from a confrontation with police responding to a neighbor’s call that someone was breaking into Gate’s house. In fact, the Harvard professor returning from an overseas trip found his door jammed and was attempting to enter his own dwelling. Gates alleged racial profiling on the part of the police; the police asserted that Gates was rude and uncooperative. Tensions heightened even after the police dismissed the charges when President Obama publicly defended the professor’s behavior.
Second, the federal minimum wage increased from $6.55 to $7.25 per hour on July 24, 2009. Debate rages, in this difficult economic climate, whether the increase will actually help or hurt the poor. High wages seem likely to help the working poor. Higher wages may also cause employers to shorten employee hours or even to reduce the number of employees, intensifying economic problems for those affected.
Both issues point to breaks in the American social contract. Most Americans now recognize that Declaration of Independence’s affirmation of the equality of men was racially, economically, and sexually limited to white, property owning males. Importantly, most Americans have moved, at least rhetorically, beyond those limitations in viewing all people as morally equal. For example, the color of a person’s skin (or ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) has nothing to do with a person’s worth. Treating people differently by hair color makes no more sense than does treating people differently by race. Thus, racial profiling is a destructive practice that diminishes the humanity of those stereotyped.
However, actions sadly do not match rhetoric with respect to equality. The prevalence of racism in our society makes Gates’ reaction in which he took offense at the police response understandable. People of color anticipate different treatment at the hands of police than do Caucasians. Three centuries of abuse and injustice, too often culminating in lynching, provide the fertile ground in which those anticipations have taken root. Twenty-first century America is a vastly different place than America in the 1950s and 1960s. Yet injustice lingers; the fear of injustice is more difficult to overcome than injustice itself.
Perhaps Gates over-reacted. Perhaps the police officers’ conduct was less than exemplary. Probably both assessments are correct, if this incident is anything like many incidents in which I have worked attempted to effect reconciliation between good people. Meanwhile, President Obama might have more helpfully focused on lingering racism, continuing fear of police injustice, and other general factors rather than commenting on the particulars of this case, his friendship with Gates notwithstanding. As President, the public person Obama loses much of his ability to stand beside his friends but gains the opportunity to move America in the direction of much needed change. The private person Obama best confines directions of his support for his friends to private communications. To do otherwise assigns the incident undue importance and clouds the President’s agenda. In hindsight, Obama has said that he wishes he had “calibrated his words” more carefully (Jeff Zeleny, “Obama Expresses His Regrets On Gates Incident,” New York Times, July 24, 2009).
The change in the minimum wage also points to a break in the social contract, in this the land of opportunity. A $7.25 minimum wage equates to $290 per week, or $15,080 per year. Living, especially in high cost areas of the United States, on those amounts is tantamount to poverty. When the minimum wage is so low, jobs so scarce (unemployment in some neighborhoods exceeds 25%), nobody should feel surprised when youths turn to crime rather than self-development, convinced that they have no chance of sharing in the American dream of prosperity. Anti-poverty programs, of which two of the latest are “No Child Left Behind” and welfare reform that limits the amount of time a person can collect benefits, have more often failed than succeeded in shattering the cycle of poverty that grips these neighborhoods. The plain truth is that we do not know how to extend equal opportunity to all.
The easy option is to quit trying. The Christian imperative is just the opposite, to pursue relentlessly the goal of creating equal opportunity for all. As with any experimental effort, this requires the humility and honesty to assess each effort, to identify lessons learned, to end initiatives that have failed, and then to try something new.
Second, the federal minimum wage increased from $6.55 to $7.25 per hour on July 24, 2009. Debate rages, in this difficult economic climate, whether the increase will actually help or hurt the poor. High wages seem likely to help the working poor. Higher wages may also cause employers to shorten employee hours or even to reduce the number of employees, intensifying economic problems for those affected.
Both issues point to breaks in the American social contract. Most Americans now recognize that Declaration of Independence’s affirmation of the equality of men was racially, economically, and sexually limited to white, property owning males. Importantly, most Americans have moved, at least rhetorically, beyond those limitations in viewing all people as morally equal. For example, the color of a person’s skin (or ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) has nothing to do with a person’s worth. Treating people differently by hair color makes no more sense than does treating people differently by race. Thus, racial profiling is a destructive practice that diminishes the humanity of those stereotyped.
However, actions sadly do not match rhetoric with respect to equality. The prevalence of racism in our society makes Gates’ reaction in which he took offense at the police response understandable. People of color anticipate different treatment at the hands of police than do Caucasians. Three centuries of abuse and injustice, too often culminating in lynching, provide the fertile ground in which those anticipations have taken root. Twenty-first century America is a vastly different place than America in the 1950s and 1960s. Yet injustice lingers; the fear of injustice is more difficult to overcome than injustice itself.
Perhaps Gates over-reacted. Perhaps the police officers’ conduct was less than exemplary. Probably both assessments are correct, if this incident is anything like many incidents in which I have worked attempted to effect reconciliation between good people. Meanwhile, President Obama might have more helpfully focused on lingering racism, continuing fear of police injustice, and other general factors rather than commenting on the particulars of this case, his friendship with Gates notwithstanding. As President, the public person Obama loses much of his ability to stand beside his friends but gains the opportunity to move America in the direction of much needed change. The private person Obama best confines directions of his support for his friends to private communications. To do otherwise assigns the incident undue importance and clouds the President’s agenda. In hindsight, Obama has said that he wishes he had “calibrated his words” more carefully (Jeff Zeleny, “Obama Expresses His Regrets On Gates Incident,” New York Times, July 24, 2009).
The change in the minimum wage also points to a break in the social contract, in this the land of opportunity. A $7.25 minimum wage equates to $290 per week, or $15,080 per year. Living, especially in high cost areas of the United States, on those amounts is tantamount to poverty. When the minimum wage is so low, jobs so scarce (unemployment in some neighborhoods exceeds 25%), nobody should feel surprised when youths turn to crime rather than self-development, convinced that they have no chance of sharing in the American dream of prosperity. Anti-poverty programs, of which two of the latest are “No Child Left Behind” and welfare reform that limits the amount of time a person can collect benefits, have more often failed than succeeded in shattering the cycle of poverty that grips these neighborhoods. The plain truth is that we do not know how to extend equal opportunity to all.
The easy option is to quit trying. The Christian imperative is just the opposite, to pursue relentlessly the goal of creating equal opportunity for all. As with any experimental effort, this requires the humility and honesty to assess each effort, to identify lessons learned, to end initiatives that have failed, and then to try something new.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Peace between Israel and Palestine
Resolution B027, “Peace between Israel and Palestine,” failed to pass at the 2009 General Convention of the Episcopal Church:
Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That the 76th General Convention, considering the Church's mission to promote peace for all God's people, warmly applauds the initiative of President Barack Obama and his Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, to bring stronger and more resolute American diplomatic leadership to the cause of peace between Israel and Palestine and to the Middle East; and be it further
Resolved, That the Convention acknowledge the tragic histories of the Jewish and Palestinian people as victims of injustice, wars, dispersion and exile, the existential fear and insecurity this has created for both peoples, and the distress their conflict has caused throughout the Middle East; and be it further
Resolved, That the Convention respect the profound commitment of Israelis and Palestinians to the land they regard as their homeland and their national aspirations, and call upon the U.S. Government, in keeping with American ideals of equality, justice, and human rights, to pursue a fair and balanced approach to making peace that fulfills the fundamental needs of both peoples; and be it further
Resolved, That the Convention acknowledge that peace between Israel and Palestine can be achieved only by a division of historic Palestine into two sovereign states, and that this division should be defined, more or less, by the 1949 Armistice line, with mutually agreed border adjustments; and be it further
Resolved, That the humanitarian situation in Gaza calls for the unrestricted opening of borders for both humanitarian and reconstruction resources; and be it further
Resolved, That the Convention understand and respect the religious and historic claims of both Israelis and Palestinians, as well as of Jews, Christians and Muslims, worldwide, toward the Holy City of Jerusalem and its sacred holy sites, and that a just and lasting territorial division must include a shared Jerusalem in which the State of Israel and a future State of Palestine will maintain their respective capitals; and be it further
Resolved, That the Convention recognize that the use of force, violence or arbitrary power by Israelis or Palestinians to determine the outcome of this conflict must be condemned absolutely, and that peace can be achieved only through peaceful negotiations that would lead to the emergence of a Palestinian state living side by side and at peace with Israel; and be it further
Resolved, That the Convention urge all Episcopalians to work and pray for the liberating of Israelis and Palestinians from generations of conflict, freeing the Middle East and the world from tensions wrought by this struggle, restoring harmony among Jews, Muslims and Christians worldwide for whom the Holy Land is sacred, and for creating peace based on the universal value of justice, as a compelling priority for the Church and for the United States of America.
On Monday, July 20, Israeli officials praised the Episcopal House of Bishops for defeating the Resolution in a 53 to 43 vote.
The Israeli praise and the strong opposition in the House of Bishops to this Resolution emphasize, for me, the unhealthy influence that the pro-Israeli lobby wields in the United States. That lobby consistently advocates a one-sided approach to the problem that myopically focuses on Israel.
During debate on the Resolution in General Convention’s National and International Concerns Committee, comments often reflected an anti-Palestinian prejudice and favoritism toward Israel. For example, some insisted that unless the Palestinians renounce terrorism and their commitment to the destruction of Israel expecting Israel to negotiate was unreasonable. Recalling the Soviet Union’s frequently expressed commitment to “bury” the United States, a position inherent in Marxist-Leninist rhetoric, and the persistent political, military, and Soviet funded thirty-party efforts to achieve that goal helps put the Palestinian position in perspective. The United States rightly negotiated with the Soviets in spite of their rhetoric, violence, and terrorism (surely, the threat of nuclear attack is a form of terrorism). Why not expect Israel to do the same?
At the end of the day, the arguments against the Resolution sounded like, “Israel, right or wrong.” Such arguments do not reflect God's equal concern and love for all, nor do such arguments express a Christian commitment to justice.
Peace between Israel and Palestine is possible. However, that peace will only begin to emerge as both sides approach the negotiating table with a modicum of good will and the recognition, explicit or implicit, that co-existence is their only viable option. That recognition drove the Soviets and the United States to the negotiating table during the Cold War.
Israel’s position toward the Palestinians ironically mirrors the Palestinian position. Israel has never, to the best of my knowledge, denied the right of the Palestinians to exist. However, Israel’s persistent refusal to acknowledge an independent, viable sovereign Palestinian state, the construction of the wall and continued encroachment on Palestinian land, the consistent use of immoral strategy and tactics in ineffectual efforts to counterterrorism, and the denial of equal rights to Palestinians are collectively tantamount to a mirror image of the Palestinian position.
Affirming Palestinian rights and the inevitable necessity of a two-state solution in no way diminishes support for Israel as a sovereign nation. Indeed, a two-state solution is as impossible without Israel as it is without a Palestinian state. In the committee hearings, opponents implicitly or explicitly branded advocates of the Resolution as anti-Semitic, allegations that raised the debate’s emotional fervor without shedding any additional light.
Prophets speak the truth, an often-uncomfortable vocation. The great Jewish prophets spoke the truth about Israel’s sin as well as the sin of Israel’s neighbors. The truth is that Israel and the Palestinians have both departed from the ways of God. Neither terrorism nor collective punishment is God's way. Neither missiles launched into urban areas nor economic strangleholds are God's way. Denying the right of others to political self-determination is not God's way. Standing with the unjust against the equally unjust is not God's way. The Christian call at this time is to stand with neither Palestinian nor Jew but to speak the truth, a truth neither side is likely to receive gladly yet a truth that represents the only real path to the peace that most people on both sides desperately desire.
Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That the 76th General Convention, considering the Church's mission to promote peace for all God's people, warmly applauds the initiative of President Barack Obama and his Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, to bring stronger and more resolute American diplomatic leadership to the cause of peace between Israel and Palestine and to the Middle East; and be it further
Resolved, That the Convention acknowledge the tragic histories of the Jewish and Palestinian people as victims of injustice, wars, dispersion and exile, the existential fear and insecurity this has created for both peoples, and the distress their conflict has caused throughout the Middle East; and be it further
Resolved, That the Convention respect the profound commitment of Israelis and Palestinians to the land they regard as their homeland and their national aspirations, and call upon the U.S. Government, in keeping with American ideals of equality, justice, and human rights, to pursue a fair and balanced approach to making peace that fulfills the fundamental needs of both peoples; and be it further
Resolved, That the Convention acknowledge that peace between Israel and Palestine can be achieved only by a division of historic Palestine into two sovereign states, and that this division should be defined, more or less, by the 1949 Armistice line, with mutually agreed border adjustments; and be it further
Resolved, That the humanitarian situation in Gaza calls for the unrestricted opening of borders for both humanitarian and reconstruction resources; and be it further
Resolved, That the Convention understand and respect the religious and historic claims of both Israelis and Palestinians, as well as of Jews, Christians and Muslims, worldwide, toward the Holy City of Jerusalem and its sacred holy sites, and that a just and lasting territorial division must include a shared Jerusalem in which the State of Israel and a future State of Palestine will maintain their respective capitals; and be it further
Resolved, That the Convention recognize that the use of force, violence or arbitrary power by Israelis or Palestinians to determine the outcome of this conflict must be condemned absolutely, and that peace can be achieved only through peaceful negotiations that would lead to the emergence of a Palestinian state living side by side and at peace with Israel; and be it further
Resolved, That the Convention urge all Episcopalians to work and pray for the liberating of Israelis and Palestinians from generations of conflict, freeing the Middle East and the world from tensions wrought by this struggle, restoring harmony among Jews, Muslims and Christians worldwide for whom the Holy Land is sacred, and for creating peace based on the universal value of justice, as a compelling priority for the Church and for the United States of America.
On Monday, July 20, Israeli officials praised the Episcopal House of Bishops for defeating the Resolution in a 53 to 43 vote.
The Israeli praise and the strong opposition in the House of Bishops to this Resolution emphasize, for me, the unhealthy influence that the pro-Israeli lobby wields in the United States. That lobby consistently advocates a one-sided approach to the problem that myopically focuses on Israel.
During debate on the Resolution in General Convention’s National and International Concerns Committee, comments often reflected an anti-Palestinian prejudice and favoritism toward Israel. For example, some insisted that unless the Palestinians renounce terrorism and their commitment to the destruction of Israel expecting Israel to negotiate was unreasonable. Recalling the Soviet Union’s frequently expressed commitment to “bury” the United States, a position inherent in Marxist-Leninist rhetoric, and the persistent political, military, and Soviet funded thirty-party efforts to achieve that goal helps put the Palestinian position in perspective. The United States rightly negotiated with the Soviets in spite of their rhetoric, violence, and terrorism (surely, the threat of nuclear attack is a form of terrorism). Why not expect Israel to do the same?
At the end of the day, the arguments against the Resolution sounded like, “Israel, right or wrong.” Such arguments do not reflect God's equal concern and love for all, nor do such arguments express a Christian commitment to justice.
Peace between Israel and Palestine is possible. However, that peace will only begin to emerge as both sides approach the negotiating table with a modicum of good will and the recognition, explicit or implicit, that co-existence is their only viable option. That recognition drove the Soviets and the United States to the negotiating table during the Cold War.
Israel’s position toward the Palestinians ironically mirrors the Palestinian position. Israel has never, to the best of my knowledge, denied the right of the Palestinians to exist. However, Israel’s persistent refusal to acknowledge an independent, viable sovereign Palestinian state, the construction of the wall and continued encroachment on Palestinian land, the consistent use of immoral strategy and tactics in ineffectual efforts to counterterrorism, and the denial of equal rights to Palestinians are collectively tantamount to a mirror image of the Palestinian position.
Affirming Palestinian rights and the inevitable necessity of a two-state solution in no way diminishes support for Israel as a sovereign nation. Indeed, a two-state solution is as impossible without Israel as it is without a Palestinian state. In the committee hearings, opponents implicitly or explicitly branded advocates of the Resolution as anti-Semitic, allegations that raised the debate’s emotional fervor without shedding any additional light.
Prophets speak the truth, an often-uncomfortable vocation. The great Jewish prophets spoke the truth about Israel’s sin as well as the sin of Israel’s neighbors. The truth is that Israel and the Palestinians have both departed from the ways of God. Neither terrorism nor collective punishment is God's way. Neither missiles launched into urban areas nor economic strangleholds are God's way. Denying the right of others to political self-determination is not God's way. Standing with the unjust against the equally unjust is not God's way. The Christian call at this time is to stand with neither Palestinian nor Jew but to speak the truth, a truth neither side is likely to receive gladly yet a truth that represents the only real path to the peace that most people on both sides desperately desire.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Slum tourism
A parishioner recently asked me an interesting question:
Your question has sparked conversations among Christians and ethicists in recent years. From my perspective, no answer that is always applicable. Much of what you term “slumming” is exploitative behavior by people with no genuine desire to learn about the social, political, economic, and spiritual dynamics that leave people in grinding poverty and with no real interest in helping to devise solutions to the problems. Indeed, often the tours do not even offer an opportunity to meet slum residents. Conversations with residents can be difficult as visitor and resident may not speak a common language; the residents may also receive some pecuniary or other benefit from being available to talk to tourists, which may seriously skew what the residents say. All of this points, I think, to the sinfulness of most of these tours. That type of tour reduces slum residents to objects on a par with historical artifacts, interesting architecture, etc.
A guide blithely assuring tourists that children love to go to work at age 8 making rugs illustrates many of these negatives. Children age 8 should be in school or at play, not at work. If those children want to work, it points to great family hardships, the lack of schools, and the failure of the community and government to provide an adequate social safety net.
However, when tours take the time and effort to establish one-on-one relationships, explore causes, and consider solutions then I think the visits can be ethical. Such tours actually seek to engage the tourist in the problem by establishing personal relationships, hopefully generating a passion in the tourists for addressing social evils.
My partner and I are booked on an escorted tour to the Galapagos and Machu Picchu in September. Our first stop is Lima, Peru, and here is what the first days' itinerary includes:
"Today you can join our optional excursion to Lima's Villa El Salvador, the world's largest Shantytown. What began in 1971 as a desert location for Lima's impoverished inner city residents has today expanded into a 350,000-person squatters' community-and a Nobel Peace Prize nominee for its excellence in social work and community growth. Working in conjunction with the Peruvian government, the residents of Villa El Salvador have created a functioning society, complete with schools, clinics, water and electricity, parks, paved roads, and more. And in 1983, the town was declared an official district of Lima."It is optional. I think that the rich going on a tour to view the poor is "slumming", and very demeaning to the poor, but perhaps you might see this as an educational experience. What is your ethical musing about this? This company does these kinds of slumming tours on most of their escorted trips to third-world countries. The whole idea makes me queasy. But maybe I am wrong?
When we went to Greece in 2000, the tour bus stopped at an oriental rug factory for a tour. In their introduction, the guide said "The girls start at the age of 8 making these rugs, and they love it". All I could hear was "CHILD LABOR" and I was
outraged. We did not take the tour but walked back to the boat. Was I being righteous or what?
Your question has sparked conversations among Christians and ethicists in recent years. From my perspective, no answer that is always applicable. Much of what you term “slumming” is exploitative behavior by people with no genuine desire to learn about the social, political, economic, and spiritual dynamics that leave people in grinding poverty and with no real interest in helping to devise solutions to the problems. Indeed, often the tours do not even offer an opportunity to meet slum residents. Conversations with residents can be difficult as visitor and resident may not speak a common language; the residents may also receive some pecuniary or other benefit from being available to talk to tourists, which may seriously skew what the residents say. All of this points, I think, to the sinfulness of most of these tours. That type of tour reduces slum residents to objects on a par with historical artifacts, interesting architecture, etc.
A guide blithely assuring tourists that children love to go to work at age 8 making rugs illustrates many of these negatives. Children age 8 should be in school or at play, not at work. If those children want to work, it points to great family hardships, the lack of schools, and the failure of the community and government to provide an adequate social safety net.
However, when tours take the time and effort to establish one-on-one relationships, explore causes, and consider solutions then I think the visits can be ethical. Such tours actually seek to engage the tourist in the problem by establishing personal relationships, hopefully generating a passion in the tourists for addressing social evils.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Closing the Episcopal Church's evangelism office
The budget cuts approved by the 2009 Episcopal Church’s General Convention include eliminating the national Church’s evangelism program (to read the comments of the Church’s evangelism officer, click here). Evangelicals and some others decry this move, e.g., the Anglican Centrist.
Before we over react to this announcement, a few brief reflections are important. One evangelism officer for a Church of 2.1 million members is literally a drop in the bucket. No matter how competent and how effective, the work of a single evangelism officer, like the ministry of any one individual, is necessarily limited in scope. The Episcopal Church rightly perceives the ministries of televangelists, whether Billy Graham, Robert Schuller, or someone else, as superficial. Billy Graham, to his great credit, has even had the courage to openly ponder whether he might have made more of a difference in the world by pasturing a single, local congregation.
Furthermore, genuine evangelism – sharing the good news of God's love in a way that healthily enhances a person’s relationship with God – happens more through loving actions than spoken or written words. This means that genuine evangelism is a one-on-one process as Christians love their neighbors and not a program or series of programs designed and implemented by the national Church or dioceses.
Unfortunately, evangelism – even in the best sense of that much-misused word – has acquired a strong negative connotation in the Episcopal Church. James R. Adams, long-time rector of St. Mark’s Episcopal Church on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., even wrote a book on the subject, provocatively titled So You Can’t Stand Evangelism? The subtitle, however, reveals the importance of the topic: “A Thinking Person’s Guide to Church Growth.”
No organization, ecclesial or otherwise, is ever static. Organizations are either growing or shrinking. In the case of the Episcopal Church, the diagnosis for several decades has been ill health, with membership consistently shrinking.
I believe the Episcopal Church has much to offer the world. Our historic and continuing emphases on pastoral sensitivity, diversity, inclusivity, sacramental worship, and incarnational theology all speak powerfully to contemporary life. Evangelism is simply the theological term that denotes sharing those gifts and emphases with others.
What deeply concerns me is that our agenda as a Church has focused largely on institutional issues rather than mission. Sexual orientation does not determine God's love for a person. Ergo, sexual orientation should not determine a person’s place within the Church, the body of Christ, that is, God's voice, hands, and feet on earth.
My hope is that the actions of General Convention 2009 will have mostly resolved issues concerning the role of gay, lesbian, transgendered, and bisexual people in the Church, issues that the Church should have courageously and boldly addressed years ago. Obviously some work remains, e.g., writing liturgies for blessing same sex marriages.
However, to employ a nautical metaphor, now that the Church has cleared the decks, the Church should once again fully engage its mission as the body of Christ, i.e., incarnating God's healing, life-giving love in a desperately broken world. For the national Church to have a one-person office dealing with evangelism at best marginally contributes to that mission. The national Church must broadly focus on our mission as God's people rather than issues over which it has little control, such as the reaction of other Anglican provinces to General Convention’s actions.
Furthermore, as I have argued elsewhere, the Church sacrificially gifting property to schismatics rather than litigating disputes, which is costly in terms of money, focus, and time, will do more for both its own members and God. In these sacrificial gifts the Church should assert its rightful ownership of the property, the schismatic act of those who have departed, and highlight its emulating Jesus in making the gift. I recommend this action not out of any sympathy with those who leave, but because they in spite of their badly mistaken ideas about God's love remain brothers and sisters in Christ and because the Church universal utilizes its resources in a far more constructive manner. We cease to set a poor example of Christian love in highly visible and acrimonious public fights that the news media loves. And we come out ahead in terms of resources (money, time, and buildings) to use in support of our mission of incarnating God's love.
Before we over react to this announcement, a few brief reflections are important. One evangelism officer for a Church of 2.1 million members is literally a drop in the bucket. No matter how competent and how effective, the work of a single evangelism officer, like the ministry of any one individual, is necessarily limited in scope. The Episcopal Church rightly perceives the ministries of televangelists, whether Billy Graham, Robert Schuller, or someone else, as superficial. Billy Graham, to his great credit, has even had the courage to openly ponder whether he might have made more of a difference in the world by pasturing a single, local congregation.
Furthermore, genuine evangelism – sharing the good news of God's love in a way that healthily enhances a person’s relationship with God – happens more through loving actions than spoken or written words. This means that genuine evangelism is a one-on-one process as Christians love their neighbors and not a program or series of programs designed and implemented by the national Church or dioceses.
Unfortunately, evangelism – even in the best sense of that much-misused word – has acquired a strong negative connotation in the Episcopal Church. James R. Adams, long-time rector of St. Mark’s Episcopal Church on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., even wrote a book on the subject, provocatively titled So You Can’t Stand Evangelism? The subtitle, however, reveals the importance of the topic: “A Thinking Person’s Guide to Church Growth.”
No organization, ecclesial or otherwise, is ever static. Organizations are either growing or shrinking. In the case of the Episcopal Church, the diagnosis for several decades has been ill health, with membership consistently shrinking.
I believe the Episcopal Church has much to offer the world. Our historic and continuing emphases on pastoral sensitivity, diversity, inclusivity, sacramental worship, and incarnational theology all speak powerfully to contemporary life. Evangelism is simply the theological term that denotes sharing those gifts and emphases with others.
What deeply concerns me is that our agenda as a Church has focused largely on institutional issues rather than mission. Sexual orientation does not determine God's love for a person. Ergo, sexual orientation should not determine a person’s place within the Church, the body of Christ, that is, God's voice, hands, and feet on earth.
My hope is that the actions of General Convention 2009 will have mostly resolved issues concerning the role of gay, lesbian, transgendered, and bisexual people in the Church, issues that the Church should have courageously and boldly addressed years ago. Obviously some work remains, e.g., writing liturgies for blessing same sex marriages.
However, to employ a nautical metaphor, now that the Church has cleared the decks, the Church should once again fully engage its mission as the body of Christ, i.e., incarnating God's healing, life-giving love in a desperately broken world. For the national Church to have a one-person office dealing with evangelism at best marginally contributes to that mission. The national Church must broadly focus on our mission as God's people rather than issues over which it has little control, such as the reaction of other Anglican provinces to General Convention’s actions.
Furthermore, as I have argued elsewhere, the Church sacrificially gifting property to schismatics rather than litigating disputes, which is costly in terms of money, focus, and time, will do more for both its own members and God. In these sacrificial gifts the Church should assert its rightful ownership of the property, the schismatic act of those who have departed, and highlight its emulating Jesus in making the gift. I recommend this action not out of any sympathy with those who leave, but because they in spite of their badly mistaken ideas about God's love remain brothers and sisters in Christ and because the Church universal utilizes its resources in a far more constructive manner. We cease to set a poor example of Christian love in highly visible and acrimonious public fights that the news media loves. And we come out ahead in terms of resources (money, time, and buildings) to use in support of our mission of incarnating God's love.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
General Convention 2009
The Episcopal Church concluded its triennial General Convention on July 17, 2009. From my vantage point as a visitor for seven days, the rancor and recriminations so apparent during recent conventions were notably absent. That absence, perhaps better than any other indicator, points to the Church’s future as a truly welcoming, inclusive Church.
The Episcopal Church’s bi-cameral governing, General Convention voted overwhelmingly in both the allegedly more liberal House of Deputies (by a three fourths plurality) and the House of Bishops (by a two-thirds majority) to approve a sweeping resolution on the place of gays and lesbians in the Church’s life. The resolution included three resolves affirming the Episcopal Church’s commitment to the Anglican Communion, three resolves affirming full inclusion for gays and lesbians in the Church and its ordained ministry, and a resolve recognizing that not all agree with this reading of Scripture and tradition. Another resolution, approved by similar margins, permits development of liturgies for blessing same sex relationships in dioceses located in states that have legalized same sex unions or marriages.
I very much doubt that these resolutions will roil the Church’s equanimity. Those who have decided to leave the Episcopal Church have largely already made that decision and these resolutions will simply confirm those decisions. People who have decided to remain in the Episcopal Church have generally recognized the direction in which the Church was moving and have decided to remain, whether because of or in spite of that direction. A relative handful of other individuals may decide to depart; similarly, a scattering of congregations and maybe a couple of dioceses may attempt to leave as an organizational entity, an act our Anglican polity precludes. None of this will greatly alter the size or resources of the Episcopal Church.
The fractures that have appeared in the Episcopal Church result more failed clergy leadership than from discontent in the pews. Most parishioners focus on loving God and neighbor in their local community, usually with little awareness of what is happening in the national Church. These people simply ignore national policies of which they are aware and with which they disagree. Only when the clergy persistently preach and teach against the national Church do those issues become important to people in the pews. Such clergy are disloyal to their ordination vows, sowing dissent among Episcopalians rather than engaging in the more difficult tasks of self-examination (are my views wrong?) and working to reverse the policy through participation in Diocesan and national Church meetings. The Episcopal Church will be healthier and stronger as these clergy depart for what they perceive as greener pastures.
Lest anyone think that I am too harsh on dissenting clergy who inflict their discontent on their parishioners, the history of Church schisms is that invariably one schism leads to multiple future schisms among the schismatics. Loyal disagreement has an honored and important place in the broad Anglican tradition and in the Episcopal Church in particular. True humility demands that all parties acknowledge their fallibility and the possibility of error. Truth emerges through healthy conflict. Ultimatums that threaten schism unless one prevails destroy that process and are very un-Anglican.
A more basic question now confronts the Episcopal Church: will the Church once again focus on its mission as an integral part of Christ's body on earth, once again energetically and vigorously being about the Father’s business?
Two of General Convention’s decisions offer hope for an affirmative answer to that question. First, General Convention voted to devote 1% of its budget over the next triennium to support for the Millennium Development Goals. Caring for the poor – loving our neighbor as self – is foundational for Christian living. Second, General Convention trimmed the national Church’s projected by $23 million to $141 million, a realistic sum that should leave more resources in local parishes for ministry in this difficult economic climate.
The Episcopal Church’s bi-cameral governing, General Convention voted overwhelmingly in both the allegedly more liberal House of Deputies (by a three fourths plurality) and the House of Bishops (by a two-thirds majority) to approve a sweeping resolution on the place of gays and lesbians in the Church’s life. The resolution included three resolves affirming the Episcopal Church’s commitment to the Anglican Communion, three resolves affirming full inclusion for gays and lesbians in the Church and its ordained ministry, and a resolve recognizing that not all agree with this reading of Scripture and tradition. Another resolution, approved by similar margins, permits development of liturgies for blessing same sex relationships in dioceses located in states that have legalized same sex unions or marriages.
I very much doubt that these resolutions will roil the Church’s equanimity. Those who have decided to leave the Episcopal Church have largely already made that decision and these resolutions will simply confirm those decisions. People who have decided to remain in the Episcopal Church have generally recognized the direction in which the Church was moving and have decided to remain, whether because of or in spite of that direction. A relative handful of other individuals may decide to depart; similarly, a scattering of congregations and maybe a couple of dioceses may attempt to leave as an organizational entity, an act our Anglican polity precludes. None of this will greatly alter the size or resources of the Episcopal Church.
The fractures that have appeared in the Episcopal Church result more failed clergy leadership than from discontent in the pews. Most parishioners focus on loving God and neighbor in their local community, usually with little awareness of what is happening in the national Church. These people simply ignore national policies of which they are aware and with which they disagree. Only when the clergy persistently preach and teach against the national Church do those issues become important to people in the pews. Such clergy are disloyal to their ordination vows, sowing dissent among Episcopalians rather than engaging in the more difficult tasks of self-examination (are my views wrong?) and working to reverse the policy through participation in Diocesan and national Church meetings. The Episcopal Church will be healthier and stronger as these clergy depart for what they perceive as greener pastures.
Lest anyone think that I am too harsh on dissenting clergy who inflict their discontent on their parishioners, the history of Church schisms is that invariably one schism leads to multiple future schisms among the schismatics. Loyal disagreement has an honored and important place in the broad Anglican tradition and in the Episcopal Church in particular. True humility demands that all parties acknowledge their fallibility and the possibility of error. Truth emerges through healthy conflict. Ultimatums that threaten schism unless one prevails destroy that process and are very un-Anglican.
A more basic question now confronts the Episcopal Church: will the Church once again focus on its mission as an integral part of Christ's body on earth, once again energetically and vigorously being about the Father’s business?
Two of General Convention’s decisions offer hope for an affirmative answer to that question. First, General Convention voted to devote 1% of its budget over the next triennium to support for the Millennium Development Goals. Caring for the poor – loving our neighbor as self – is foundational for Christian living. Second, General Convention trimmed the national Church’s projected by $23 million to $141 million, a realistic sum that should leave more resources in local parishes for ministry in this difficult economic climate.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Gaza - a no-win stalemate
“Four months after Israel waged a war here to stop Hamas rocket fire and two years after Hamas took full control of this coastal strip, Gaza is like an island adrift.” Thus reported Ethan Bronner over a month ago. (“Misery Hangs Over Gaza Despite Pledges of Help,” New York Times, May 28, 2009).
Today, nothing has changed. Hamas remains in control of the Gaza strip, a narrow strip of land hemmed in by Israel, Egypt, and the Mediterranean, a land intentionally isolated by its neighbors. Residents of Gaza pay for this isolation living in hovels constructed of rubble, unemployed in spite of good educations, and subsisting on charity. Ultimately, the isolation tactics will prove self-defeating for Israel and Egypt, hardening resolve on all sides against compromise and intensifying hatreds.
Hamas has a well-deserved reputation as a terrorist organization. However, that does mean that Israel has acted justly or morally. Amnesty International maintains that both Israel and Hamas are guilty or war crimes in their recent conflict in the Gaza Strip. Although Israel has refused to cooperate with Amnesty’s probe, Amnesty has concluded that Israel used white phosphorescent explosives in contravention of international law and is responsible for hundreds of civilian Palestinian deaths. (“Israel and Hamas 'both guilty of war crimes' - Amnesty,” Times Online, July 2, 2009)
Most people, regardless of faith tradition, nationality, ethnicity, or geographic locale seek personal happiness and flourishing for themselves and their loved ones. For years, Hamas has strategically involved itself in delivering critical social services to residents of areas in which it operates. This strategy paid dividends in terms of political victories for Hamas in both the Gaza Strip and Lebanon. In other words, Hamas recognizes that neither military dominance nor religious ideology will bring it the power that its leaders desire. Only by catering to the needs of potential constituents can Hamas gain power.
Israel needs to learn the same truth. Its security ultimately depends upon its ability to persuade Palestinians that their happiness and flourishing lies in cooperating with Israel. No amount of military prowess can achieve that goal. Feeding people, building houses, providing medical care and other basic social services are the tactics Israel should use, not heavy artillery to destroy buildings where the Israeli Defense Forces suspects Hamas fighters are hiding.
Small cooperative steps between Hamas and Israel that build mutual trust offer the most promising way in which to end their current stalemate in the Gaza strip.
Today, nothing has changed. Hamas remains in control of the Gaza strip, a narrow strip of land hemmed in by Israel, Egypt, and the Mediterranean, a land intentionally isolated by its neighbors. Residents of Gaza pay for this isolation living in hovels constructed of rubble, unemployed in spite of good educations, and subsisting on charity. Ultimately, the isolation tactics will prove self-defeating for Israel and Egypt, hardening resolve on all sides against compromise and intensifying hatreds.
Hamas has a well-deserved reputation as a terrorist organization. However, that does mean that Israel has acted justly or morally. Amnesty International maintains that both Israel and Hamas are guilty or war crimes in their recent conflict in the Gaza Strip. Although Israel has refused to cooperate with Amnesty’s probe, Amnesty has concluded that Israel used white phosphorescent explosives in contravention of international law and is responsible for hundreds of civilian Palestinian deaths. (“Israel and Hamas 'both guilty of war crimes' - Amnesty,” Times Online, July 2, 2009)
Most people, regardless of faith tradition, nationality, ethnicity, or geographic locale seek personal happiness and flourishing for themselves and their loved ones. For years, Hamas has strategically involved itself in delivering critical social services to residents of areas in which it operates. This strategy paid dividends in terms of political victories for Hamas in both the Gaza Strip and Lebanon. In other words, Hamas recognizes that neither military dominance nor religious ideology will bring it the power that its leaders desire. Only by catering to the needs of potential constituents can Hamas gain power.
Israel needs to learn the same truth. Its security ultimately depends upon its ability to persuade Palestinians that their happiness and flourishing lies in cooperating with Israel. No amount of military prowess can achieve that goal. Feeding people, building houses, providing medical care and other basic social services are the tactics Israel should use, not heavy artillery to destroy buildings where the Israeli Defense Forces suspects Hamas fighters are hiding.
Small cooperative steps between Hamas and Israel that build mutual trust offer the most promising way in which to end their current stalemate in the Gaza strip.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Naturalistic ethics
Morality defines the “ought” of our social relationships. Evolutionary biology shapes our morality, e.g., predisposing us toward cooperating with others, a characteristic labeled reciprocal altruism. Humans, many scientists believe, are hard-wired to help one another.
Ethologist Marc Bekoff and philosopher Jessica Pierce in their book, Wild Justice, contend that animals exhibit moral behavior. They recount the story of two baby mice trapped in a sink. One mouse is to weak to move to the water that the scientist who discovered the mice placed in the sink. The stronger mouse, after drinking, tries to nudge the weaker mouse toward the water. When that fails, the stronger mouse moves a piece of food the scientist placed in the sink close to the weaker mouse. The weaker mouse rallied and edged closer to the food. The stronger mouse nudged the food closer to the water, after allowing its weaker sibling to take a bite. Again, the weaker mouse edged up to the food. Again, the stronger mouse nudged the closer to the water, the weaker mouse following. The two mice repeated this process until the weaker had reached the water. This is but one of the many examples of animals helping other animals reported in Wild Justice.
Bekoff and Pierce and reasonably maintain that human ethics have their roots in animal behavior. The notion of helping others in the expectation that someone will aid the helper in his/her moment of need did not suddenly arise in humans.
In other words, from the perspective of naturalistic ethics the philosopher David Hume was wrong to sharply distinguish between what is and what ought to be. He argued that deriving ethics from nature is impossible. A person who misidentifies isness with oughtness commits what philosophers call the naturalistic fallacy. The is of reciprocal altruism thus constitutes an important foundational element for the ought that humans should help one another.
Ethologist Marc Bekoff and philosopher Jessica Pierce in their book, Wild Justice, contend that animals exhibit moral behavior. They recount the story of two baby mice trapped in a sink. One mouse is to weak to move to the water that the scientist who discovered the mice placed in the sink. The stronger mouse, after drinking, tries to nudge the weaker mouse toward the water. When that fails, the stronger mouse moves a piece of food the scientist placed in the sink close to the weaker mouse. The weaker mouse rallied and edged closer to the food. The stronger mouse nudged the food closer to the water, after allowing its weaker sibling to take a bite. Again, the weaker mouse edged up to the food. Again, the stronger mouse nudged the closer to the water, the weaker mouse following. The two mice repeated this process until the weaker had reached the water. This is but one of the many examples of animals helping other animals reported in Wild Justice.
Bekoff and Pierce and reasonably maintain that human ethics have their roots in animal behavior. The notion of helping others in the expectation that someone will aid the helper in his/her moment of need did not suddenly arise in humans.
In other words, from the perspective of naturalistic ethics the philosopher David Hume was wrong to sharply distinguish between what is and what ought to be. He argued that deriving ethics from nature is impossible. A person who misidentifies isness with oughtness commits what philosophers call the naturalistic fallacy. The is of reciprocal altruism thus constitutes an important foundational element for the ought that humans should help one another.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Happiness and religion
Happiness, according to research conducted by the Pew Research Center (to read the study, click here), depends upon good health, good friends, and financial security (Sarah Arnquist, “What Makes Us Happy,” New York Times, June 30, 2009). Those factors remain remarkably constant across age groups.
Good health is a sine qua non for happiness. I have known chronically and terminally people who managed to maintain a positive outlook on life in spite of their illnesses. However, those illnesses, by definition, limited the person’s flourishing. Equating true happiness (i.e., human flourishing) with a positive outlook, sense of peace or equanimity, and feelings of joy, etc., minimizes what happiness should denote. True happiness means living into the fullness of life, something which illness, by definition diminishes. Hence adequate quality healthcare for everybody is foundational for the pursuit of happiness.
Humans are social animals. A newborn, by itself, cannot survive, notwithstanding mythological narratives such as the wolf that suckled Romulus and Remus, Rome’s alleged founders. Most adults seek partners not for childbearing but for companionship. Those Christian teachings that emphasize childbearing over companionship are simply out of touch with reality and misinterpret the Christian myth. The story clearly teaches that God created Eve as a companion, not as a means of propagating the human species.
Whether young or old, navigating the world by one’s self is exceedingly difficult. Good friends enrich life sharing time, wisdom, joy, pain, and labor. For many people, the thought of being alone is perhaps the most terrifying thought of all. Furthermore, the social nature of humans is evident in our genetic predisposition toward reciprocal altruism, doing good for others in the expectation that others (perhaps not even the same others) will in time aid us.
Financial security rounding out the three fundamentals of human happiness does not surprise me. Finances are a proxy for food, clothing, shelter – so much of what enriches life, or even makes life possible, beyond health and friends. An ordained friend of mine disdains to preach about money, believing that stewardship sermons are ultimately self-serving since the congregation pays the cleric’s stipend. Consequently, my friend never preaches about an entire set of foundational issues in people’s lives. How much financial security is sufficient? What constitutes financial security? What is a moral use of one’s financial assets? Can money bring happiness? If so, how? (Money can certainly bring unhappiness, as evidenced in the lives of the mythical Midas, the miser in Jesus’ parable of the barns, Howard Hughes, and many others.)
Financial planners nearly unanimously advise that making a budget is an essential step toward achieving financial well-being. I contend that developing a realistic budget is much more than that, it is a foundational step toward happiness. Increasing the amount of money one has can be difficult, especially during financial downturns. A budget offers individuals and couples the opportunity to plot how best to maximize the happiness (their personal flourishing) with the resources available.
Where does religion fit into this conception of human happiness?
Research consistently reports that active religious participation results in improved health. Researchers do divide over the explanation behind that conclusion. In other words, the research can neither prove nor disprove that God is at work in the world. However, I want better health. So gambling on an updated version of Pascal’s wager seems imminently advisable. (Pascal advised believing in God in case heaven existed; if not, the person was out little or nothing). Spending time reflecting on the meaning of time, seeking God's presence in prayer, meditation, and worship, and loving others collectively cost little and have proven health benefits.
The component of religion that encourages love for one’s neighbor, a common tenet among all of the world’s major religions, helps to establish good friendships, reinforcing our genetic disposition toward reciprocal altruism. In other words, religion not only offers health benefits but also contributes to friendships, a second of the three key facets of happiness.
Sadly, and contrary to many religious hucksters, religion confers no financial benefits. Religion offers something even more important: a sense of equanimity and well-being independent of the size of one’s financial portfolio. Such feelings are no substitute for financial flourishing but without those feelings no amount of financial flourishing will produce genuine happiness.
Good health is a sine qua non for happiness. I have known chronically and terminally people who managed to maintain a positive outlook on life in spite of their illnesses. However, those illnesses, by definition, limited the person’s flourishing. Equating true happiness (i.e., human flourishing) with a positive outlook, sense of peace or equanimity, and feelings of joy, etc., minimizes what happiness should denote. True happiness means living into the fullness of life, something which illness, by definition diminishes. Hence adequate quality healthcare for everybody is foundational for the pursuit of happiness.
Humans are social animals. A newborn, by itself, cannot survive, notwithstanding mythological narratives such as the wolf that suckled Romulus and Remus, Rome’s alleged founders. Most adults seek partners not for childbearing but for companionship. Those Christian teachings that emphasize childbearing over companionship are simply out of touch with reality and misinterpret the Christian myth. The story clearly teaches that God created Eve as a companion, not as a means of propagating the human species.
Whether young or old, navigating the world by one’s self is exceedingly difficult. Good friends enrich life sharing time, wisdom, joy, pain, and labor. For many people, the thought of being alone is perhaps the most terrifying thought of all. Furthermore, the social nature of humans is evident in our genetic predisposition toward reciprocal altruism, doing good for others in the expectation that others (perhaps not even the same others) will in time aid us.
Financial security rounding out the three fundamentals of human happiness does not surprise me. Finances are a proxy for food, clothing, shelter – so much of what enriches life, or even makes life possible, beyond health and friends. An ordained friend of mine disdains to preach about money, believing that stewardship sermons are ultimately self-serving since the congregation pays the cleric’s stipend. Consequently, my friend never preaches about an entire set of foundational issues in people’s lives. How much financial security is sufficient? What constitutes financial security? What is a moral use of one’s financial assets? Can money bring happiness? If so, how? (Money can certainly bring unhappiness, as evidenced in the lives of the mythical Midas, the miser in Jesus’ parable of the barns, Howard Hughes, and many others.)
Financial planners nearly unanimously advise that making a budget is an essential step toward achieving financial well-being. I contend that developing a realistic budget is much more than that, it is a foundational step toward happiness. Increasing the amount of money one has can be difficult, especially during financial downturns. A budget offers individuals and couples the opportunity to plot how best to maximize the happiness (their personal flourishing) with the resources available.
Where does religion fit into this conception of human happiness?
Research consistently reports that active religious participation results in improved health. Researchers do divide over the explanation behind that conclusion. In other words, the research can neither prove nor disprove that God is at work in the world. However, I want better health. So gambling on an updated version of Pascal’s wager seems imminently advisable. (Pascal advised believing in God in case heaven existed; if not, the person was out little or nothing). Spending time reflecting on the meaning of time, seeking God's presence in prayer, meditation, and worship, and loving others collectively cost little and have proven health benefits.
The component of religion that encourages love for one’s neighbor, a common tenet among all of the world’s major religions, helps to establish good friendships, reinforcing our genetic disposition toward reciprocal altruism. In other words, religion not only offers health benefits but also contributes to friendships, a second of the three key facets of happiness.
Sadly, and contrary to many religious hucksters, religion confers no financial benefits. Religion offers something even more important: a sense of equanimity and well-being independent of the size of one’s financial portfolio. Such feelings are no substitute for financial flourishing but without those feelings no amount of financial flourishing will produce genuine happiness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)