Another perspective on incarceration is that imprisonment trumps capital punishment, at least in the United States and developed countries – elsewhere some prisons bear more resemblance to living hells than to any kind of humane captivity. According to Amnesty International estimates (the actual number is a Chinese state secret), China executed well over 1000 people in 2009, more than the rest of the world combined. Iran followed in second place, executing slightly fewer than 400; Iraq was in third place with over 120 executions and Saudi Arabia in fourth; the United States rounds out the top five with about 40 executed in 2009. (“China and the death penalty: High executioners,” The Economist on July 28, 2010)
As a patriotic American, I for one am embarrassed that the United States places among the five nations that executed the most people by capital punishment in 2009. Even adding a caveat to the list, that these executions all nominally occurred under the rule of law, leaves the United States in shameful company. Arguing that the American criminal justice system afforded those executed fuller rights and more humane imprisonment does not mitigate my embarrassment.
As a Christian, I find the entire list morally reprehensible for reasons that I have posted previously, Justice and capital punishment.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Friday, July 30, 2010
Welcoming openly gay clergy
The move toward accepting openly gay clergy continues to grow in size and momentum. The largest Lutheran Church in the States, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
God loves all people equally, regardless of gender, gender orientation, sex, race, age, ethnicity, net worth, or any other superficial criterion that humans may attempt to impose. The Church should have learned this lesson from scripture and the struggles of people of color and women to gain equal status. Continuing to fight against the full inclusion of all people in the life of the Church represents a rearguard, losing battle, an effort to stem the onward tide of God's love flowing irresistibly across the world.
Two lines of evidence support this conclusion about the direction in which history is moving. First, scientists are discovering that homosexuality is more widespread among other animal species than anyone previously had thought. (Jon Mooallem, “Can Animals Be Gay?” New York Times, March 29, 2010) In other words, homosexuality does not seem reducible to an evil but somehow, for unknown reasons, inherent in the created cosmos. Denying non-heterosexuals as full a life as possible is morally wrong.
Second, morality is not reducible to religion. A growing number of voices in the public square are recognizing morality’s naturalistic foundation, i.e., that humans have a genetic disposition to behave in certain ways commonly labeled “moral,” most notably altruism. (David Brooks, “The Moral Naturalists,” New York Times, July 22, 2010).
Presumably, God is consistent. In other words, God would not create one pattern of morality in the genetic makeup of creatures and command obedience to a conflicting set of moral dictates in religion. Christians (and all other religious people) should therefore interpret their scriptures in a way that is consistent with a naturalistic morality. However one interprets the passages of the Christian scriptures that deal with homosexuality, the interpretation should therefore not result in a blanket condemnation of either homosexual behavior or homosexuality.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Animal rights - what price?
Two articles in a recent edition of Nature attracted my attention. The first reports that some scientists wonder if eliminating the mosquito would have a significant, adverse effect on the environment. Research suggests that in each ecological subsystem in which the mosquito appears to play a critical role, one or more other species would quickly fill the cap if mosquitoes suddenly disappeared. (Janet Fang, “Ecology: A world without mosquitoes,” Nature, July 21, 2010)
Evolutionary biologists know that no species has endured forever. Regrettably – at least from the perspective of this human – mosquitoes have endured a very long time. They cause much human suffering and death; the spread of malaria is perhaps the most virulent and best known. The harm that mosquitoes now do seems to outweigh whatever good they once may have contributed to evolutionary development.
However, I have doubts about initiating a campaign to eradicate mosquitoes. If God looked at creation and said, “This is good,” do humans, themselves creatures, have the moral right to determine that what was once good has now become evil? If humans eradicate mosquitoes, what unintended, unforeseen adverse consequences may result? If humans eradicate mosquitoes, will we then target another species for eradication, perhaps with less sanguine results?
Good stewardship of the environment is an essential human responsibility to promote the well-being and happiness of all life. Good stewardship requires not a vain attempt to preserve the status quo but a consistent, thoroughgoing attempt to do no harm, to minimize or ameliorate the damage inflicted, to provide for all sentient beings, and perhaps even to leave the earth on a more solid ecological footing at our death than it was at our birth.
The second Nature article reports on efforts to enforce a law designed to stop animal rights activists’ terrorism (Emma Marris, “Animal rights 'terror' law challenged,” Nature, July 20, 2010). Committing violent, terrorist acts in defense of animal rights seems like an oxymoron to me. Humans, like all other species, are animals with rights. Violently attacking humans to defend the rights of other animals is logically consistent.
Promotion of animal rights, advocacy of animal rights, and even the defense of animal rights are all goals accomplishable without intentionally endangering other humans. Waging terrorism in support of those goals is morally indefensible.
The weak adopt terrorism as a tactic or strategy generally when no other tactic or strategy seems like to succeed. The battle for animal rights in the United States has admittedly been an uphill fight. Employing terrorist tactics have dramatized the plight of certain species and attracted much media attention. However, the terror tactics and strategy have generally failed to achieve their objectives, often producing a backlash against animal rights. Vigorous and appropriate law enforcement responses to animal rights activists and groups that employ terror tactics seem likely to minimize if not end the problem without needing to impose any restrictions on free speech.
Protecting the environment and other living species is an essential human responsibility. I’m thankful that the parish I serve has launched an environmental stewardship ministry. Thankfully, they aim to pursue that goal through peaceful means. In a nation that seeks to live under the rule of law, moral activists have no justifiable reason for resorting to violence to achieve their agenda, no matter how worthy that agenda. Activists should instead walk in the non-violent footsteps of Martin Luther King, Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, and Jesus.
Evolutionary biologists know that no species has endured forever. Regrettably – at least from the perspective of this human – mosquitoes have endured a very long time. They cause much human suffering and death; the spread of malaria is perhaps the most virulent and best known. The harm that mosquitoes now do seems to outweigh whatever good they once may have contributed to evolutionary development.
However, I have doubts about initiating a campaign to eradicate mosquitoes. If God looked at creation and said, “This is good,” do humans, themselves creatures, have the moral right to determine that what was once good has now become evil? If humans eradicate mosquitoes, what unintended, unforeseen adverse consequences may result? If humans eradicate mosquitoes, will we then target another species for eradication, perhaps with less sanguine results?
Good stewardship of the environment is an essential human responsibility to promote the well-being and happiness of all life. Good stewardship requires not a vain attempt to preserve the status quo but a consistent, thoroughgoing attempt to do no harm, to minimize or ameliorate the damage inflicted, to provide for all sentient beings, and perhaps even to leave the earth on a more solid ecological footing at our death than it was at our birth.
The second Nature article reports on efforts to enforce a law designed to stop animal rights activists’ terrorism (Emma Marris, “Animal rights 'terror' law challenged,” Nature, July 20, 2010). Committing violent, terrorist acts in defense of animal rights seems like an oxymoron to me. Humans, like all other species, are animals with rights. Violently attacking humans to defend the rights of other animals is logically consistent.
Promotion of animal rights, advocacy of animal rights, and even the defense of animal rights are all goals accomplishable without intentionally endangering other humans. Waging terrorism in support of those goals is morally indefensible.
The weak adopt terrorism as a tactic or strategy generally when no other tactic or strategy seems like to succeed. The battle for animal rights in the United States has admittedly been an uphill fight. Employing terrorist tactics have dramatized the plight of certain species and attracted much media attention. However, the terror tactics and strategy have generally failed to achieve their objectives, often producing a backlash against animal rights. Vigorous and appropriate law enforcement responses to animal rights activists and groups that employ terror tactics seem likely to minimize if not end the problem without needing to impose any restrictions on free speech.
Protecting the environment and other living species is an essential human responsibility. I’m thankful that the parish I serve has launched an environmental stewardship ministry. Thankfully, they aim to pursue that goal through peaceful means. In a nation that seeks to live under the rule of law, moral activists have no justifiable reason for resorting to violence to achieve their agenda, no matter how worthy that agenda. Activists should instead walk in the non-violent footsteps of Martin Luther King, Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, and Jesus.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Incarceration in America
Seven and one half Americans out of every one thousand (a total between 2.3 and 2.4 million people) are behind bars in jail or prison. That depressingly large percentage of the population means that the United States imprisons a higher percentage of its citizens than does any other country. By comparison, Russia is in second place with six out of one thousand citizens behind bars, Iran is fourth with 2.25 of every one thousand people in prison; China, Canada, France, and Germany all have less than 1.5 of every one thousand citizens in prison.
The proportion of Americans in prison has quadrupled since 1970.
Imprisoning someone is expensive for taxpayers – from an annual cost per year per inmate of $18,000 in Mississippi to over $50,000 in California. (Data from “Rough justice in America: Too many laws, too many prisoners,” The Economist, July 25, 2010 and “Rough justice in America,” The Economist, July 22, 2010)
Rejecting the premises that U.S. citizens are more prone to break laws than the citizens of other nations, more violent, and less amenable to other forms of correction, the American criminal justice system clearly needs a major overhaul. Here are a few suggestions:
• Give judges more discretion to tailor the punishment to the crime, e.g., not all drug offenses merit the same punishment.
• More narrowly focus “three strikes and your out” laws to permanently imprison only violent felons.
• Reduce the number of criminal offenses, e.g., legalize and then tax marijuana, thereby eliminating the criminal culture that now envelops the growth, distribution, marketing, and consumption of marijuana.
• Increase reliance on other forms of punishment, e.g., restitution and confinement at home that cost government less to implement.
• More broadly, improve opportunities for the least advantaged, making productive lives more attractive in comparison to lives of crime.
Imprisoning over 2,000,000 Americans at an annual cost of $600,000,000,000 ($600 billion) increases my tax burden while making me, at best, perhaps marginally safer. We must find a better, more Christian solution to crime.
The proportion of Americans in prison has quadrupled since 1970.
Imprisoning someone is expensive for taxpayers – from an annual cost per year per inmate of $18,000 in Mississippi to over $50,000 in California. (Data from “Rough justice in America: Too many laws, too many prisoners,” The Economist, July 25, 2010 and “Rough justice in America,” The Economist, July 22, 2010)
Rejecting the premises that U.S. citizens are more prone to break laws than the citizens of other nations, more violent, and less amenable to other forms of correction, the American criminal justice system clearly needs a major overhaul. Here are a few suggestions:
• Give judges more discretion to tailor the punishment to the crime, e.g., not all drug offenses merit the same punishment.
• More narrowly focus “three strikes and your out” laws to permanently imprison only violent felons.
• Reduce the number of criminal offenses, e.g., legalize and then tax marijuana, thereby eliminating the criminal culture that now envelops the growth, distribution, marketing, and consumption of marijuana.
• Increase reliance on other forms of punishment, e.g., restitution and confinement at home that cost government less to implement.
• More broadly, improve opportunities for the least advantaged, making productive lives more attractive in comparison to lives of crime.
Imprisoning over 2,000,000 Americans at an annual cost of $600,000,000,000 ($600 billion) increases my tax burden while making me, at best, perhaps marginally safer. We must find a better, more Christian solution to crime.
Interesting statistics about Facebook and U.S. Defense spending
The chart below (published in The Economist last week, found at this link) promoted me to wonder, as the world moves inexorably toward global community, will social networking sites hasten the demise of the old nationalism, perhaps creating an entirely new definition of “nation”?
First, movement toward a virtual rather than geographic definition of nation might indicate a developing symbiotic link between humans and computers. One of the original Star Trek episodes featured an alien race whose biological existence was only the brain; machines performed all other physical activities for them. Stark Trek: The Next Generation featured Cyborgs (part biological and part machine) as well as robots, like CDR Data, who seemed human apart from their lack of affective capacity. In any event, a virtual definition of nation will depend, at a minimum, upon computers becoming the medium for most interpersonal relationships.
Second, movement toward a virtual rather than geographic definition of nation might signal a move away from our current consumer culture that emphasizes the purchase of material items. If so, that would be good environmentally as it would almost certainly reduce carbon emissions. Production of material goods would also presumably decline, or, if constant, represent people in the less developed world attaining a standard of living comparable to the developed world’s standard. Furthermore, motor vehicles produce a disproportionately share of carbon emissions; people occupied with their virtual existence will presumably spend less time on highways.
Third, movement toward a virtual rather than geographic definition of nation might entail shifting patterns of employment. As implied in above, manufacturing would presumably employ fewer people; services and knowledge industries might employ more. Both of those shifts have already begun. Both shifts will cause suffering during transitions and dislocations. Concomitantly, technical and scientific educations will become ever more valuable.
Fourth, movement toward a virtual rather than geographic definition of nation might pose serious problems for many religions, accelerating the weakening of the link between place of birth and religion. In a virtual world, with broad exchanges of ideas and materials, religion would probably become more a matter of choice. In making that choice, these questions seem likely to become more important: What is the human spirit? How do humans manifest their spirit? What constitutes human community? Which religion – or syncretistic blend – best answers those questions for me?
Fifth, movement toward a virtual rather than geographic definition of nation would probably initiate a re-thinking of national defense. Militaries designed to protect territorial integrity might diminish in importance with cyber warfare representing the prime context for the next generation of warfighting.
Distressingly large sums of those funds have disappeared without adequate accounting in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Most recently, auditors report that they cannot account for $8.7 billion spend in Iraq (Steven Lee Myers, “U.S. Military Chief Presses Iraqis to End Political Deadlock,” New York Times, July 27, 2010). Those same dollars spent on programs designed to improve the quality of life for the least amongst those of us living in the United States would have resulted in better accountability and increased global happiness more than by having spent the money on warfighting and rebuilding corrupt nations.
If the world defines “nation” virtually rather than by geography or ethnicity, what are some possible consequences?
First, movement toward a virtual rather than geographic definition of nation might indicate a developing symbiotic link between humans and computers. One of the original Star Trek episodes featured an alien race whose biological existence was only the brain; machines performed all other physical activities for them. Stark Trek: The Next Generation featured Cyborgs (part biological and part machine) as well as robots, like CDR Data, who seemed human apart from their lack of affective capacity. In any event, a virtual definition of nation will depend, at a minimum, upon computers becoming the medium for most interpersonal relationships.
Second, movement toward a virtual rather than geographic definition of nation might signal a move away from our current consumer culture that emphasizes the purchase of material items. If so, that would be good environmentally as it would almost certainly reduce carbon emissions. Production of material goods would also presumably decline, or, if constant, represent people in the less developed world attaining a standard of living comparable to the developed world’s standard. Furthermore, motor vehicles produce a disproportionately share of carbon emissions; people occupied with their virtual existence will presumably spend less time on highways.
Third, movement toward a virtual rather than geographic definition of nation might entail shifting patterns of employment. As implied in above, manufacturing would presumably employ fewer people; services and knowledge industries might employ more. Both of those shifts have already begun. Both shifts will cause suffering during transitions and dislocations. Concomitantly, technical and scientific educations will become ever more valuable.
Fourth, movement toward a virtual rather than geographic definition of nation might pose serious problems for many religions, accelerating the weakening of the link between place of birth and religion. In a virtual world, with broad exchanges of ideas and materials, religion would probably become more a matter of choice. In making that choice, these questions seem likely to become more important: What is the human spirit? How do humans manifest their spirit? What constitutes human community? Which religion – or syncretistic blend – best answers those questions for me?
Fifth, movement toward a virtual rather than geographic definition of nation would probably initiate a re-thinking of national defense. Militaries designed to protect territorial integrity might diminish in importance with cyber warfare representing the prime context for the next generation of warfighting.
This last question is no idle one. The United States is now spending about two-thirds as much money on its military as at the height of WWII (cf. the New York Times chart below, published last week at this link):
The upward track of spending on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which have little to show in terms of making the United States more secure or either of those nations a better place, bodes ill for the U.S. Although we do not need more evidence of the poor prognoses for Afghanistan and Iraq, such evidence continues to flood the media. The documents released by Wikileaks shows in excruciating detail the lack of progress in Afghanistan (“View Is Bleaker Than Official Portrayal of War in Afghanistan,” New York Times, July 25, 2010). Five months after the Iraqi election, Nouri al-Maliki remains in power, heading a government nominally termed “caretaker” (Steven Lee Myers, “U.S. Military Chief Presses Iraqis to End Political Deadlock,” New York Times, July 27, 2010).
Distressingly large sums of those funds have disappeared without adequate accounting in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Most recently, auditors report that they cannot account for $8.7 billion spend in Iraq (Steven Lee Myers, “U.S. Military Chief Presses Iraqis to End Political Deadlock,” New York Times, July 27, 2010). Those same dollars spent on programs designed to improve the quality of life for the least amongst those of us living in the United States would have resulted in better accountability and increased global happiness more than by having spent the money on warfighting and rebuilding corrupt nations.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Women bishops and the Church of England
The Church of England moved closed to consecrating its first woman bishop this past weekend when its General Synod voted to require a two-thirds majority to pass any amendment to the draft legislation authorizing the consecration of women as bishops. The British press interpreted that vote as a significant rebuke to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York who had proposed an amendment to the act that would have created generous provisions for conservatives who object to women bishops. Those conservatives are now publicly threatening to exit the Church of England alleging that it no longer has room for them. (John F. Burns, “Anglican Group Hits Impasse on Women,” New York Times, July 10, 2010)
Viewing General Synod’s action in the broader context of the Anglican Communion suggests two significant consequences for Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and his efforts to keep the Communion from splitting. First, General Synod’s high profile rejection of Williams’ proposed compromise for the Church of England suggests that his efforts to preserve unity in his own province have faltered.
Second, the vote suggests that the fault lines are deeper than Williams appears to think, at least based on his actions. Sadly, some women priests were spit on while attending the Synod. One male bishop complained on a BBC radio broadcast that that Synod had been “swamped” with “ladies with time on their hands,” i.e., women priests. In fact, only about 20% of the priests present were women. (Simon Sarmiento, Thinking Anglicans: Bishop of Fulham profiled, July 20, 2010). This abusive, dismissive treatment of women priests is un-Christian (where is love for one’s neighbor?) and indicative of deep divisions within the Church of England.
Both assessments seem likely to be true for the Anglican Communion as a whole. In other words, the Anglican Communion is deeply polarized and efforts to hold it together seem destined to fail.
Viewing General Synod’s action in the broader context of the Anglican Communion suggests two significant consequences for Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and his efforts to keep the Communion from splitting. First, General Synod’s high profile rejection of Williams’ proposed compromise for the Church of England suggests that his efforts to preserve unity in his own province have faltered.
Second, the vote suggests that the fault lines are deeper than Williams appears to think, at least based on his actions. Sadly, some women priests were spit on while attending the Synod. One male bishop complained on a BBC radio broadcast that that Synod had been “swamped” with “ladies with time on their hands,” i.e., women priests. In fact, only about 20% of the priests present were women. (Simon Sarmiento, Thinking Anglicans: Bishop of Fulham profiled, July 20, 2010). This abusive, dismissive treatment of women priests is un-Christian (where is love for one’s neighbor?) and indicative of deep divisions within the Church of England.
Both assessments seem likely to be true for the Anglican Communion as a whole. In other words, the Anglican Communion is deeply polarized and efforts to hold it together seem destined to fail.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Exercising leadership in the Church
This spring, President Obama faced what commentators described as a difficult choice: should he fire General Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. general in charge of the fighting in Afghanistan? On the one hand, McChrystal had good working relationships with Afghan government leaders, a high profile role in shaping and leading the war, and his troops had confidence in his leadership. On the other hand, McChrystal publicly expressed contempt for senior political appointees in the Obama administration.
Military personnel owe their seniors honest advice, especially when the senior solicits an opinion or the subordinate fills a key leadership role. Theoretically, the military chain of command that stretches from the newest recruit to the President welcomes timely advice, even dissent, appropriately expressed. Timeliness requires communicating advice before the leader makes a decision; appropriate expression involves communicating that advice in a way that will not embarrass the boss. McChrystal’s opinions voiced in Michael Hastings’ “The Runaway General” (Rolling Stone, June 22, 2010) failed both tests.
Obama acted decisively yet not vindictively. He accepted McChrystal’s resignation and then graciously allowed the general to retire at his four star rank.
What can the Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church (TEC) learn about leadership from this incident?
Globally, the Anglican Communion, a lose federation of Churches in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, has no official “party line” or “chain of command.” The Anglican Covenant’s premise that no member of the Communion should act without consulting the other members seeks to impose new conformity on Communion members, stifling independent action. If the Anglican Communion were to adopt the current draft of the Covenant, the Communion would severely limit the freedom of TEC to follow God's call to practice a radical hospitality that welcomes and fully includes all.
Hoping that (1) the Covenant will die a bureaucratic death, (2) lengthy discursive and approval processes preceding adoption will produce a more acceptable amended Covenant, or (3) keeping a low profile will cause less gnashing of teeth among conservatives and temper their firm resolve to impose their will on the Communion are all naïve miscalculations. Instead, TEC and other, sympathetic Anglican Communion members need to model forthrightness by openly characterizing the proposed Covenant for what it is: an attempt to transform the Anglican Communion into a hierarchical body that enforces an un-Anglican conformity. TEC, like loyal military personnel, best fulfills its duty to Christ by courageously and loyally declaring its discernment of God’s leading.
Rumors of the Very Rev. Jeffrey John, Dean of St. Albans cathedral, nomination as the Church of England’s next Bishop of Southwark posed an interesting dilemma for the Archbishop of Canterbury. John, when nominated in 2003 as area Bishop for Reading, faced a torrent of conservative opposition. Unlike Bishops Robinson and Glasspool who live openly and fully with their partners, John, though partnered in a civil union, claims he is celibate. Short of constant video surveillance, nobody can verify that; I have no reason to doubt John’s honesty but find myself skeptical. Archbishop Williams felt sufficient pressure from the opposition that he spent six hours convincing John to withdraw his acceptance of the nomination as area Bishop for Reading.
The rumor prompted some Church of England conservatives to declare that if John were consecrated they would affiliate with another Anglican province. This barefaced ultimatum reflects the disunity that exists in both the Church of England and the Anglican Communion. Meanwhile, the British press reports that Archbishop Williams, angered by the leak from a supposedly confidential nominating process, has averred that he will not respond to coercive pressure. I’m enough of a cynic to wonder if the Archbishop isn’t secretly delighted with the leak because it effectively derailed John’s nomination without forcing Canterbury to take a no-win public stance for or against the nomination. Clearly, the Archbishop has not acted with the type of decisive and principled courage that Obama exemplified in dealing with McChrystal.
Nationally and in its dioceses, TEC needs to hold its own leaders accountable. Loyalty to TEC is a non-negotiable, sine qua non for leaders, clerical and lay. Loyalty does not necessitate agreement. TEC is a church that prays together using the forms established in the Book of Common Prayer without pretending that beliefs conform to any norm or fall within a particular set of parameters. Loyalty, however, does preclude both attempting to sow dissatisfaction or disenchantment with TEC as an institution and encouraging people or organizational structures to disaffiliate from TEC.
TEC has too often practiced a false kindness by tolerating active disloyalty rather than appropriately challenging disloyal behavior among its clergy and lay leaders. Actively disloyal individuals have decided to abandon TEC, a decision evident in actions if not in words, regardless of any protestations to the contrary. Disaffected dissidents who try to cling to structures or relationships that they believe they own misunderstand the concept of connectional Church that TEC incarnates. Furthermore, the actively disloyal manifest a lack of personal integrity, maintaining an affiliation with an institution that they believe has abandoned or significantly compromised its Christian identity or witness.
Addressing issues of disloyalty should proceed in a firm yet caring rather than vindictive manner; witch hunts and revenge have no place in Christ's Church. By addressing their lack of integrity in a timely, direct manner, TEC may actually help some of the disloyal to move toward improved spiritual health through greater integrity.
Concomitantly, TEC should continue to make room for the truly undecided as they discern whether they can in good conscience remain a part of TEC. This space should have no time or other artificial limits imposed. The one necessary boundary is that the undecided refrain from actively promoting disloyalty to TEC through words or actions.
Locally, clergy, wardens, vestry members, and other opinion makers must lead. In the 1970s, seminary instruction emphasized facilitation rather than leadership. Facilitation belongs in ecclesial tool kits. But leadership is even more important. A leader leads his/her followers toward actualizing the leader’s vision.
Pressures for leaders to sit on the sidelines, soft-pedal their views, or capitulate to the opposition certainly exist. A priest, for example, whose congregation splits over an issue may soon face a drastic reduction in stipend or unemployment with little probability of soon receiving another call. Emotional pressure on a leader may be more subtle but at least as powerful as economic pressure.
Instead of tolerating disloyalty, TEC should encourage loyalty. TEC, bishops, diocesan staff, elected leaders, and peers can proactively support clergy and laity working to keep people and parishes loyal. Support might include funding, spiritual or psychological counsel, outplacement options, public declarations of support, leadership training, etc. As I have previously argued in this forum, people are far more vital to the Church than is property. The Church will reap the largest dividends for Christ by investing its scarce resources in supporting its leaders battling to preserve and enhance loyalty to TEC.
General Convention 2009 resolutions and the consecration the Rt. Rev. Mary Glasspool in 2010 clearly indicate TEC’s present course. Now is not the time for waffling. Most TEC lay and clerical leaders, as well as many leaders in other Anglican Communion provinces, whether they agree with TEC’s direction or not, demonstrate their loyalty to Christ and fidelity to the Anglican way through visionary leadership that promotes proclaiming the kingdom of God, healing the sick, reconciling the estranged, and liberating the captive. The rest of us need to emulate their example.
Military personnel owe their seniors honest advice, especially when the senior solicits an opinion or the subordinate fills a key leadership role. Theoretically, the military chain of command that stretches from the newest recruit to the President welcomes timely advice, even dissent, appropriately expressed. Timeliness requires communicating advice before the leader makes a decision; appropriate expression involves communicating that advice in a way that will not embarrass the boss. McChrystal’s opinions voiced in Michael Hastings’ “The Runaway General” (Rolling Stone, June 22, 2010) failed both tests.
Obama acted decisively yet not vindictively. He accepted McChrystal’s resignation and then graciously allowed the general to retire at his four star rank.
What can the Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church (TEC) learn about leadership from this incident?
Globally, the Anglican Communion, a lose federation of Churches in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, has no official “party line” or “chain of command.” The Anglican Covenant’s premise that no member of the Communion should act without consulting the other members seeks to impose new conformity on Communion members, stifling independent action. If the Anglican Communion were to adopt the current draft of the Covenant, the Communion would severely limit the freedom of TEC to follow God's call to practice a radical hospitality that welcomes and fully includes all.
Hoping that (1) the Covenant will die a bureaucratic death, (2) lengthy discursive and approval processes preceding adoption will produce a more acceptable amended Covenant, or (3) keeping a low profile will cause less gnashing of teeth among conservatives and temper their firm resolve to impose their will on the Communion are all naïve miscalculations. Instead, TEC and other, sympathetic Anglican Communion members need to model forthrightness by openly characterizing the proposed Covenant for what it is: an attempt to transform the Anglican Communion into a hierarchical body that enforces an un-Anglican conformity. TEC, like loyal military personnel, best fulfills its duty to Christ by courageously and loyally declaring its discernment of God’s leading.
Rumors of the Very Rev. Jeffrey John, Dean of St. Albans cathedral, nomination as the Church of England’s next Bishop of Southwark posed an interesting dilemma for the Archbishop of Canterbury. John, when nominated in 2003 as area Bishop for Reading, faced a torrent of conservative opposition. Unlike Bishops Robinson and Glasspool who live openly and fully with their partners, John, though partnered in a civil union, claims he is celibate. Short of constant video surveillance, nobody can verify that; I have no reason to doubt John’s honesty but find myself skeptical. Archbishop Williams felt sufficient pressure from the opposition that he spent six hours convincing John to withdraw his acceptance of the nomination as area Bishop for Reading.
The rumor prompted some Church of England conservatives to declare that if John were consecrated they would affiliate with another Anglican province. This barefaced ultimatum reflects the disunity that exists in both the Church of England and the Anglican Communion. Meanwhile, the British press reports that Archbishop Williams, angered by the leak from a supposedly confidential nominating process, has averred that he will not respond to coercive pressure. I’m enough of a cynic to wonder if the Archbishop isn’t secretly delighted with the leak because it effectively derailed John’s nomination without forcing Canterbury to take a no-win public stance for or against the nomination. Clearly, the Archbishop has not acted with the type of decisive and principled courage that Obama exemplified in dealing with McChrystal.
Nationally and in its dioceses, TEC needs to hold its own leaders accountable. Loyalty to TEC is a non-negotiable, sine qua non for leaders, clerical and lay. Loyalty does not necessitate agreement. TEC is a church that prays together using the forms established in the Book of Common Prayer without pretending that beliefs conform to any norm or fall within a particular set of parameters. Loyalty, however, does preclude both attempting to sow dissatisfaction or disenchantment with TEC as an institution and encouraging people or organizational structures to disaffiliate from TEC.
TEC has too often practiced a false kindness by tolerating active disloyalty rather than appropriately challenging disloyal behavior among its clergy and lay leaders. Actively disloyal individuals have decided to abandon TEC, a decision evident in actions if not in words, regardless of any protestations to the contrary. Disaffected dissidents who try to cling to structures or relationships that they believe they own misunderstand the concept of connectional Church that TEC incarnates. Furthermore, the actively disloyal manifest a lack of personal integrity, maintaining an affiliation with an institution that they believe has abandoned or significantly compromised its Christian identity or witness.
Addressing issues of disloyalty should proceed in a firm yet caring rather than vindictive manner; witch hunts and revenge have no place in Christ's Church. By addressing their lack of integrity in a timely, direct manner, TEC may actually help some of the disloyal to move toward improved spiritual health through greater integrity.
Concomitantly, TEC should continue to make room for the truly undecided as they discern whether they can in good conscience remain a part of TEC. This space should have no time or other artificial limits imposed. The one necessary boundary is that the undecided refrain from actively promoting disloyalty to TEC through words or actions.
Locally, clergy, wardens, vestry members, and other opinion makers must lead. In the 1970s, seminary instruction emphasized facilitation rather than leadership. Facilitation belongs in ecclesial tool kits. But leadership is even more important. A leader leads his/her followers toward actualizing the leader’s vision.
Pressures for leaders to sit on the sidelines, soft-pedal their views, or capitulate to the opposition certainly exist. A priest, for example, whose congregation splits over an issue may soon face a drastic reduction in stipend or unemployment with little probability of soon receiving another call. Emotional pressure on a leader may be more subtle but at least as powerful as economic pressure.
Instead of tolerating disloyalty, TEC should encourage loyalty. TEC, bishops, diocesan staff, elected leaders, and peers can proactively support clergy and laity working to keep people and parishes loyal. Support might include funding, spiritual or psychological counsel, outplacement options, public declarations of support, leadership training, etc. As I have previously argued in this forum, people are far more vital to the Church than is property. The Church will reap the largest dividends for Christ by investing its scarce resources in supporting its leaders battling to preserve and enhance loyalty to TEC.
General Convention 2009 resolutions and the consecration the Rt. Rev. Mary Glasspool in 2010 clearly indicate TEC’s present course. Now is not the time for waffling. Most TEC lay and clerical leaders, as well as many leaders in other Anglican Communion provinces, whether they agree with TEC’s direction or not, demonstrate their loyalty to Christ and fidelity to the Anglican way through visionary leadership that promotes proclaiming the kingdom of God, healing the sick, reconciling the estranged, and liberating the captive. The rest of us need to emulate their example.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Conscientious objectors if DADT is repealed
A new type of conscientious objector has begun to appear in the United States armed forces: the service member who morally objects to serving with openly gay personnel. The House of Representatives voted in May to repeal the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law (DADT) that currently establishes the conditions under which non-heterosexuals may serve in the U.S. military. That vote prompted calls to the GI Rights Hotline at the Center on Conscience & War from military personnel, primarily conservative Christians, who claim that they cannot in good conscience serve alongside non-heterosexuals. (Tamar Levin, “Hot Line Handling Evolving Pleas for Conscientious Objector Status,” New York Times, July 16, 2010)
For the Department of Defense or federal courts to construe the current law governing conscientious objection to cover personnel who morally object to non-heterosexuals openly serving in the military seems highly unlikely. The Center for Conscience & War’s attorneys quickly reached the same conclusion.
That personnel have contacted the Center with such inquiries shows that the issue of gays in the military has become sadly and unnecessarily both visceral and polarizing. Sexual issues are often emotionally charged. They thus tend to attract demagogues who use such issues to build constituencies, motivate their followers to move from thinking to acting, and to create an enemy to hate. Fundamentalist Christian preachers and pastors who tell their flocks that repeal of DADT means that Christians can no longer serve in the military are clearly in the ranks of those demagogues.
The truth is that non-heterosexuals have probably always served in various militaries, often with great distinction and effectiveness. For example, Alexander the Great, by most accounts, was gay. Today, the U.S. military has many non-heterosexual members living and working alongside heterosexuals. If followed by everyone all of the time, the DADT policy would prevent anyone from knowing for sure who is and is not gay. The imperfectly adhered to DADT policy does not seem to have diminished the fighting effectiveness of U.S. forces at all.
Arguments that heterosexuals and homosexuals cannot share living quarters are bogus in a military force in which they already share living quarters. Furthermore, men and women live in close quarters, a proximity that may cause emotional difficulties for young heterosexual adults but does not pose a moral problem. At worse, non-heterosexuals may experience such emotional difficulties. Laws and regulations against rape, assault, molestation, harassment, etc., apply equally to all, regardless of gender orientation, theoretically creating a safe work environment.
In most high schools, teens shower with peers of the same sex. Almost inevitably, some of those teens will have a same sex orientation, i.e., be gay or lesbian. Young adults, often of both genders, share bathroom facilities in many college and university dorms. I’m certainly unaware of any moral protest against such policies. What’s different about the military?
In my experience, military personnel in a moment of crisis react as almost all humans will react. They grab at any available lifeline. In that moment when life seems to hang in the balance, sexuality is unimportant. The instinct for survival takes over. Help is help, regardless of a person’s sexual orientation.
For the Department of Defense or federal courts to construe the current law governing conscientious objection to cover personnel who morally object to non-heterosexuals openly serving in the military seems highly unlikely. The Center for Conscience & War’s attorneys quickly reached the same conclusion.
That personnel have contacted the Center with such inquiries shows that the issue of gays in the military has become sadly and unnecessarily both visceral and polarizing. Sexual issues are often emotionally charged. They thus tend to attract demagogues who use such issues to build constituencies, motivate their followers to move from thinking to acting, and to create an enemy to hate. Fundamentalist Christian preachers and pastors who tell their flocks that repeal of DADT means that Christians can no longer serve in the military are clearly in the ranks of those demagogues.
The truth is that non-heterosexuals have probably always served in various militaries, often with great distinction and effectiveness. For example, Alexander the Great, by most accounts, was gay. Today, the U.S. military has many non-heterosexual members living and working alongside heterosexuals. If followed by everyone all of the time, the DADT policy would prevent anyone from knowing for sure who is and is not gay. The imperfectly adhered to DADT policy does not seem to have diminished the fighting effectiveness of U.S. forces at all.
Arguments that heterosexuals and homosexuals cannot share living quarters are bogus in a military force in which they already share living quarters. Furthermore, men and women live in close quarters, a proximity that may cause emotional difficulties for young heterosexual adults but does not pose a moral problem. At worse, non-heterosexuals may experience such emotional difficulties. Laws and regulations against rape, assault, molestation, harassment, etc., apply equally to all, regardless of gender orientation, theoretically creating a safe work environment.
In most high schools, teens shower with peers of the same sex. Almost inevitably, some of those teens will have a same sex orientation, i.e., be gay or lesbian. Young adults, often of both genders, share bathroom facilities in many college and university dorms. I’m certainly unaware of any moral protest against such policies. What’s different about the military?
In my experience, military personnel in a moment of crisis react as almost all humans will react. They grab at any available lifeline. In that moment when life seems to hang in the balance, sexuality is unimportant. The instinct for survival takes over. Help is help, regardless of a person’s sexual orientation.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Korean ship sinking controversy
Controversy continues to swirl around the sinking of the South Korean Navy vessel, CHEONAN. Some South Korean scientists and others contend that the South Korean conclusion that a North Korean torpedo sank the CHEONAN rests on shoddy analysis. For example, the heat of the explosion would most likely have melted painted markings on the side of the torpedo and torpedo fragments should have crystallized aluminum on them because of the explosive impact. (David Cyrankoski, “Controversy over South Korea's sunken ship,” Nature, July 8, 2010)
If the South Korean claim that a North Korean torpedo sank the CEONAN lacks credibility, this may provide a way for both sides to back away from a confrontation that otherwise appears to offer little hope of a good resolution.
If the South Korean claim that a North Korean torpedo sank the CEONAN lacks credibility, this may provide a way for both sides to back away from a confrontation that otherwise appears to offer little hope of a good resolution.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Building in Israel and Palestine
Building in Israel and the Palestinian territories is vastly different than is undertaking a construction project in most other countries. In the Gaza strip, Israel has imposed a blockade on building materials. In response to that move, the Palestinians have established numerous tunnels that keep commerce and people moving, as highlighted in this video from The Economist:
Concurrently, Israel continues to build more housing on Palestinian lands. One of the mechanisms Israel uses to achieve this objective is the permitting process, a process highly contingent upon religion, race, and sometimes gender. (“Jerusalem's settlements: Permission granted,” The Economist, July 2, 2010)
“Jawboning” by U.S. officials and temporizing by the Israeli Prime Minister do little to change these realities. Yet genuine progress toward peace in the Middle East will not occur until Israel adopts policies consonant with establishing two nations, Israel and Palestine. Those policies will provide for equal treatment of people regardless of race or religion; those policies will ensure that everyone has fair opportunity for housing.
Significantly, the reporter implies that the Israelis view the tunnels and associated traffic as providing justification for military incursions into Gaza and for continuing their blockade. If correct, that allegation underscores the dysfunctional nature of the Israeli-Palestinian relationship and the dim prospects for hope in the region.
Concurrently, Israel continues to build more housing on Palestinian lands. One of the mechanisms Israel uses to achieve this objective is the permitting process, a process highly contingent upon religion, race, and sometimes gender. (“Jerusalem's settlements: Permission granted,” The Economist, July 2, 2010)
“Jawboning” by U.S. officials and temporizing by the Israeli Prime Minister do little to change these realities. Yet genuine progress toward peace in the Middle East will not occur until Israel adopts policies consonant with establishing two nations, Israel and Palestine. Those policies will provide for equal treatment of people regardless of race or religion; those policies will ensure that everyone has fair opportunity for housing.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Philanthropic giving
Warren Buffet and Bill and Melinda Gates, worth collectively about $100 billion, initiated a plan in 2009 to convince the 400 richest Americans to each give half of their wealth to charity, either while they live or at death. If successful, the effort will yield upwards of $600 billion for charity.
The Fortune magazine story that chronicles this initiative (Carol J. Loomis, “The $600 Billion Challenge,” July 5, 2010, pp. 82-94) included some fascinating statistics about charitable giving. Using IRS data from 2007 (the most recent available), the 400 largest taxpayers had a total adjusted income of $138 billion. They gave $11 billion in charity, or about 8%. Recognizing that some gifts may exceed the allowed deductions, it seems unlikely that they gave more than $15 billion or 11% of their income.
How many religious people give 11% of their income to charity?
The New Testament standard for giving is sacrificial giving (recall the woman who gave everything she had in Mark 12:41-44). For many in the developed world, 10% (a tithe) does not represent much of a sacrifice. For people making, on average, $345 million, giving 11% hardly seems sacrificial.
In the Fortune article, both Warren Buffet and Bill Gates make the point that they have everything they need or want, and can sustain that lifestyle on less than 1% of their assets. Buffet also seems to express envy for his children: he gives money but they invest much of their selves, time, and energy into helping others, a contribution perhaps more valuable than his financial contribution.
What lifestyle do you want? How much money does it take to afford and to sustain that lifestyle? How much time will you invest in making the world a better place or living your neighbor? How much money will you give, while living or at death, to support those goals?
The Fortune magazine story that chronicles this initiative (Carol J. Loomis, “The $600 Billion Challenge,” July 5, 2010, pp. 82-94) included some fascinating statistics about charitable giving. Using IRS data from 2007 (the most recent available), the 400 largest taxpayers had a total adjusted income of $138 billion. They gave $11 billion in charity, or about 8%. Recognizing that some gifts may exceed the allowed deductions, it seems unlikely that they gave more than $15 billion or 11% of their income.
How many religious people give 11% of their income to charity?
The New Testament standard for giving is sacrificial giving (recall the woman who gave everything she had in Mark 12:41-44). For many in the developed world, 10% (a tithe) does not represent much of a sacrifice. For people making, on average, $345 million, giving 11% hardly seems sacrificial.
In the Fortune article, both Warren Buffet and Bill Gates make the point that they have everything they need or want, and can sustain that lifestyle on less than 1% of their assets. Buffet also seems to express envy for his children: he gives money but they invest much of their selves, time, and energy into helping others, a contribution perhaps more valuable than his financial contribution.
What lifestyle do you want? How much money does it take to afford and to sustain that lifestyle? How much time will you invest in making the world a better place or living your neighbor? How much money will you give, while living or at death, to support those goals?
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Redemption
Wall Street Journal reporter Jon Shields in his article, “Manute Bol's Radical Christianity,” (June 25, 2010) contrasted the number of hits that a Google search for “redemption” and “NBA” yields with the number that “redemption” and “Christianity” yields. The former, with over 2 million hits, easily trounced the latter. He also learned that the term “redemption appears” in 2600 ESPN.com stories.
In sports, redemption usually refers to a player whose outstanding performance has “redeemed” poor performance in the sport or life. Manute Bol, who died in June at the age of 47, was the notable exception to that generalization.
Bol played as a center for the Washington Bullets. He averaged only 2.6 points per game but his height (7’7”) enabled him to block shots successfully. But that is not what makes Manute Bol, a Christian Sudanese immigrant, noteworthy. In a 2004 Sports Illustrated article, he said, “God guided me to America and gave me a good job. But he also gave me a heart so I would look back."
Bol began by giving away the money he had accumulated to aid Sudanese refugees. “As one twitter feed aptly put it: ‘Most NBA cats go broke on cars, jewelry & groupies. Manute Bol went broke building hospitals.’” When his money was gone, he raised more money for charity by playing the clown in various celebrity sporting contests.
Shields observes:
Yet as Bol reminds us, the Christian understanding of redemption has always involved lowering and humbling oneself. It leads to suffering and even death.
It is of little surprise, then, that the sort of radical Christianity exemplified by Bol is rarely understood by sports journalists. For all its interest in the intimate details of players' lives, the media has long been tone deaf to the way devout Christianity profoundly shapes some of them.
Obituary titles for Bol, for example, described him as a humanitarian rather than a Christian. The remarkable charity and personal character of other NBA players, including David Robinson, A. C. Green and Dwight Howard, are almost never explicitly connected to their own intense Christian faith. They are simply good guys.
Christian basketball players hope that their "little lights" shine in a league marked by rapacious consumption and marital infidelity. They could shine even brighter if sports journalists acknowledged that such players seek atonement and redemption in a far more profound way than mere athletic success.
Those of us who walk the Jesus path can do what the secular media fail to do: tell the full story about exemplary saints like Manute Bol, using our words honestly. Those of us who walk the Jesus path also need to ask ourselves if we are as successful as Manute Bol in leading a redeemed life that gives meaning to one’s own existence and life to others.
A friend who read Shields’ article offered this comment:
In sports, redemption usually refers to a player whose outstanding performance has “redeemed” poor performance in the sport or life. Manute Bol, who died in June at the age of 47, was the notable exception to that generalization.
Bol played as a center for the Washington Bullets. He averaged only 2.6 points per game but his height (7’7”) enabled him to block shots successfully. But that is not what makes Manute Bol, a Christian Sudanese immigrant, noteworthy. In a 2004 Sports Illustrated article, he said, “God guided me to America and gave me a good job. But he also gave me a heart so I would look back."
Bol began by giving away the money he had accumulated to aid Sudanese refugees. “As one twitter feed aptly put it: ‘Most NBA cats go broke on cars, jewelry & groupies. Manute Bol went broke building hospitals.’” When his money was gone, he raised more money for charity by playing the clown in various celebrity sporting contests.
Shields observes:
Yet as Bol reminds us, the Christian understanding of redemption has always involved lowering and humbling oneself. It leads to suffering and even death.
It is of little surprise, then, that the sort of radical Christianity exemplified by Bol is rarely understood by sports journalists. For all its interest in the intimate details of players' lives, the media has long been tone deaf to the way devout Christianity profoundly shapes some of them.
Obituary titles for Bol, for example, described him as a humanitarian rather than a Christian. The remarkable charity and personal character of other NBA players, including David Robinson, A. C. Green and Dwight Howard, are almost never explicitly connected to their own intense Christian faith. They are simply good guys.
Christian basketball players hope that their "little lights" shine in a league marked by rapacious consumption and marital infidelity. They could shine even brighter if sports journalists acknowledged that such players seek atonement and redemption in a far more profound way than mere athletic success.
Those of us who walk the Jesus path can do what the secular media fail to do: tell the full story about exemplary saints like Manute Bol, using our words honestly. Those of us who walk the Jesus path also need to ask ourselves if we are as successful as Manute Bol in leading a redeemed life that gives meaning to one’s own existence and life to others.
A friend who read Shields’ article offered this comment:
Maybe I am getting older, but I find more and more people know exactly what is happening, what has happened, and what to do. [My wife] has remarked to me after dinner or get together that I didn’t enter into some discussion that I had an interest in. I have said simply that I couldn’t add to the discussion since I had a different opinion, but the people didn’t seem interested in a discussion, but an argument if someone disagreed with their view. I have to admit I usually strongly disagreed with their view, not that it was wrong, but the answer was not that simple. [My wife] does admit she prefers that reaction to these occurrences rather than my other statement in these instances: I wish I were as certain in life about anything as you are certain about everything!
Monday, July 12, 2010
Immigration issues are international
Immigration issues continue to spur public clamor for political action. In the United States, millions of people live in the country illegally, drawn by the lure of better jobs and more freedom than they can find in their native lands.
Some U.S. citizens demand that the nation secure its borders to prevent further illegal immigration while tracking down and evicting all illegal immigrants. That approach seems futile and un-Christian. The approach is futile because the border is simply too long to secure to prevent all illegal entry. (All data on the border is from the Congressional Research Service, “U.S. International Borders: Brief Facts,” November 9, 2006.)
The U.S. – Canadian border is 3987 excluding Alaska; the Canadian border with Alaska adds another 1538 miles. Thus, the total border that the United States shares with Canada is 5525 miles. Stationing one guard every one hundred feet would require 219,720 guards. Staffing those stations 24/7, 365 days per year would probably require 1,166,880 personnel – plus supervisors, trainers, human resource professionals, etc. Placing one guard every 1000 feet is obviously ineffectual, but that still would require upwards of 116,688 personnel. Arguing that large portions of the border are wilderness that nobody will want to cross argues for a porous border: persons sufficiently passionate about entering the United States will turn, when easy entry becomes impossible, to those remote crossings. Military specialists in protecting secure installations have repeatedly told me that fences, walls, automated devices and other systems to prevent entry all ultimately depend upon a timely response by human guards.
Skeptical? Consider, first, the U.S. – Mexican border, a mere 1933 miles long. In spite of continual upgrades and new measures to prevent illegal crossings, the U.S. has managed to slow but not to stop illegal immigration from the south.
Consider, second, the Berlin Wall, just 96 miles long. In spite of a high wall, multiple fences, mine fields, watchtowers, a shoot to kill policy, and other draconian measures people persisted in attempting to cross the wall.
Consider, third, the U.S. coastline, in excess of a whopping 29,000 miles long. Drug smugglers have now turned to submersibles for transporting their wares. “Coyotes” – human smugglers – will do the same if persons desiring to gain illegal entry are desperate enough to pay proportionately. Waterfront property is highly desirable. How many U.S. citizens who own a piece of the coastline will want the government to install barriers, detection devices, watchtowers or other measures designed to prevent illegal entry?
And what should we do about all of the illegal immigrants already in the U.S.? Arizona’s law directing law enforcement personnel to question anyone suspected of being an illegal immigrant seems like the slippery edge of a steep slippery slope. Who looks like an illegal immigrant? People who appear to be Hispanic descent? That stereotype insults many American citizens and ignores illegal immigrants from Russia (potential spies!) and from Arab nations (potential terrorists!).
When questioning anyone who looks like an illegal proves futile (I forgot my papers – I’ll bring them to the station tomorrow) or overwhelming (too many people look like an illegal immigrant), will Arizona (or the federal government) then enact even more draconian legislation? For example, will every person have to carry a national identity card at all times; police will conduct frequent random checks; anyone without their card faces immediate deportation (why bother with due process, which will bog down already overcrowded court dockets and require building and staffing expensive new detention centers)?
The United States is not alone in facing the problem of illegal immigrants. In a process that began during the first intifada and that accelerated as Israel built the wall between the Palestinian territories and Israel, Israel has largely stopped Palestinians from commuting into Israel for work. Consequently, Israel has had over a million migrants from the developing world arrive. Most fill unskilled labor jobs that Israelis generally do not want. About a quarter of a million immigrants, half of the illegals, now live in Israel. Israel, like the United States, has been unable to formulate a viable policy response to this problem. In the meantime, Israeli sentiment against illegal immigration continues to grow. (Dan Levin, “Israel Grows Uneasy Over Reliance on Migrant Labor,” New York Times, July 4, 2010)
A realistic solution to the problem of illegal immigration will probably include elements of the following:
1. Some policy that incentivizes long-term illegal immigrants entering a process to become legal residents, e.g., payment of a fine pegged to a proportion of the person’s current earnings without requiring jail time.
2. Reasonably secure borders, seeking to stem most illegal immigration without naively pretending that the nation can prevent all illegal immigration.
3. Sufficiently large quotas for legal immigration that demand for unskilled or low skilled laborers is met coupled with stiff penalties for employers who hire illegal immigrants, thereby incentivizing employers to hire legal rather than illegal immigrants. The U.S. should also consider increasing quotas for highly skilled and well-educated persons; individuals in those categories who wish to immigrate usually bring with them the initiative, ambition, and perseverance to succeed, making outsize contributions to society and the economy.
These proposals address both demand and supply; addressing only one side of the equation simply promotes behaviors intends to circumvent policies.
Ultimately, illegal immigration will end when economic conditions across the globe become more level. Population flows are greater than ever before; learning to manage those flows, rather than stop them, seems far more likely to be effective.
Some U.S. citizens demand that the nation secure its borders to prevent further illegal immigration while tracking down and evicting all illegal immigrants. That approach seems futile and un-Christian. The approach is futile because the border is simply too long to secure to prevent all illegal entry. (All data on the border is from the Congressional Research Service, “U.S. International Borders: Brief Facts,” November 9, 2006.)
The U.S. – Canadian border is 3987 excluding Alaska; the Canadian border with Alaska adds another 1538 miles. Thus, the total border that the United States shares with Canada is 5525 miles. Stationing one guard every one hundred feet would require 219,720 guards. Staffing those stations 24/7, 365 days per year would probably require 1,166,880 personnel – plus supervisors, trainers, human resource professionals, etc. Placing one guard every 1000 feet is obviously ineffectual, but that still would require upwards of 116,688 personnel. Arguing that large portions of the border are wilderness that nobody will want to cross argues for a porous border: persons sufficiently passionate about entering the United States will turn, when easy entry becomes impossible, to those remote crossings. Military specialists in protecting secure installations have repeatedly told me that fences, walls, automated devices and other systems to prevent entry all ultimately depend upon a timely response by human guards.
Skeptical? Consider, first, the U.S. – Mexican border, a mere 1933 miles long. In spite of continual upgrades and new measures to prevent illegal crossings, the U.S. has managed to slow but not to stop illegal immigration from the south.
Consider, second, the Berlin Wall, just 96 miles long. In spite of a high wall, multiple fences, mine fields, watchtowers, a shoot to kill policy, and other draconian measures people persisted in attempting to cross the wall.
Consider, third, the U.S. coastline, in excess of a whopping 29,000 miles long. Drug smugglers have now turned to submersibles for transporting their wares. “Coyotes” – human smugglers – will do the same if persons desiring to gain illegal entry are desperate enough to pay proportionately. Waterfront property is highly desirable. How many U.S. citizens who own a piece of the coastline will want the government to install barriers, detection devices, watchtowers or other measures designed to prevent illegal entry?
And what should we do about all of the illegal immigrants already in the U.S.? Arizona’s law directing law enforcement personnel to question anyone suspected of being an illegal immigrant seems like the slippery edge of a steep slippery slope. Who looks like an illegal immigrant? People who appear to be Hispanic descent? That stereotype insults many American citizens and ignores illegal immigrants from Russia (potential spies!) and from Arab nations (potential terrorists!).
When questioning anyone who looks like an illegal proves futile (I forgot my papers – I’ll bring them to the station tomorrow) or overwhelming (too many people look like an illegal immigrant), will Arizona (or the federal government) then enact even more draconian legislation? For example, will every person have to carry a national identity card at all times; police will conduct frequent random checks; anyone without their card faces immediate deportation (why bother with due process, which will bog down already overcrowded court dockets and require building and staffing expensive new detention centers)?
The United States is not alone in facing the problem of illegal immigrants. In a process that began during the first intifada and that accelerated as Israel built the wall between the Palestinian territories and Israel, Israel has largely stopped Palestinians from commuting into Israel for work. Consequently, Israel has had over a million migrants from the developing world arrive. Most fill unskilled labor jobs that Israelis generally do not want. About a quarter of a million immigrants, half of the illegals, now live in Israel. Israel, like the United States, has been unable to formulate a viable policy response to this problem. In the meantime, Israeli sentiment against illegal immigration continues to grow. (Dan Levin, “Israel Grows Uneasy Over Reliance on Migrant Labor,” New York Times, July 4, 2010)
A realistic solution to the problem of illegal immigration will probably include elements of the following:
1. Some policy that incentivizes long-term illegal immigrants entering a process to become legal residents, e.g., payment of a fine pegged to a proportion of the person’s current earnings without requiring jail time.
2. Reasonably secure borders, seeking to stem most illegal immigration without naively pretending that the nation can prevent all illegal immigration.
3. Sufficiently large quotas for legal immigration that demand for unskilled or low skilled laborers is met coupled with stiff penalties for employers who hire illegal immigrants, thereby incentivizing employers to hire legal rather than illegal immigrants. The U.S. should also consider increasing quotas for highly skilled and well-educated persons; individuals in those categories who wish to immigrate usually bring with them the initiative, ambition, and perseverance to succeed, making outsize contributions to society and the economy.
These proposals address both demand and supply; addressing only one side of the equation simply promotes behaviors intends to circumvent policies.
Ultimately, illegal immigration will end when economic conditions across the globe become more level. Population flows are greater than ever before; learning to manage those flows, rather than stop them, seems far more likely to be effective.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
God makes the big-leagues: iPhone apps
A wide variety of iPhone apps is now available for atheists and Christian fundamentalists who want to engage each other in debate. Those wishing to argue that God exists on the basis of Scripture and theology may wish to consult Fast Facts, Challenges & Tactics for iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad on the iTunes App Store while those holding the opposite view may turn to Atheist Pocket Debater for iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad on the iTunes App Store. These are just two of many sites available to debaters on either side of the issue.
Dr. Serene Jones, President of Union Theological Seminary, an independent and highly respected seminary in New York City, home to twentieth century luminaries such as Reinhold Niebuhr and Paul Tillich, has insightfully observed that the conversations between atheists and Christian fundamentalists are really two fundamentalist contestants playing a game. Neither party really cares what the other has to say; both sides have already staked out their position and are now engaged in an inevitably futile struggle to persuade a person with a closed-mind to change his/her opinion. (Paul Vitello, “A War of Apps for and Against Belief,” New York Times, July 2, 2010)
I long ago began avoiding conversations in which someone wanted to talk about God or religion, believing that he/she had the answers and knew the absolute truth. Such conversations are pointless. No opportunity for growth exists. Much, too much, evangelism belongs to this category of monologue. A person with a closed mind has no real interest in learning but wants to engage in verbal warfare. My enjoyment of that sport, one which I enjoyed as a high school and college debater, ended long ago.
As I have repeatedly emphasized in this blog, words at best are symbols that point toward the ineffable ultimate reality that we Christians call God and for which adherents of some other religious traditions use alternative labels.
Mutual exploration can lead to mutual growth. Conversations with people testing out an idea, asking genuine questions, trying to articulate his/her beliefs are very enjoyable and often very rewarding.
Dr. Serene Jones, President of Union Theological Seminary, an independent and highly respected seminary in New York City, home to twentieth century luminaries such as Reinhold Niebuhr and Paul Tillich, has insightfully observed that the conversations between atheists and Christian fundamentalists are really two fundamentalist contestants playing a game. Neither party really cares what the other has to say; both sides have already staked out their position and are now engaged in an inevitably futile struggle to persuade a person with a closed-mind to change his/her opinion. (Paul Vitello, “A War of Apps for and Against Belief,” New York Times, July 2, 2010)
I long ago began avoiding conversations in which someone wanted to talk about God or religion, believing that he/she had the answers and knew the absolute truth. Such conversations are pointless. No opportunity for growth exists. Much, too much, evangelism belongs to this category of monologue. A person with a closed mind has no real interest in learning but wants to engage in verbal warfare. My enjoyment of that sport, one which I enjoyed as a high school and college debater, ended long ago.
As I have repeatedly emphasized in this blog, words at best are symbols that point toward the ineffable ultimate reality that we Christians call God and for which adherents of some other religious traditions use alternative labels.
Mutual exploration can lead to mutual growth. Conversations with people testing out an idea, asking genuine questions, trying to articulate his/her beliefs are very enjoyable and often very rewarding.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Building mosques
The number of Muslims in the United States continues to increase. Of the 330,000 buildings used for worship in the U.S., only 2500 are mosques. Proposals to build new mosques, or to convert an existing structure into a mosque, consistently attract the ire of rabid neighbors. (“Muslims in USA face fears, bias to build, expand mosques,” USA Today, July 4, 2010)
Some of the ire has nothing to do with the religious tradition requesting to build a new place of worship. These people oppose the increased traffic and demands for parking that the facility will likely generate. This frequently causes problems for Christian groups who want to build a new facility in the States.
Misplaced animosity toward Islam, however, generates much of the most strident opposition. For example, some of the families of those killed in the World Trade Center on 9/11 characterize the proposal to build a mosque near ground zero as a travesty that insults the memory of the deceased. Some of the opposition to a mosque that is in fact animosity toward Islam will masquerade as more socially acceptable protests, e.g., concern about noise. People similarly attempt to disguise other forms of socially unacceptable bias.
Islam is a religion of peace that teaches its adherents to respect their neighbors. The one God created all life. The fanatics who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks are no more Muslim than the Branch Davidians were Christians. Killing Christians and Jews, the elderly, and children violate specific Koranic injunctions.
Ignorant prejudice is a form of hate. Islamicists – fanatics who operate under the guise of Islam – sow seeds of hate through their violence. When people respond with hate, the Islamicists win. Hateful responses – slanderous rhetoric, intolerant laws and policies, enforced injustice, unprincipled military action, etc. – give victory to the Islamicists.
The free exercise of religion is a fundamental human right recognized by the U.S. Constitution and basic political documents in other nations as well as the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. Unless that right extends to all – Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Christian, animist, atheist, etc. – that right has little substantive meaning for anyone.
People who seek to walk the Jesus path should especially support the journey of people following other, kindred religious traditions. For example, Trinity Church Wall Street, which owns St. Paul’s Chapel adjacent to ground zero in New York City should welcome Muslims to worship there until they construct their own mosque. This type of gesture, crossing religious traditions, affirming the dignity and worth of all people, is a basic building block in the campaign to establish a more just, peaceful society, a society that more closely resembles the Kingdom of God.
Some of the ire has nothing to do with the religious tradition requesting to build a new place of worship. These people oppose the increased traffic and demands for parking that the facility will likely generate. This frequently causes problems for Christian groups who want to build a new facility in the States.
Misplaced animosity toward Islam, however, generates much of the most strident opposition. For example, some of the families of those killed in the World Trade Center on 9/11 characterize the proposal to build a mosque near ground zero as a travesty that insults the memory of the deceased. Some of the opposition to a mosque that is in fact animosity toward Islam will masquerade as more socially acceptable protests, e.g., concern about noise. People similarly attempt to disguise other forms of socially unacceptable bias.
Islam is a religion of peace that teaches its adherents to respect their neighbors. The one God created all life. The fanatics who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks are no more Muslim than the Branch Davidians were Christians. Killing Christians and Jews, the elderly, and children violate specific Koranic injunctions.
Ignorant prejudice is a form of hate. Islamicists – fanatics who operate under the guise of Islam – sow seeds of hate through their violence. When people respond with hate, the Islamicists win. Hateful responses – slanderous rhetoric, intolerant laws and policies, enforced injustice, unprincipled military action, etc. – give victory to the Islamicists.
The free exercise of religion is a fundamental human right recognized by the U.S. Constitution and basic political documents in other nations as well as the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. Unless that right extends to all – Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Christian, animist, atheist, etc. – that right has little substantive meaning for anyone.
People who seek to walk the Jesus path should especially support the journey of people following other, kindred religious traditions. For example, Trinity Church Wall Street, which owns St. Paul’s Chapel adjacent to ground zero in New York City should welcome Muslims to worship there until they construct their own mosque. This type of gesture, crossing religious traditions, affirming the dignity and worth of all people, is a basic building block in the campaign to establish a more just, peaceful society, a society that more closely resembles the Kingdom of God.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Abuse in church
Pope Benedict XVI in a speech at honoring Pope Celestine V praised his 13th century predecessor for having resigned the papacy to return to living as an ascetic hermit. (“Pope praises 13th-century hermit who quit papacy,” USA Today, July 4, 2010)
Benedict’s speech prompted musings about two possibilities: Benedict may intend to resign in the wake of growing outrage about his inept handling of clergy sex abuse cases; Benedict may be considering creating a mandatory retirement age or other mechanism for easing out a pope whose faculties are no longer equal to the demands of the papacy. I have no idea how likely either is; perhaps he is actually considering neither. However, both possibilities have merit.
John Paul II in the last years of his reign as pope increasingly struggled to cope with his responsibilities as temporal head of the Roman Catholic Church. If he had suffered a debilitating stroke, what would have then happened? Now that people live longer and medical care frequently extends life even after illness or injury seriously diminishes the person’s quality of life, succession plans not contingent upon the death of the incumbent have become increasingly important.
Benedict, as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith since 1981 and for the last six years as Pope, must accept much of the responsibility for the way the Roman Catholic Church has handled cases of priests sexually abusing parishioners. Cover-ups, transfers, bureaucratic stonewalling, and other tactics designed to evade accepting responsibility and rectifying the situation have characterized that approach. God does not value priests more than God values lay people. Prioritizing care for the priests who abuse parishioners – whether by mindlessly equating forgiveness and healing, valuing sacraments more than health and well-being, refusing to believe that a “man of God” could commit such crimes, or disclaiming responsibility by hiding behind the veil of the confessional – tragically transforms the Church from a safe haven into a hostile shore.
Love for God and neighbor requires protecting the most vulnerable, putting those who would harm others in a place where such harm is impossible, and only then seeking both psychological and spiritual help for the perpetrator. Justice demands holding people accountable for their actions. Ordination does not grant one exemption from accountability. Indeed, one can reasonably argue that the Church should hold the ordained to a higher standard with a greater degree of accountability.
Sadly, the Anglican Church has had incidents in which Church authorities have wrongly attempted to shield the accused. We too must take full responsibility for our collective actions. Each parish and diocese must strive to ensure that it is a safe place for all of God's people: a place free of physical, emotional, or spiritual abuse; a place in which all find a genuine welcome, regardless of physical limitations, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, race, ethnicity, etc.
Benedict’s speech prompted musings about two possibilities: Benedict may intend to resign in the wake of growing outrage about his inept handling of clergy sex abuse cases; Benedict may be considering creating a mandatory retirement age or other mechanism for easing out a pope whose faculties are no longer equal to the demands of the papacy. I have no idea how likely either is; perhaps he is actually considering neither. However, both possibilities have merit.
John Paul II in the last years of his reign as pope increasingly struggled to cope with his responsibilities as temporal head of the Roman Catholic Church. If he had suffered a debilitating stroke, what would have then happened? Now that people live longer and medical care frequently extends life even after illness or injury seriously diminishes the person’s quality of life, succession plans not contingent upon the death of the incumbent have become increasingly important.
Benedict, as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith since 1981 and for the last six years as Pope, must accept much of the responsibility for the way the Roman Catholic Church has handled cases of priests sexually abusing parishioners. Cover-ups, transfers, bureaucratic stonewalling, and other tactics designed to evade accepting responsibility and rectifying the situation have characterized that approach. God does not value priests more than God values lay people. Prioritizing care for the priests who abuse parishioners – whether by mindlessly equating forgiveness and healing, valuing sacraments more than health and well-being, refusing to believe that a “man of God” could commit such crimes, or disclaiming responsibility by hiding behind the veil of the confessional – tragically transforms the Church from a safe haven into a hostile shore.
Love for God and neighbor requires protecting the most vulnerable, putting those who would harm others in a place where such harm is impossible, and only then seeking both psychological and spiritual help for the perpetrator. Justice demands holding people accountable for their actions. Ordination does not grant one exemption from accountability. Indeed, one can reasonably argue that the Church should hold the ordained to a higher standard with a greater degree of accountability.
Sadly, the Anglican Church has had incidents in which Church authorities have wrongly attempted to shield the accused. We too must take full responsibility for our collective actions. Each parish and diocese must strive to ensure that it is a safe place for all of God's people: a place free of physical, emotional, or spiritual abuse; a place in which all find a genuine welcome, regardless of physical limitations, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, race, ethnicity, etc.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Counting the cost of war
One of only nineteen genuine American military heroes to receive two separate Congressional Medals of Honor, Smedley D. Butler is a Marine Corps legend. The Corps even named Camp Butler, its major base on Okinawa, for him. Thus, discovering that he, post-retirement from the Corps, had written a 1938 polemic against war, War Is a Racket, was a surprise.
Like any polemic, Butler's argument is overly simplistic. However, he reveals an ugly truth about most wars that too many people want to ignore. Butler contends that nations fight wars because the war benefits elites and businesses that supply the military. These groups bear little of the cost of war, which taxpayers and military personnel shoulder.
Butler’s analysis of the price that military personnel pay is especially worth noting (his statistics highlight the cost of World War I from the perspective of the 1930s):
But the soldier pays the biggest part of the bill.
If you don't believe this, visit the American cemeteries on the battlefields abroad. Or visit any of the veteran's hospitals in the United States. On a tour of the country, in the midst of which I am at the time of this writing, I have visited eighteen government hospitals for veterans. In them are a total of about 50,000 destroyed men – men who were the pick of the nation eighteen years ago. The very able chief surgeon at the government hospital; at Milwaukee, where there are 3,800 of the living dead, told me that mortality among veterans is three times as great as among those who stayed at home.
Boys with a normal viewpoint were taken out of the fields and offices and factories and classrooms and put into the ranks. There they were remolded; they were made over; they were made to "about face"; to regard murder as the order of the day. They were put shoulder to shoulder and, through mass psychology, they were entirely changed. We used them for a couple of years and trained them to think nothing at all of killing or of being killed.
Then, suddenly, we discharged them and told them to make another "about face." This time they had to do their own readjustment, sans [without] mass psychology, sans officers' aid and advice and sans nation-wide propaganda. We didn't need them any more. So we scattered them about without any "three-minute" or "Liberty Loan" speeches or parades. Many, too many, of these fine young boys are eventually destroyed, mentally, because they could not make that final "about face" alone.
In the government hospital in Marion, Indiana, 1,800 of these boys are in pens! Five hundred of them in a barracks with steel bars and wires all around outside the buildings and on the porches. These already have been mentally destroyed. These boys don't even look like human beings. Oh, the looks on their faces! Physically, they are in good shape; mentally, they are gone.
This valiant, combat proven warrior wrote, long before anyone had coined the term, about “post-traumatic stress disorder” (PTSD). He wrote from personal experience and observation.
The true costs of our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to the United States are far higher than the national debt incurred to fund the war and death toll. (For a current count of the number of American and coalition personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, cf. iCasualties: Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom Casualties). The true costs Butler identified also included the non-quantifiable sacrifices military personnel and their loved ones incur through the forced separations (cf. my blog, “Ethical Musings: The price military families pay for war”). Nobody will full know the toll from PTSD and other, less visible wounds among Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans for decades.
Of course, the total cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq include not only the costs borne by the United States and its allies, but also the costs to Afghanistan and Iraq: deaths, other casualties, destroyed infrastructure, ruined lives, etc. That a majority of people in both of those countries believe that the time has long passed when the U.S. should have withdrawn its forces is one excellent indicator that the people of those nations do not believe the war worth the cost they have paid. The people of those countries are in a much better position to know the cost and morally to make that assessment than are the leaders of this nation.
Like any polemic, Butler's argument is overly simplistic. However, he reveals an ugly truth about most wars that too many people want to ignore. Butler contends that nations fight wars because the war benefits elites and businesses that supply the military. These groups bear little of the cost of war, which taxpayers and military personnel shoulder.
Butler’s analysis of the price that military personnel pay is especially worth noting (his statistics highlight the cost of World War I from the perspective of the 1930s):
But the soldier pays the biggest part of the bill.
If you don't believe this, visit the American cemeteries on the battlefields abroad. Or visit any of the veteran's hospitals in the United States. On a tour of the country, in the midst of which I am at the time of this writing, I have visited eighteen government hospitals for veterans. In them are a total of about 50,000 destroyed men – men who were the pick of the nation eighteen years ago. The very able chief surgeon at the government hospital; at Milwaukee, where there are 3,800 of the living dead, told me that mortality among veterans is three times as great as among those who stayed at home.
Boys with a normal viewpoint were taken out of the fields and offices and factories and classrooms and put into the ranks. There they were remolded; they were made over; they were made to "about face"; to regard murder as the order of the day. They were put shoulder to shoulder and, through mass psychology, they were entirely changed. We used them for a couple of years and trained them to think nothing at all of killing or of being killed.
Then, suddenly, we discharged them and told them to make another "about face." This time they had to do their own readjustment, sans [without] mass psychology, sans officers' aid and advice and sans nation-wide propaganda. We didn't need them any more. So we scattered them about without any "three-minute" or "Liberty Loan" speeches or parades. Many, too many, of these fine young boys are eventually destroyed, mentally, because they could not make that final "about face" alone.
In the government hospital in Marion, Indiana, 1,800 of these boys are in pens! Five hundred of them in a barracks with steel bars and wires all around outside the buildings and on the porches. These already have been mentally destroyed. These boys don't even look like human beings. Oh, the looks on their faces! Physically, they are in good shape; mentally, they are gone.
This valiant, combat proven warrior wrote, long before anyone had coined the term, about “post-traumatic stress disorder” (PTSD). He wrote from personal experience and observation.
The true costs of our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to the United States are far higher than the national debt incurred to fund the war and death toll. (For a current count of the number of American and coalition personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, cf. iCasualties: Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom Casualties). The true costs Butler identified also included the non-quantifiable sacrifices military personnel and their loved ones incur through the forced separations (cf. my blog, “Ethical Musings: The price military families pay for war”). Nobody will full know the toll from PTSD and other, less visible wounds among Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans for decades.
Of course, the total cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq include not only the costs borne by the United States and its allies, but also the costs to Afghanistan and Iraq: deaths, other casualties, destroyed infrastructure, ruined lives, etc. That a majority of people in both of those countries believe that the time has long passed when the U.S. should have withdrawn its forces is one excellent indicator that the people of those nations do not believe the war worth the cost they have paid. The people of those countries are in a much better position to know the cost and morally to make that assessment than are the leaders of this nation.
Monday, July 5, 2010
People can change
David Brooks, in a recent New York Times Op-Ed column (“Bill Wilson’s Gospel,” June 28, 2010) analyzed principles important to the success of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), including:
• Allowing each AA member and group to tailor the program to personal satisfy individual and local preference and needs;
• Emphasizing community, i.e., group fellowship;
• Disempowering the central organization, resulting in less control but also more innovation and dynamism;
• Seeking to change a person’s entire identity, not simply the problematic behavior, i.e., drinking too much;
Brooks’ presented his analysis as an argument in favor of attempting to change individuals and societies. He states that humans generally lack the knowledge necessary to achieve desired results consistently with respect to both of those goals. However, he points to AA as an example of a successful effort.
AA, Brooks observes, does not work for everyone, perhaps not even for a significant majority of the people who join AA. Yet AA has effectively helped millions of people transform their lives. Without the vision of Bill Wilson, articulated in AA’s 12 steps and implemented using the principles enumerated above, and without Wilson’s belief that people can change those people would not have transformed their lives.
What is your vision for life? In what way or ways might you live more abundantly into that vision?
Do you believe that you can change, transform yourself into a person who more fully embodies your vision of life abundant?
What is your plan, your path for change?
My answers to those questions, in broad generalities, are:
• Life abundant means loving God more (being more fully and constantly aware of the pervasive presence and power of the ultimate reality that undergirds all life), loving other people more fully, and exercising good stewardship of the earth.
• People, groups, and institutions can change. I’ve seen transformation in numerous other people (and groups and institutions) as well as experienced it in my own life. One of the greatest privileges and joys of my life has been serving as a catalyst for change in the life of others.
• My plan for change involves my walking the Jesus path. Others may choose different paths. I discover the Jesus path through the Anglican tradition, the Christian scriptures, and the exercise of my own reason and reflection on my experience. Many of the postings in this blog describe aspects of the Jesus path more specifically.
My answers to those three questions define my life’s purpose and direction. My answers also shape my understanding of evangelism, a topic that I addressed more broadly in the previous posting.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Is "evangelism" a dirty word?
Is “evangelism” a dirty word?
The answer to that question depends upon both the definition of “evangelism” and who answers the question. “Evangelism,” in its most basic sense, denotes sharing the good news of God's love mediated through or manifested in Jesus of Nazareth.
The gospels instruct Christians to evangelize the world by making disciples of all people. Matthew 28:19-20 is perhaps the best known example of this teaching: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you."
Analytically, the idea of a person wanting to share with others the relationship or concepts that infuse his/her life with meaning and purpose makes prima facie sense. Wanting others to enjoy the abundant life that others has is a very basic form of loving one’s neighbor.
The devil is in the details. Does the evangelist sharing his/her religion entail expecting the evangelized to express the relationship or concepts in the same metaphors or theological tenets? If so, that presupposes, at a minimum, the superiority of the evangelist’s beliefs to any possible understanding the evangelized may have. This inherently leads to both cultural arrogance (e.g., repeatedly seen in European and American evangelism efforts in Africa, Asia , and elsewhere) and the theological transformation of the living God into a dead idol (human language cannot describe God but at best points toward ultimate reality).
Ongoing conflicts at the United States Air Force Academy and at many other locations in the military provide numerous contemporary examples of both problems. Evangelical Christians adopt a “We know best” attitude that demeans non-evangelicals of all persuasions and frequently violates the Constitutional separation of religion and state. These evangelicals substitute a formulaic checklist for a living, dynamic, and personal relationship that will necessarily vary from individual to individual in terms of expression and structure.
A recent essay published in USA Today caught by attention because it describes the awakening of a prominent Christian evangelical pastor to these difficulties (Tom Krattenmaker, “How to sell Christianity? Ask an atheist,” June 28, 2010). The pastor, Jim Henderson, solved his struggle by consulting with atheists. Although that approach may seem counter-intuitive, Henderson
As a religious pluralist, I find this approach commonsensical. What I find refreshing is that non-religious pluralists have finally started to realize that traditional evangelism techniques and approaches are less than Christian.
Over the years, I’ve met a large number of people who became involved with Christianity for some period of time, then dropped out. I’ve also met a goodly number of people who have sought salvation (whatever that means) multiple times, hoping that they would eventually the deeper, more genuine experience of God they sought. Whether a person tries the Jesus way once or multiple times, when the experience proves less than transformative it suggests to me that the person really experienced something psychological, cultural, or social but not a truly transformative, life-giving spiritual experience.
True evangelism is not about numbers, not about conversion, and not about people becoming part of an institution. True evangelism is journey with another as he or she seeks to develop an awareness of the holy, what Christians call God, in her or his life. The companion on the journey may offer stories from her or his own journey, pass along the stories and wisdom of other spiritual travelers from one or more faith traditions, and share joys and pains, growth and struggles of the journey.
This video of a conversation between the Dalai Lama (a Buddhist monk) and Leonardo Boff (a Christian liberation theologian) graphically underscores what I'm attempting to say:
This video of a conversation between the Dalai Lama (a Buddhist monk) and Leonardo Boff (a Christian liberation theologian) graphically underscores what I'm attempting to say:
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Good news, bad news in the Middle East
Recent events in Israel
No nation, including the United States
If Israel Israel handled the situation well, then Israel
The only way in which a public, international investigation will disadvantage Israel is if the group conducting the investigation has a strong, negative bias with respect to Israel Israel , especially among Arab nations, an international investigation conducted by more neutral nations should not cause Israel
In the meantime, Israel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)