More than a family resemblance

Stephen Prothero, a Boston University Professor of Religion, recently authored an opinion piece in the Boston Globe, “Separate Truths” (April 25, 2010). A number of websites noticed his article, e.g., the Episcopal Café.

Prothero writes in opposition to the notion that a common reality lies at the core of the world’s great religions:

… Yet scholars continue to claim that religious rivals such as Hinduism and Islam, Judaism and Christianity are, by some miracle of the imagination, both essentially the same and basically good.

This view resounds in the echo chamber of popular culture, not least on the “Oprah Winfrey Show” and in Elizabeth Gilbert’s bestseller, “Eat Pray Love,” where the world’s religions are described as rivers emptying into the ocean of God. Karen Armstrong, author of “A History of God,” has made a career out of emphasizing the commonalities of religion while eliding their differences. Even the Dalai Lama, who should know better, has gotten into the act, claiming that “all major religious traditions carry basically the same message.”

… This is a lovely sentiment but it is untrue, disrespectful, and dangerous.

His analysis takes the words in which the various religions describe themselves at face value. He also observes substantial differences in liturgical practice and theological emphasis:

The great religions also differ fundamentally when it comes to the techniques they employ to take you from problem to goal. In Confucianism, the rules and rituals of ancient Chinese civilization foster the religious goal of social harmony. But according to Daoists, these very rules and rituals cause the human problem of lifelessness. Civilization is a vampire, Daoists claim, sucking the life out of us, depleting our qi (vital energy), and taking us to an early grave. The only way to pursue the Daoist goal of fostering life is to live in harmony with the naturalness, simplicity, and spontaneity of what Daoists call the Way.

Instead of pointing to a common reality at the core of religion, Prothero contends that religions have share is a common starting point: the belief that something is wrong with the world. The similarity of religion is a matter of family resemblance. All religions have narratives, rituals, scriptures, etc. In other words, a person can recognize something as a religion even as a person recognizes an activity as belonging to that family of human activities known as sport.

From many perspectives, Prothero is correct: the resemblance between religions is more of a family resemblance than explicit commonality. That analysis holds for sociological, historical, liturgical, and many other forms of analysis. Ignoring those significant differences creates an artificial homogeneity that blocks the very tolerance it seeks to convey. Genuine tolerance requires mutual honesty and respect about differences and similarities.

However, Prothero’s analysis falters if one considers words as symbols that point to a reality inherently irreducible to any human form – including language. If so, then the common experience of a reality greater than self may in fact be an experience common to humans regardless of cultural or historical location. Words represent an attempt to package that transcendent experience in order to communicate or domesticate the experience. If such a reality exists, then surely that reality is accessible across time and culture, i.e., religions not only have a common starting point but seek to lead people to experience the same reality.

Furthermore, although major differences in ethical teachings exist between the world’s religions, all of those religions emphasize some version of the Golden Rule. That is, perhaps a common ethical core also exists among the world’s great religions.

At the deepest level, Prothero is wrong. More than a family resemblance exists between religions; those religions each, in its own way, seeks to lead people into a fuller, more transformative encounter with ultimate reality that infuses the person with a richer, fuller flourishing of life. Religions, rightly understood, are all about eudaimonia.

Why not PowerPoint theology?

Military leaders are expressing concern that PowerPoint presentations using the eponymous Microsoft software may inadvertently shape tactics and strategy in unhelpful ways (Elisabeth Buhmiller, “Enemy Lurks in Briefings on Afghan War - PowerPoint,” New York Times, April 26, 2010). Previously in this blog, I have written about how PowerPoint can adversely affect theology.

Five factors probably drive our love affair with PowerPoint. First, many people find technology or the world to which it allows access fascinating. According to Brad Stone ("Hi-Tech's New Day," Newsweek, April 11, 2005, p. 62), 75% of Americans use the internet and spend an average of three hours per day online (accessed April 27, 2010 at http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/bam/www/numbers.html.). Even if those statistics are overblown, the amount of time that people spend online is substantial. Furthermore, those statistics do not reflect other computerized tasks, such as the preparation of PowerPoint presentations.

Second, PowerPoint presentations push people to organize their thoughts. Working with a draft presentation can assist in sorting random ideas into some semblance of a cohesive whole. Third, some people learn better through visual techniques than auditory means. PowerPoint has the advantage of combining both. Fourth, computerized PowerPoint presentations facilitate collaboration between teams of people, especially if not all of the team members are geographically co-located. These three factors all represent potential positives that stem from using PowerPoint.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, PowerPoint is a technique for coping with the glut of information that inundates people in developed countries. PowerPoint forces reductionism by forcing complex, inter-linked ideas to fit on one page. Sometimes, the consequences are disastrous – as in the incomprehensible slide feature in Buhmiller’s story now widely reproduced on the Internet:

Increasingly, I intentionally and discriminatingly choose what I want to read, watch, and hear. Will the item enrich my life? Will spending time with the item contribute to my flourishing or global flourishing? I may frame those general questions in more specific ways, e.g., will the item help me with a project on which I’m working? But I try to use my limited time wisely (i.e., to be a good steward of my time) and to collect information or experiences that I believe may increase my personal or global eudaimonia in the present or the future.

This approach avoids following fads simply because their popular, embraces diverse goals (productivity, aesthetics, relaxation, relationships – to name a few), and minimizes dealing with that which seems most insistent in a particular moment. Management gurus and life coaches often speak encourage paying attention to the important rather than to what appears urgent in the moment.

My greatest frustration with this approach is that it forces me to acknowledge my own limitations and mortality. I cannot read, watch, and hear everything that attracts my attention. I have too little time. Therefore, I must establish and follow (hopefully!) priorities. Otherwise, any chance of living a good life becomes nil as information and experiential chaos rules my time.

Peacemaking

Two recent developments appear to make the world a less safe place:

• The United States is poised to commit to developing a hyperfast (3600 mph) missile capable of delivering non-nuclear warheads anywhere in the world within an hour. Russia and China worry that such a weapon will not afford them sufficient warning to adopt a defensive pose and may signal a new American belligerence. (Tony Allen-Mills, “Hyperfast missile to hit anywhere in an hour,” Times Online, April 25, 2010) Hopefully, fears of a new American belligerence are without basis but understandable, especially if one envisions how the U.S. might respond to Russia or China announcing development of such a weapon.. However, the potential new weapon system has made negotiating weapons reductions treaties more difficult.
• The possibility that a North Korean torpedo may have sunk the South Korean corvette CHEANAN has elevated tensions between those two nations. (Choe Sang Hun, “Tensions Rise Between Koreas as Ship Is Salvaged,” New York Times, April 24, 2010) The totalitarian, impoverished state of North Korea represents one of the greatest threats to world peace because the nation has so little to lose by going to war and may possess nuclear weapons.

A third item, the recent speech by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas entreating the United States to “impose” a solution on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict more likely signifies diminishing hopes for peace than a real step toward a peaceful solution to that conflict. (Robin Henry, “Mahmoud Abbas calls on US to 'impose' a solution to Middle-East conflict,” Times Online, April 24, 2010) To understand the Palestinian move, juxtapose it with Israel’s intransigence about continuing to build Jewish settlements on the West Bank in spite of strong U.S. opposition. A cynic might suggest that the Palestinians see an opportunity to drive a wedge between the Israeli-United States alliance.

Meanwhile, the media reports that centers established to aid physically and mentally wounded warriors returning from Iraq and Afghanistan fall short in providing a reasonable standard of care. Some of the wounded feel “warehoused.” (James Dao and Dan Frosch, “In Army’s Trauma Care Units, Feeling Warehoused”, New York Times, April 24, 2010) The Army established the centers in the wake of the scandalous treatment that war veterans received at Walter Reed hospital in DC. Obviously, the Army must make yet more improvements in caring for war veterans. Regardless of one’s views about the morality or utility of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, taking care of wounded soldiers is an obligation incumbent upon the nation on whose behalf the warriors have fought and incurred their wounds.

Making peace represents a difficult challenge in the complex, global environment of the twenty-first century. Policies or programs that make one nation safer – or at least feel safer – often have the unintended consequence of making others less safe – or at least making others feel less safe. Conflicts arise over which no sane actor(s) seems to have control and for which no good solutions are evident, e.g., North Korea. Other conflicts have a long history rooted in deep animosities and fueled by third parties using the parties directly involved as proxies by which to achieve other aims, e.g., the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Genuine peace – the absence of conflict and flourishing for all – is impossible at least in the short run. Nations must therefore maintain a strong defense. Weapons that seem to have more of an offensive rather than defensive capability have no place in the armory of nations truly committed to peace. Nations must commit to using force only as a last resort, and then only use force when it appears to have a reasonable chance to move the world closer toward peace. South Korea may wish to take reprisal action against North Korea should the sinking of the CHEANAN prove to have resulted from overt North Korean hostile action. However, South Korea should take such action only as a last resort and only if the proposed action seems likely to be a step toward peace instead of an escalation of hostilities.

People of goodwill who want to live in a peaceful world that promotes human flourishing can support these objectives through active participation in the political process. Progress toward peace is both hard work and risky business. People unwilling to make the necessary sacrifices of time, effort, and resources along with people unwilling to take prudent risks condemn themselves and any nation they influence to living in a world of inherently greater instability and violence. I, for one, prefer to take my chances with those the world’s peacemakers.

Murder's aftermath

This past week, a North Carolina jury sentenced the self-confessed murderer of the only son of one my parishioner’s to life in prison for that murder and four others. The sentence resulted from a jury trial in which the convicted had entered a guilty plea. The jury could have recommended the death sentence but instead recommended life imprisonment without parole.

Watching this process has given some of the commonplace assertions about the criminal justice system flesh and bones. Identifying the killer, then tracking him down, and arresting him took time. Bringing the accused to trial took even longer. In all, the last murder occurred about five years ago. This process certainly has not satisfied my definition of the United States Constitution’s guarantee to a quick trial.

My parishioner’s husband probably died from a heart attack triggered by the murder of his son. His widow believes that to be the case. The two deaths compounded my parishioner’s anger, pain, and grief. She felt compelled out of loyalty to her family to sit through the trial and to give testimony prior to the jury deliberating about the convicted man’s sentence.

While my parishioner endured the trial, other parishioners and clergy provided support for her through their presence, prayers, and practical care. I witnessed love in action.

The trial did not result in justice. The five dead men do not have their lives back; families and friends still suffer the loss. The world is forever changed. A death sentence for the guilty man, which my parishioner thankfully did not request, would not have achieved a greater degree of justice. There is no way that the murderer can atone for what he did, let alone compensate those who have suffered such grievous losses in any meaningful manner. Calling the law enforcement process “criminal justice” employs a misnomer that creates widespread unrealistic expectations. Perhaps now my bereaved parishioner will find a great measure of peace, be able to let ago of parts of the past, and live into a new future while holding fast to her love for her deceased husband and son.

The trial did result in a safer society. This convicted murderer who killed five individuals, whom he apparently selected mostly at random, will not kill again. Pretending that mental health professionals, criminologists, or anyone else knows how to ensure that this murderer, if freed from prison, will not kill again is to engage in deceit. Maybe some day humans will have the skills and knowledge to rehabilitate killers with a high degree of confidence in the success of their efforts. Until then, life in prison seems the most moral choice, especially compared to the death penalty.

Unfortunately, killing is sometimes necessary. This was not one of those times. So I pray for my parishioner, her deceased husband and son, and their killer. And I give thanks for the one juror who prevailed against the eleven other jurors who initially wanted to recommend the death penalty. Executing the murderer would have made six senseless deaths instead of five.

Educating priests

The New York Times recently featured an article that discussed the merits of various approaches to educating classroom teachers (“Alternative Education for Teachers Gaining Ground,” April 18, 2010). That article prompted musings about what best prepares a person for service as an Episcopal priest (the thoughts also apply to the ordained leadership in other Christian churches).

First, the person must have a sense of God calling her or him to that ministry, a sense confirmed by both the person’s local congregation and diocese on behalf of the larger Church. True ministry is in large measure a function of allowing the Holy Spirit to work in and through one. Ordination, above all else, symbolizes that movement. Thus, the essential prerequisite for ordination is a valid call to ordained ministry as a priest. Concomitantly, the call offers the promise that person has received (or will receive) the requisite gifts for the ministry to which God has called the person. God does not call and then fail to equip a person to respond faithfully.

Second, appropriate education develops and enhances gifts and skills required for ministry. One of the finest pastors I’ve met served a denomination without educational standards for its clergy. This pastor had no formal theological education, a fact that he bemoaned. Like him, I’m confident that had he attended seminary his ministry would have been even more powerful and effective.

Education denotes academic preparation, whether as a seminarian or reading for holy orders with highly competent priests and lay mentors. Necessary courses of study equip a person with tools for and experience in biblical studies, an introduction to Church history, and a basic knowledge of Christian theology and ethics. Studies in related disciplines (languages, philosophy, history, and world religions) may helpfully enrich those studies.

Third, acquiring practical skills necessary for ministry enables future priests to translate intellectual concepts into ministerial praxis. Relevant subjects include homiletics, liturgics, education, administration, leadership, pastoral counseling and care, etc. Collectively, the term practical theology sometimes connotes these subjects. As that term implies, the subjects have both an academic and practical component, i.e., theory and actual skill sets. Priests thus acquire competence in practical theology through a mixture of academic study and on-the-job training (often called field education or interning).

The breadth of those disciplines point to the broad range of skills congregations expect from their ordained leaderships, expectations that no one person can completely satisfy regardless of the number of years spent in training and education. Preparation of persons for ordination as a priest must therefore aim at ensuring minimum levels of competence rather than true expertise, a premise that holds for both the formal academic and practical theology components.

Fourth and finally, as well as most basic after call, is spiritual formation. Spiritual formation connotes intentionally striving to shape one’s life, particularly one’s spirit, according to the teachings and person of Jesus. No one approach or pattern fits everybody. Daily participation in the Church’s cycle of worship and prayer (Eucharist and the daily offices) is, within the Anglican tradition, a minimum expectation. Sadly, no clear expectations exist beyond that initial step.

The lack of clarity within the Church about the definition of spirit and spirituality coupled with the impossibility of speaking in concrete terms (i.e., avoiding all abstract nouns) about the nexus of the human and divine makes systematizing spiritual formation a search for a holy grail. For example, in some elements of the Anglican tradition, having a spiritual director is a sine qua non for spiritual formation; in other elements of the tradition, spiritual directors are anathema.

By the end of the twentieth century, the Anglican tradition, like many branches of the larger Church, placed the heaviest emphasis, after call, on academic preparation. Academics and other key decision makers involved in preparing priests for ministry, often implicitly assigned practical theology second-class status. Yet as the demands on priests proliferated over the last few centuries, the need for some minimal level of practical competence became inescapable. Even seminarians, at least thirty years ago, viewed practical theology as less important than the more academic theological and biblical disciplines. As those various disciplines vie with one another for resources and enrollment, spiritual formation increasingly seemed to take a back seat. At many non-Anglican seminaries, spiritual formation had no official recognized status or minimum requirement to be satisfied.

Today, the Church at large and the Episcopal Church in particular face problems with respect to the preparation of new priests. Episcopal seminaries (Seabury Western is the first; others seem likely to follow, e.g., cf. Mary Frances Schjonberg, “General Seminary says it may have to sell property to pay bills,” Episcopal Life Online, April 20, 2010) are closing heretofore standard three year programs and seeking alternative models.

Meanwhile, the Episcopal Church has implemented provisions for alternative preparation of priests to serve remote and poor areas that conventionally educated priests largely decline to serve. Paying for a $150,000 MDiv degree on a clerical stipend, second-career vocations, couples in which both partners have employment, childcare/education issues, and the diminished value of seminary endowments all further complicate attending seminary for many potential priests.

Concurrently, questions continue to swirl, as they have for at least several decades, about the merits of the Episcopal Church’s current expectation its priests complete the standard three-year course of seminary education that culminates in award of a Master of Divinity (MDiv) degree. Do all, or even most, priests need to earn an MDiv? Would changing the current MDiv requirements produce graduates better prepared to meet the Church’s needs?

One can consider the net impact of these diverse factors as a crisis in the making. Alternatively, these factors may provide a unique window of opportunity for rethinking how the Episcopal Church prepares people for ordination as priests. What is the best balance of the last three factors identified above? How can the Church best ensure that all priests, without creating a double standard for those in remote areas or with difficult personal circumstances, obtain comparable preparation?

Too often, institutional inertia that results from being bound to tradition, careers premised upon the status-quo, expensive capital investments, wanting successors to jump through the same qualifying hoops that the current generation experienced, etc., makes significant change almost impossible. Perhaps this is the day the Lord has made for the people of God to sing a new song, a song with the same message but improved harmony and orchestration.

Defining success

David Brooks in an Op-Ed New York Times column reflects on two recent events in the life of actress Sandra Bullock: she won an Academy award for best actress and her marriage is breaking up. Brooks asks, Would you, the reader, take that trade between a successful career and an unsuccessful marriage? He strongly argues that having a successful marriage is more important, because a happy marriage is the most important factor in determining whether personal well-being. (David Brooks, “The Sandra Bullock Trade,” New York Times, March 31, 2010)

Research overwhelmingly supports Brooks’ analysis e.g., for an easily accessible summary of some of that research cf. “Is Marriage Good for Your Health?” New York Times, April 12, 2010. For persons in committed relationships, is your significant other your number one priority in life? I wonder how much happier and healthier people might be if they attempted to make their personal relationships their top priority in allocating time, energy, commitment, and financial resources.

Reflections on the report of the HOB’s theology panel on sexuality

The report, “Same-Sex Relationships in the Life of the Church,” commissioned by the Theology Committee of the House of Bishops and published this Lent merits widespread study within both the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion (unless otherwise noted, page numbers refer to this document). The report avoided an overly facile effort to reconcile the diametrically opposed positions about whether the Church should bless same-sex marriages. Instead, the Committee recruited a panel of four Christian ethicists to delineate the arguments against same-sex marriage and another panel of four Christian ethicists the arguments in favor of same-sex marriage, and then each panel responded to the contrary position.

The view with which I profoundly disagree, that against recognizing same-sex marriage (“Same-Sex Marriage and Anglican Theology: A View from the Traditionalists,” pp. 1-39), prompted some fresh reflections about natural law. The traditionalists correctly contend that natural law (as heretofore understood) supports heterosexual but not same-sex marriage. The panel does not inquire whether the received interpretation of natural law might be wrong. Had the panel done so, its members might have altered their views.

Natural law claims to identify principles or “laws” that govern the natural world. Pre-Enlightenment “scientists” often defined those laws based upon a priori arguments or scriptural interpretation rather than the scientific method (determining the validity of a hypothesis by measuring its predictive power). The Enlightenment heralded a new and enduring reliance on the scientific method, triggering a succession of clashes between conflicting understandings of natural processes. The sixteenth century dispute between proponents of a geo-centric and helio-centric solar system was one such clash.

In the twenty-first century, “discerning the sexual pattern in creation” (p. 22) probably demarcates another pending clash. As the traditionalists note in their report, the natural law tradition has until now argued, in species with two genders, that heterosexual relationships and reproduction are normative (pp. 31-33).

Although scientific data remains inconclusive in the estimation of the traditionalists (p. 25), the weight of accumulating data points increasingly toward proving the assessment of heterosexual relationships and reproduction as normative wrong. Nature exhibits incredible diversity and contending that any one pattern of sexual behavior is normative has become very problematic. That natural diversity has become more apparent as researchers greatly improve the accuracy of their observations, vastly expand the quantity of observations, and compile an every growing, ever more fully nuanced body of evidence based theory.

The following seem relevant to any discussion of natural law and human relationships:

• All life forms appear to have evolved from a common source.
• Patterns of behavior in other life forms, especially in primates may therefore shed light on human behavior.
• Some animal species, including chimps with whom humans share 96% of their genome, exhibit diverse mating patterns, i.e., both opposite and same-sex.
• Some of these relationships, both opposite and same-sex, are monogamous and last for years.
• Reproductive patterns among species with two sexes also vary widely, e.g., species in which some females morph into males, a species in which male fish mate by biting a female’s back and then being permanently absorbed into the female to ensure a ready supply of sperm, etc.
• Some same-sex non-human animal couples rear offspring.

In other words, the implicit presumption of natural law as traditionally formulated that only heterosexual couples mate, procreate, and nurture children is wrong. (For a highly readable synopsis of current research on gay animals, cf. Jon Mooallem, “Can Animals Be Gay?” New York Times, April 3, 2010.)

The traditionalists candidly remark (p. 16) that attempting to learn what the Bible says about same-sex relationships “involves looking to it for answers to questions it does not pose, at least not in the form we want to ask them. The notion of same-sex marriage did not exist in Scripture or in its contemporary contexts.” The Anglican tradition only maintains that the Bible is the repository of all information necessary for salvation and not all important or even useful information (Book of Common Prayer, pp. 513, 526).

In the absence of biblical answers to our questions, we have no choice but to search for other approaches to find answers to our questions. One of those approaches may be natural law, which, as outlined above, offers a far more complex and nuanced picture of relationships and reproduction than the historic formulation of natural law presumes. (I have admittedly formulated that picture to support my views as strongly as possible but the actual picture does not cohere to the historic view of natural law and is complex.) Another approach relies not on specific passages but broad biblical themes to extract from them a tentative answer. The Liberals utilized this method in “A Theology of Marriage including Same-Sex Couples: A View from the Liberals” (pp. 40-69).

Within the Christian tradition, views about marriage have evolved as Christians faithfully sought to interpret Scripture in the light of both tradition and reason. For example, Christian thinking about marriage shifted from marry if you must to avoid sin (expecting an imminent parousia, celibacy is better), to sex is only for the purpose of procreation, to marriage is for the community’s benefit, the mutual well-being of both partners, and the procreation and nurture of children.

My reading of the traditionalist position in the report is that this last issue – procreation of children – constitutes the major obstacle to accepting gay unions as marriage. Obviously, the traditionalists interpose other objections to the idea of same-sex relationships, such as natural law and their understanding of what the Bible teaches. The traditionalists do not seem to question the mutual well-being that a same-sex relationship may provide the two partners. The value to the community of same-sex relationships is largely a function of the degree to which that community accepts or rejects such relationships.

People today can procreate a child through intercourse, in utero artificial insemination, or in vitro fertilization with subsequent embryo implant in either one of the partner’s wombs or a surrogate’s womb. Perhaps can also “procreate” by adopting a child(ren). Most of theological and ethical thinking is woefully inadequate with respect to procreation in the twenty-first century, cf. Ellen Painter Dollar’s three part essay, “Why Episcopalians need to care about reproductive ethics,” Daily Episcopalian, March 9, 2010. If nothing else, available procreation options offer all couples, regardless of their gender composition, the option of having children. Even as improved insights into how the world functions call for an updated natural theology, so do scientific advances that expand the options for procreation call for Christians to rethink associated theological and ethical concepts.

Neither the release of “Same-Sex Relationships in the Life of the Church” nor the upcoming consecration of the Rev. Canon Mary Glasspool as Bishop Suffragan in the Diocese Los Angeles has led to a cataclysmic outpouring of wailing, gnashing of teeth, and consternation among most Episcopalians. Easter is dawning! In the meantime, thanks be to God that dialogue continues, at least some of the discourse exhibits Christian respect for the dignity and worth of those who disagree, and the Episcopal Church in good Anglican fashion continues to incorporate diverse viewpoints.

Justice for all

A couple of weeks ago, I visited the International Civil Rights Center and Museum in Greensboro, NC. The Center and Museum occupy the former Woolworth’s store in downtown Greensboro, the site of the first lunch counter sit-in (1960) that led to the end of segregated dining in the United States.

Sadly, Woolworth’s management eventually capitulated to the protesters’ demand for integration for economic rather than moral reasons. The demonstrators’ persistent, daily presence caused some shoppers to boycott Woolworth’s; other shoppers, afraid of being caught up in potential trouble, avoided the store in spite of the protest’s peaceful nature.

The motives of Woolworth’s management and the protesters differ dramatically. Management emphasizes profits, i.e., what benefits them. To a lesser degree, management have also have acted out of concern for protecting employees’ jobs and shareholder profits. But clearly management suffers considerable personal losses (certainly prestige and future promotion opportunities, probably their jobs as well) if the store closes.

The protesters, as Museum exhibits emphasize, had tired of living as second-class people in a nation that nominally promised equality. However, the four original protesters also recognized that they acted at considerable risk to their own well-being (possible arrest, beatings, or even death at the hands of white supremacists). The protesters went ahead anyway, convinced both of the justice of their cause and committed to benefitting the larger community as well themselves.

Last night, I attended a lecture sponsored by the Coalition for Peace and Justice from Chapel Hill, NC. Anna Baltzer gave the lecture, “Speaking Truth: Seeking Justice in Israel-Palestine.” Baltzer describes herself as a Jewish-American Columbia University graduate, Fulbright scholar, and granddaughter of Holocaust refugees.

The lecture presented an overview of the injustices the nation of Israel has inflicted on the Palestinian people through its consistent encroachment on Palestinian land since 1946. Two years prior to the United Nations declaration that established the nation of Israel, Jews owned 6-8% of the land in Palestine. The declaration provided a 56% Israeli and 44% Palestinian split. Today, Israel includes within its borders or settlements more than 80% of Palestine with designs on yet more land. In addition to confiscating land, Israel perpetrates injustices against the Palestinians through checkpoints, construction of the wall to separate Israelis and Palestinians, discriminatory policies (e.g., one road system for Israelis and another for Palestinians), destruction of apartment buildings in which suspected terrorists allegedly live or have sought refuge, etc. (For details, photos, and maps see her website www.annainthemiddleeast.com.

Baltzer argues that although violent Palestinian opposition to Israeli injustice receives the most media attention, a majority of Palestinians in the occupied territories (the West Bank and Gaza Strip) engage in non-violent protests against Israeli policies and injustices. These protests include public demonstrations, speaking out, and simply surviving while enduring daily persecution.

She strongly believes that people who remain silent when they know what is happening are complicit in the injustices. That complicity especially includes United States citizens because of the vast amounts of foreign aid the U.S. gives to Israel (more than $15 million per day). Israel uses some of that money to construct the wall, operate checkpoints, procure weapons used in operations against Palestinians, and to fund illegal settlements on Palestinian land.

What would Jesus do?

With respect to the Greensboro civil rights sit-in, I’m confident that Jesus would have joined the four young men in initiating the protest. The light of Jesus burned clearly and brightly in the ministry of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., strongly supporting this hypothesis about what Jesus would do.

The Palestinian situation is more complex, more nuanced. Arab nations fund Palestinian refugee camps, almost universally refuse to permit Palestinian refugees to become citizens, and consistently use the Palestinians as a proxy in their campaign to eliminate Israel. Terrorism, no matter who does it or why, is wrong, a point Balzter repeatedly emphasized. Yet the plight of the Palestinians is immoral and intolerable. I believe that Jesus would speak and act against the continued injustices of Israel while also speaking and acting against injustices committed by Palestinians. Jesus’ cause is justice for all, regardless of ethnicity, race, religion, creed, national origin, gender, or gender orientation.

Facing the true cost of war in Afghanistan

General Stanley McChrystal is about to close the fast food restaurants and shopping emporiums that now dot major U.S. military bases in Afghanistan. His rationale for this action is that these commercial enterprises distract attention from the military’s mission in Afghanistan and establish inappropriate quality of life differences between troops in the hinterlands and personnel at major installations. (Jerome Starkey, Burgers go way of booze as US general Stanley McChrystal bans junk food,” Times Online, March 30, 2010)

That decision, if implemented, represents an important step in the right direction for yet two other reasons: the more comforts of home provided to personnel in Afghanistan (and Iraq), the larger the required footprint for military bases and the larger the ratio of support to combat troops. In other words, the move will reduce the cost of the wars and the animosity that our presence generates in those countries. The actual impact of the latter reduction may be relatively minor, but symbolically communicates that the U.S. is not seeking to transform even a small part of a Muslim country into a bastion of American culture. The move will also reduce the disparity between the lifestyle of Americans on those bases and the local populations.

McChrystal’s move begins to take the war in Afghanistan seriously. What would happen if politicians and the nation took the war equally seriously, funding the wars (Iraq as well as Afghanistan) from the regular budget instead of through special appropriations and implementing a draft to provide sufficient manpower? These moves would more directly confront U.S. voters and citizens with the full reality of waging these wars. Financing and staffing the wars in ways that minimize the consequences for most citizens avoids putting the wars to the litmus test of whether the costs in dollars and lives is worth any potential benefit.

Thinking about the income tax

Headlines this month announced that nearly half of U.S. households will not pay federal income tax this year. Reaching for impact, the articles sometimes de-emphasized the numerous other taxes that people pay (payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, sales tax, state income tax, federal taxes on gas and cigarettes, sales taxes, excise taxes, etc.). (Stephen Ohlemacher, “Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax,” Washington Post, April 7, 2010)

The non-payment by this half of the population is not a function of non-compliance. Instead, by combing the standard deduction, four exemptions, and tax credits a family of two adults and two children under seventeen with an income of $50,000 owes no federal income tax for 2009.

Some predictably declared this non-payment of federal income tax scandalous: the rich pay a disproportionate share of the tax; beneath the non-payment of federal income tax lies creeping socialism; etc. Others predictably supported the tax policies that allow the poor and relatively poor to keep more of their income.

Let me offer a more nuanced view. First, most employed people should pay at least a modicum of federal income tax, e.g., half a percent of their income. The U.S. should sufficiently streamline and simplify its tax laws and regulations that persons and households with average income do not need to hire a tax preparer to file an accurate return and to pay the minimum tax due. The government could then collect the money now spent on tax preparation as tax revenue, leaving the taxpayer no worse off financially.

The federal income tax code is now about 70,000 pages long and Americans spend 7.6 billion hours coping with it. Imagine the gain in productivity if that time could be redirected toward a more constructive use! Eighty-two percent of Americans now pay for help in preparing their taxes. Even the director of the Internal Revenue Service – the man responsible for administering tax collection – pays someone else to prepare his taxes. (“April 15th: The joy of tax,” The Economist, April 8, 2010) Although simplifying the tax code would adversely effect the tax preparation and tax law industries, the increased compliance from a simpler system should be well worth the economic dislocation.

Furthermore, paying some amount of income tax would give everyone a stake in government. Government of and by the people becomes more real when people financially contribute to government operations. For example, one-half of one percent of $50,000 is $250, not a huge sum, but something.

Second, people who earn more should pay relatively more than people who learn less, i.e., the nation should have a progressive tax structure. Flat tax proposals in which everybody would pay the same percentage of income in tax discriminate against low- and middle-income people. Excluding dividends and interest from taxation further discriminates against low- and middle-income people because they generally receive the lowest percentage of their incomes from such sources.

Mere existence (food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare) requires some level of income. Quality of life frequently improves as one spends more on those items and on other, discretionary items, e.g., vacations and toys. A nation that truly values all of its citizens will ensure that all have adequate means by which to pay for some minimum standard of living. Nations can achieve this through a variety of welfare programs. Tax policy contributes to this goal by taxing the wealthy more heavily than the poor.

The Christian Bible does not directly speak to tax policy. However, the Bible repeatedly underscores the importance of justice. No person chooses the family into which to be born or the family that raises him or her. Treating my neighbor equitably requires that I consider how I would feel if born with different genes or reared in a different neighborhood. Some wealth differences are a matter of individual effort and initiative. Most wealth differences are a function of matters over which individuals have no control, a truth that Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers emphasizes in a highly accessible yet thoroughly researched manner.

Intellectual property and Ethical Musings

Occasionally I will Google “Ethical Musings” to discover links and references to this blog. I was surprised to discover my Ash Wednesday entry quoted on “Real-Time Finance” in its entirety without attribution.

On the one hand, I’m delighted to have my post re-published and presumably read by a broader audience. Copying is perhaps the most sincere form of flattery, to paraphrase an old adage.

On the other hand, I’m troubled by the lack of attribution, whether in the form of a link back to Ethical Musings, an explicit acknowledgement of my authorship, or, most appropriately, both (as modeled in this blog).

I’m not a lawyer. I don’t know what my intellectual property rights are with respect to material that I post on this blog. However, the world’s major religions, including Christianity, all teach some form of the Golden Rule, i.e., to treat others as we would like to have others treat us. Recognizing the author of material posted on the web seems to fall squarely within those parameters.

Higher life forms?

Neither Pope Benedict XVI nor Charles Darwin is infallible. The Pope’s inept (at best) and criminally negligent (at worst) handling of the cases of priests involved in sexually abusing minors convincingly demonstrates the Pope’s humanity.

Darwin opposed identifying life forms as higher or lower. His rationale for that position derives from two ideas. First, species evolve based upon random mutations that make a particular organism more or less adaptable to its environment. Second, given the randomness with which that occurs, any branch on the tree of life may dead end or unexpectedly lead to new forms of life.

However, what if the universe were designed to promote complexity? No scientific data can prove (or disprove) that hypothesis. Life on this planet certainly seems to favor more complex organisms over less complex organisms. Humans have the ability to alter the environment in ways unmatched by all other life forms. Why not identify more complex life forms as higher than less complex forms?

Darwin’s position reflects science transgressing into questions, which in the absence of scientific data, remain the purview of religion and philosophy. Although I disagree with Stephen Jay Gould that science and religion constitute separate, non-overlapping magisterial, some questions seem to be distinctly religious or scientific. Whether higher or lower life forms exist now is one such question.

Risk aversion and Holy Saturday

In response to my previous reflections on Courage, a reader emailed the following comments (the bulleted quotation is from Part 3; Parts 1 and 2 are also available).

> Yet the United States is risk and failure averse.

I may disagree with you there. Perhaps taken out of context, but counterpoints:

· Many Americans (speaking specifically about the U.S.) are sports fans, yet almost all sports popular here are zero-sum games. Professional athletes in contact sports accept a near-certain risk of disablement later in life.

· Americans gamble voraciously (e.g. Las Vegas) despite unfavorable odds. Americans buy lottery tickets in great numbers.

· Prohibition of alcohol failed, in part because individual Americans were willing to deal in it despite possible prosecution. Drugs likewise today.

· Even HIV/AIDS and other widespread STDs have not curtailed sexual behaviors among Americans.

At a collective level,

· The U.S. economy routinely outperforms Europeans and all Asians except the Chinese at new business ventures, from Hollywood films that have a relatively low rate of financial success to startups in pharmaceuticals, most of which fail. People who work in these startups know the risk.

· In Desert Shield before it became Desert Storm, the U.S. took a big risk when it deployed two brigades of the 82d Airborne before any heavy units could be shipped to the theater. The entire combat air capability at the time consisted of merely two carriers, one of which had just finished a six-month Med deployment without any logistics support in the Gulf.

· Nixon’s Operation Linebacker in 1972 was much more aggressive than the Joint Chiefs recommended, and Linebacker II was audacious in its tactics.

· George W Bush did invade Iraq. After the fact, some folks have claimed the Joint Chiefs were certain they could destroy the remaining Iraqi military with few casualties to U.S./U.K. forces, but I have a hard time believing that everyone in the command structure knew the combat would be so one-sided.

· The Episcopal Church accepted Gene Robinson’s election despite a near-certain schism.

Personally, back in 1988 I walked out of a face-to-face interview in Atlanta for a position as chief-of-staff to the Chief Strategy Officer at BellSouth. He explained that the company had zero appetite for risk, so I withdrew on the spot. Per the time-honored rules of American business, BellSouth’s risk aversion ultimately led to its takeover and the elimination of most ex-Bellsouth executive positions in Atlanta. They deserved their fate.

In response:

Your examples of risk taking are interesting, suggesting a more complex mosaic than my blog originally indicated. Your job interview with the BellSouth CSO is consistent with my experience in the military: military personnel and civil servants are overwhelmingly risk averse with respect to their careers. Some of your military examples perhaps oversimplify: the US had a tremendous force advantage, military leaders routinely underestimate the size of the force required (a good thing in a military leader, but also reflective of risk aversion with respect to career implications), and decision makers generally thought little risk was involved in the choices they made.

Conversely, the litigiousness of modern American society certainly exudes a risk aversion mentality.

Perhaps the real question each person had constructively ask him or herself: When am I risk averse? When am I willing to take risks? Have I made choices about risk that are likely to produce a life that will enable me to flourish, contribute to human flourishing, and about which I will feel good the longer I live?

Of course, perhaps the biggest risk of all was the one God took in Jesus, echoed in the choice to become a disciple of Jesus, an apt topic on which to ruminate on Holy Saturday.

Why "Good Friday"?

Why do English-speaking Christians call the Friday of Jesus’ crucifixion “Good Friday”?

Historically, the answer to that question is uncertain. The designation may have begun as “God's Friday” or be a German import from Gottes Freitag (God's Friday) or Gute Freitag (Good Friday). By contrast, the Greek Church calls it “the Holy and Great Friday,” Churches in which people speak a Romance language call it “Holy Friday,” and in Germany it is “Sorrowful Friday.” (Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan, The Last Week (New York: HarperOne, 2006), p. 137.)

Theologically, English-speaking Christians call the day of Jesus’ death “Good Friday” because they believe that God acted decisively in the event of Jesus’ death to defeat the powers of evil and to proclaim the path of life abundant, i.e., the path of loving obedience to God as lived by Jesus of Nazareth.

Reading Scripture as teaching Christians to understand Jesus’ death as substitutionary atonement perverts Scripture and turns God into an ogre. No loving father would knowingly condemn a beloved son to an agonizing death. We rightly regard such behavior child abuse of the worst kind.

Believing that Jesus is the divine son of God makes God a masochist: God wrote the rules, God knew that humans would sin, God had established that only a blood sacrifice of a pure, unblemished lamb could atone for sin, so God knew that Jesus would have to sacrifice his life for the well-being of the world. Furthermore, this view entirely ignores the loving forgiveness from God that Jews experienced before Jesus.

Jesus died not for human sins, but because of human sins. Because of human sins, the domination system of Roman imperialism with its coterie of elite Jewish collaborators could not tolerate the dissident Jesus proclaiming the Kingdom of God. So the domination system crucified Jesus as a political revolutionary, even though he was non-violent.

On Good Friday, I wonder to what extent I have succumbed to the multiple temptations of the domination system that prevails in the United States – the informal cabal of powerful leaders from all walks of life (politics, business, religion, entertainment, the military, the wealthy, etc.) – that work to maintain their privileged lifestyles. Am I even aware of the compromises I make? Do I recognize the extent to which my values reflect the domination system instead of the gospel?

And once I begin to struggle with those questions, how do I incorporate the insights into my life? Can I hope to overcome the biases inherent in privileged upbringing to identify with the least among us?

What, spiritually, is the meaning of “Good Friday” for me? That is the ultimate question that this day poses for the Christian.