IMPUNITIVE & IMPUNITY

The words “Impunitive” and “Impunity” have been frequent visitors to my thoughts. These visits are generated by the frequent news items detailing actions that appear to be contrary to law – yet no legal action is taken:
- The Department of Justice, under Attorney General Gonzalez, admitting it used political concerns in vetting candidates for positions within the Department. Clearly violating specific restrictions.
- Vice President Richard Chaney admitting on national television that he participated in approving methods of torture against prisoners. And he justified such methods even when challenged on their legality.
- Revelations that The Environmental Protection Agency has acted contrary to Congressional directions so as to benefit certain industries – industries that pollute or in other ways detract from our environment.
- Richard Nixon, in the movie “Frost/Nixon”, responding that “If the President of the United States does it, it is not illegal!” That same wording was repeated by V.P. Chaney relative to actions by President Bush.
- Revelations that many, if not all, of the recipients of billions from the “Bailout” are refusing to identify where the funds have gone, how they’ve been used, or any other legitimate queries about “our” money. There are admissions, even by the Treasury Secretary, that none of the monies have yet been used to relieve burdensome mortgages on “Main Street” – even though that was expressly stated when the “Bailout” was passed!

The list could continue almost endlessly - thus, my attention to the words “Impunitive” and “impunity”.

What do they mean? My dictionary [Random House] defines Impunitive as “not condemning either oneself or others and usually justifying the situation”; and, Impunity as “exemption from punishment”.

They seem to be appropriate words defining the items identified above.

They also seem reflective of a trend in our society that dates back more than 3 decades! Karl Menninger [well known psychiatrist in the 1960s and 1970s] wrote “Whatever became of sin?” His point was that public conversation about “sin” – a topic that had been very much a part of our nation’s heritage as well as a significant component of Christianity’s emphasis upon the Atoning acts of Christ, seemed to have fallen out of vogue. He believed that this lessening of an interest in or about sin had probably contributed to “a growing sense of personal irresponsibility in the 1960s and early 1970s.

From my perspective that trend continues today. There seems to be much less talk in church about sin and/or its punishments; few, if any, seem to be consigned to either hell or purgatory when discussing the deceased; an increasing number even question if hell exists; and sin? – well everyone makes mistakes and no one is perfect!

It is not my intent to suggest we restore “hell-fire and brimstone” to our preaching repertoires. Rather, it is to suggest we need to discuss:
a Is there sin?
b If yes, what is sin?
c If no, what are the ramifications for any of the three monotheistic Faiths, all of whom have the existence of sin as a central focus? If there are only “mistakes” and if any act that is strictly ‘personal’ is acceptable, than the Law seems irrelevant. And if the Law is irrelevant, than the Good News [i.e. Gospel] has no meaning.

While I believe impeachment trials would be healthy for our nation, it is even of greater importance that we direct our thoughts to the above points [a through c].

INCLUSIVITY

"Inclusivity" is an oft repeated word in the national discourse re: the choice of Pr. Rick Warren to deliver the Invocation at the installation of our next President. Supporters of Obama's decision point to the many times during the campaign when he talked about "inclusivity". This choice is nothing more than acting on what he promised. That people of differing views must cross the divides that separate us so we - as a nation - can confront the tough challenges ahead.
An equally repeated word is "patience". "Give the man a break" is said. He isn't even in office yet. Be "patient!"
I think neither word is appropriate when responding to this choice!
First, "Patience" was often used in conversing with African-Americans as they struggled for equal rights! "Be patient" - and allow the prejudice to continue just a little longer.
"Patience" when challenging an issue of Justice is not a virtue. We know that evil occurs when good men and women do nothing when facing acts of injustice. That is how the holocaust happened. It is how the Rwanda genocide took place. And Darfur. And Somalia.
Pr. Warren's objection to homosexuality is not, per se, an injustice. It is his vocal challenges, comparing gays and lesbians desiring marriage to pedophiles or polygamists or even those commiting incest! Those words go beyond legitimate disagreement. They are words of injustice.
Second, "Inclusivity" is a legitimate concept when applied to times for dialogue. As we confront the many issues we face as a nation, it is vital that there be "inclusivity".
Citizens with different views about economics, world peace, sexuality and any of the other issues that divide us do need to sit down together. As they dialogue, hopefully, they will identify areas of agreement. They will also honor each other by recognizing each other as persons with valid views!
No one would have suggested to the disciples after the first Easter that they invite Caiaphus to offer grace when they met.
No one would have suggested to Martin Luther that he invite the Pope to bless the Augsburg Confession.
Let's just move ahead and accept that people can continue to be full supporters of our incoming President even as they seek to be involved in the issues of our time.
Barack Obama is still my choice for President. He has asked all of us to assist him in the process of helping our nation to move ahead affirming those values we hold to be true.
2009 and beyond should be interesting times.

Neutral

Neutral, according the Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology, is dated from 1471 and taken directly from the Latin neutralis "of neuter gender". It was first recorded in English in 1549 and was used to identify those on neither side of a quarrel or war!

There are, perhaps, occasions when "staying neutral" is justified - or at least warranted.

Most times, however, its use is more a reflection of moral cowardice!

Could one justify "claiming neutrality" when confronted by the Holocaust? Genocide in Rwanda? Pedophilia?

Since those examples are, on their surface, so abhorent a purported "neutrality" is often posed politically today with reference to "being innocent until proved guilty". It is as if "legal" guilt is one's only justification for making a moral judgment!

These thoughts were provoked by the responses from so many politicians to the scandal involving our Illinois Governor. Of course he deserves his day in court! But that should not deter one from assessing how his words are recorded on tape. That kind of public discourse, regardless of its intent, is not compatible with the level of morality required in being the Governor of any state.

That same approach to "neutrality" has too often even creeped into our news reporting. Believing that both sides of an issue ought to be reported equally, reporters are often 'neutered'. Example: "Source A says it is raining outside. Soiurce B says it is not raining." But the reporter never sticks her/his head out the window and tells us whether or not it is raining! All in the name of appearing neutral. Instead, they usually seem less intelligent.

Have we allowed the same problem to guide us in our churches? Is that, perhaps, why Karl Menninger wrote his book "Whatever became of Sin". Naming something a "sin" does not [at least in my Lutheran theology] place the sinner outside God's love. In truth, in my Lutheran theology, sin is involved in everything I do - so what's the sense of labeling if its only purpose is to suggest one might live sinless?

Living in a neutered world would not be joyful. I am no less respectful of my Jewish friends if I wish them a Merry Christmas rather than a Happy Holiday.

HE'S JUST A MAN

Mary Magdalene, in Andrew Lloyd Weber’s Jesus Christ Superstar, sings a plaintive song as she struggles to understand her relationship with Jesus. So many hopes. So many dreams. So many promises. And now, the trial and forthcoming crucifixion.
That song has been running through my head repeatedly since the election November 4th of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States of America. There seems to be a never-ending barrage of charges and counter-charges, complaints and concerns about just about everything associated with the transition. Even the choice of a dog for his daughters gets to be grist for the “mill” of the 24 hour cable news channels.
Neither the left nor the right “know how to love him, What to do, how to move him.” Can he really run faster than a speeding bullet? Leap tall buildings? Is he really a man who seeks rapprochement with his foes [e.g. Lieberman] or is he a wuss? Is he going to bring “change” to the way our Nation operates or is he selecting too many “who’ve been there” to fill major posts? Will some Nations seek strong ties with us because Obama is President or will some distance themselves because he is an unknown?
We don’t know! This past election process was so significantly different from anything before that, like Mary Magdalene in the song, “I’ve been changed, yes really changed.” Changed because, I think, regardless of whether we voted for McCain or Obama this whole process changed us. Both candidates firmly declared that life could not continue as is. That we needed to discover a new paradigm for doing business as the “last Empire” in the world.
As we struggle through these next 9+ weeks, keep in mind the wisdom of Mary Magdalene – he’s just a man! Democracy – this Republic of 50 States – will not prosper if we return to our non-participatory role and “Let President Obama” do it. We need to do it. We need to continue our involvement. We need to communicate to our elected officials [remember what happened the first time they voted on the bailout bill?]
There is no doubt in my mind that to bring care to those who are sick without insurance; to create jobs that enable a family to prosper; to feed those who are hungry; house the homeless; etc. – those cannot be accomplished without a cost to me! Sure, I’m retired. Yes, the stock market in the past few months has wiped out 30+% of our retirement resources.
But even that being true, I [and all of you reading this] are so much wealthier than most of the world’s population. Do I/we really believe what Jesus taught?
These next months are crunch time.
He is just a man.
He is a man with a vision and an ability to invite people to join him.
What to do?

THE Truth

Whenever anyone proclaims that s/he is telling me "the truth" I need to fight the temptation to hold on to my wallet! I had a similar reaction when a student or client would approach me and say: "Do you want me to be honest?"
"Truth" and "honesty" are always relative.
Relative to our own theologies, cultures, lieben-sitz, biases.
That is not to say they have no value. Rather, it is to reject them as agents for control! To refuse to allow them to be used as means for stopping debate and open discussion.
If we desire to create a time of "peace" it is vitally important for us to learn about the relativity of "truth". Our claims to "the truth" suggest that the 'other' is either lying or, at the least, poorly informed. Few of us take kindly to such accusations!
Yes, Jesus did claim that he "was the truth". He did claim that the "truth" would set us free. But not "truth" as an abstraction. Kierkegaard said that "truth" only exists in action. This suggests to me that the "truth" of Jesus is lived to the degree I am able to allow him to live in my life. When I choose to love the 'other'. When I choose to seek justice for all people. When I participate in creating 'health' for all and oppose creating those factors that create disease and death.
In these final days before the national election it is important for each to realize the relativity of "truth" - ours and the candidates - so we are able to discern the action(s) that are required.

Times of/for Change

A speaker at a recent leadership conference for Lutheran clergy spoke on “Proclamation in the Time of Change”. “Change” is a key word for both political parties in the 2008 Presidential elections. Fortunately the speaker did not tie his remarks to the elections.
Nor did he expound on what was meant by “the” time of change. Listeners were invited to insert how they would define “Time of Change”. From private conversations with attendees, that was not a difficult challenge. Most agreed that these were not only just times of change – they were times of significant changes. Significant, at least in part, because no area or sphere of life appears to be left “as is”!
One could legitimately posit that there has never been a time in human history that has not been a time of change.
- Politically Kingdoms rise and wane. New nations are birthed and others disappear. Systems such as Patriarchy, Monarchy, Socialism, Communism and Democracy are tried or discarded.
- Religiously Prophets and preachers reveal new and different ideas about God – and commandments and creeds and laws change to reflect those revelations.
- Culturally there is a steady movement towards greater egalitarianism and less reliance on “caste” systems. Race, gender, age, sexual identity and religious heritage are diminished insofar as being legitimate markers for and of discrimination.
- Many areas of daily living are also radically different – and increasingly so! Transportation enables us to move about more freely and over longer distances. Medical care has moved beyond the time of snake oil and witches potions to advances including organ transplantation and gene therapy. Entertainment is made available in one’s home to a degree not even imagined by our ancestors.
The speaker indicated the command, for Christians, was to still proclaim the Gospel. The challenge was to do so with the understanding that today’s “hearers” no longer live in a world even remotely similar to 1st century Jerusalem et al! Simply translating the parables and theological “isms” of that time is not enough. Rather, the task is to identify the “truth” of Jesus and Peter and Paul and Lydia and others as it may apply to life in the 21st century.
That task is not easy. It is fraught with hurdles and challenges. It is even scary. Yet, it has always been so! Paul and Peter had to wrestle with Jews and Gentiles. Early leaders had to wrestle when Christianity moved from persecution to being the “state religion”. Theologians and political leaders struggled with a religion that became an empire!
Today we must confront and work with other monotheistic [and even polytheistic] religions that claim legitimacy with God. We must wrestle with claims of modern scientific discoveries about cosmic creation, the human genome, the various factors inherent with/to sexual orientation, the role of family and marriage, etc., etc.
There is no choice as to whether or not this is a time of change. There is a choice, however, when we look on these as times for change.
It has always been scary to be a prophet or preacher or teacher. Such is the nature of our calling.
Our strength is knowing that [a] we do not do it alone and [b] even when we are wrong God sticks with us!

The Henny-Penny Approach to Major Issues

The turmoil of Wall Street and our financial institutions has occupied much of the news these past weeks. We’ve witnessed the sales of Bear Sterns & Merrill Lynch, the government take-over of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the bankruptcy of Lehmann Brothers, the need to under-write AGI, prop up the Money Markets – and now, a move that is identified as the “mother of all” financial moves! An amount of $70 billion [that is $70,000,000,000.00] is proposed to “unclog” the system of “bad” mortgages so the global economy can survive!

This latest proposal is presented to the U.S. Congress with the admonition to pass it ASAP – even sooner if possible. Senators and Representatives are told of all the dire things that can/will happen if they falter or delay its passage. Even while admitting it is beyond the scope of anything ever before proposed – and admitting that it will raise the national debt to $11.3 trillion – the legislation is proposed as a “must-do-now”!

That same urgent rush-to-judgment brought us the Patriot Act [which we later have learned negated some of our basic freedoms] and the Homeland Security Department [which has had troubles responding to almost any crisis]. It supported the notion that we had to invade Iraq.

This same urgency is suggested when dealing with issues of social justice.
Now that some states” courts have affirmed the rights of homosexuals to marry, we are told of an urgency to pass legislation that will “save” the institution of marriage!

Now that modern discoveries and technologies have enabled us to have a truer picture of the writings in Scripture, we are told of the need to affirm that true believers must believe the Bible literally. That God really did create all the universes in just 6 days. That the world is really less than 10,000 years old. That Jonah was swallowed by a whale. Etc. etc.

Most of us learned the story of Henny-penny when we were children. While picking up corn Henny-penny was struck on the head by something; made the decision that the sky was falling; and took off to inform the king. On the way Henny-penny convinced Cocky-locky, Ducky-daddles. Goosey-poosey and Turkey-lurkey that her assessment was correct. They, without any attempt to pause and reason, joined her march to the King. Then they met Foxy-woxy! He was able to hi-jack their venture and all but Henny-penny were killed!

It seems increasingly that much of our social responses to problems of crisis is predicated upon the Henny-penny template. Make a snap judgment, based upon a feeling. Avoid taking time to apply reason. Take action that may, or may not, be successful even though its costs, if unsuccessful, will be major.

None of these problems just “arose” over-night. Resolutions must involve reason and not just feelings.

Let’s take a deep breath. Let’s take time to review what we know about the issue. Let’s trust that, together, we can do the necessary task of identifying what really hit us in the head and developing responses that have a better chance of succeeding that the roll of dice at a Las Vegas crap table!

Deadly Sin: Avarice/Greed

All of us, on one level or another, are aware of our reeling economy. Even earlier than the recent headlines about government bailouts or black days on Wall Street, the average Jane/Joe citizen on the street knew we were in trouble!
- climbing fuel prices
- climbing food prices
- work/job layoffs or cut-backs in hours
- increasing interest rates on mortgages and credit cards

Numerous ideas are put forth as causative factors. Among these are the global economy, the addiction to oil and the civil tensions existing in most of the areas where oil exists, the Iraq conflict, the struggle against terrorists... and the list goes on.

Every so often someone mentions "greed" as being the significant cause! "Greed" that is present at every level within our economy.
* From my desire to drive an SUV to a company's desire to increase profits by moving jobs to a country where labor costs are less.
* From our desire to have a 'bigger' tv to a retailer's desire to cut costs thru poverty-level wages or restricted benefits.
* From our desires to keep 'stuff' [just look at the storage unit industry and its growth] to a parish's desire to remain a functioning (?) congregation [with dwindling memberships and rising maintenance costs].

While these are times of anxiety, I find it somewhat comforting to recall that we are not the first to face the consequences of "avarice/greed". The list of sins, considered deadly, can be traced back to the 4th century when monks identified areas that would impede one's spiritual development. It was Pope Gregory I who revised the list to what came to be known as the "Seven Deadly Sins" His order, replicated by Dante, has "avarice/greed" as number 3.

Such a history is comforting, at least in part, because it means there are numerous resources available for assistance in treating or handling or working with this sin!

Resources that help to honestly make the diagnosis that we are a greedy people:
1. When I have a working 32" tv set, do I really need a 42" HDTV?
2. When I have several functioning power saws, must I really buy one more for just one little job?
3. When my retirement income is greater than what some families of 4 make in a year, do I really need to go back to work for pay?

Resources that help to identify what actions to take to begin limiting the control of avarice/greed in my life:
a. Confession! I/we need to say it out loud - "I/we are a greedy people." so that we can begin being "delivered from evil". Only by individually and collectively so confessing will we be able to more successfully fight the many temptations besetting us daily to 'buy more'.
b. Charity! I/we need to move beyong gaining possessions to giving them away. Pick any room in your home or office. Make the commitment to give away 10% of everything in it. Even more - make the commitment to tithe!
c. Involvement! I/we need to become involved in our communities. The isolation helps to maintain our blindness to just how much we have. Helps to keep the focus on "poor me" rather than my neighbor and her & his needs.

Jesus tells us we cannot serve God and mammon! They are incompatible and irresolutely conflictual. That hurts to hear. It demands far more than what I/we are willing to give.

Facing the diagnosis honestly, however, helps me/us develop the awareness that is required from those who claim to wish to follow Jesus. My awareness will not keep me from sin. It will, however, bring me to acts of confession and repentance. Therein lies hope for a better world.

Regardless of how the November election ends, our society will not move beyond its "addiction to stuff" until all of us realize "stuff's" hold on us!

All we want are the facts, Maam

It was impossible for me to "blog" during either of the two political conventions - and to avoid very biased comments! Since all other media outlets had no imposed "silence" periods, you probably had your fill of such comments.
During both conventions my mind kept recalling a phrase from one of my early TV favorites - Sgt. Friday. My first recollection was "Just the facts, Maam." - but a Google search corrected that recall! The phrase used on the show was "All we want are the facts, Maam.". The "Just the facts, Maam" actually came from a spoof on another show.
At both conventions speakers made frequent reference to presenting "facts", always with the assumption that such references were not open to challenge! After all, they were only giving the facts.
A similar assumption was made on the NPR show "Science Friday". A speaker was wondering why some parents were still objecting to having their children vaccinated because of fears about varied concerns. "How," he wondered, "could they be so resistant in the face of the facts!"
Such assumptions are also frequently offered in various religious institutions when discussing contested issues - ie. homosexuality, abortion, literal view of scripture, etc.
All such assumptions are predicated on a belief that "facts" are value-free and can really not be challenged unless "new facts" later arise! Such claims are posited even though there is an admission that "new facts" may be forthcoming.
I am not suggesting that "facts" are unbelievable. I am stating that "facts" do not exist apart from values.
Example: You claim the glass is half full - it has 8 oz of liquid. Your opponent claims the glass is half empty - it, also, has 8 oz of liquid. The "fact" of 8 oz is valid. The judgment of whether or not it is half full or half empty reflects values that seem to claim something more than the 8 oz.
The same assessment can be made re: every assumption made by both political parties as well as religious groups opposed to or supportive of varied positions.
Examples: Governor Palin does have Foreign policy experience because Alaska borders on two other countries - Canada and Russia. The latter is a "fact" - the assumption reflects selective values.
The book of Leviticus does make very clear statements about God's judgment on homosexuality. The same book has many other statements concerning God's judgment re: kosher eating, eating shell fish, disciplining children, etc. Which "fact" we propose obviosuly reflects selective values.
As we enter discussions these next weeks, whether the politics of our nation or the ELCA Statement on Human Sexuality, let's avoid seeking to "win" by citing facts. Rather, seek to understand each other's values that select such facts - and then seek discernment on where there might be agreement.

Disengenuousness or Dishonesty?

"When does the fertilized ovum become human?"
That question is frequently the 'prelude' to ascertaining whether or not the person is for or against abortion. [I refuse to use "pro-life" since almost every woman I counseled as they sought an abortion was "pro-life". Just not this life at this time!]
The person asking the question is, at best, disengenuous - and, more likely, dishonest!
Of course the fertilized ovum is human! What else would it be when one is referring to a pregnant woman? It is certainly not reptilian nor avian nor is it some critter normally found in a zoo. When a human female and a human male procreate, the fertilized ovum is human. Period.
The real question ought to be: "Under what, if any, circumstances might it be legitimate to take that life?"

• The 1973 Supreme Court ruled that during the 1st trimester the mother had absolute authority to determine the future of the pregnancy.
• Many States legalize the taking of life via Capital punishment for certain crimes - usually murder.
• The "Just War" theory allows a nation to enter war when there is sufficient danger to her citizens. In doing so, it recognizes that people will be killed who are non-combatants [so called collateral damage].

On the other "side", former Cardinal Joseph Bernardin said there was a "seamless garment" when one is "pro-life" and that means being against capital punishment, against war, and for a more equitable distribution of "wealth" so that the "least among us" does not starve to death or die from lack of medical attention. Many in the anti-abortion movement firmly and ludly rejected the idea of Cardinal Bernardin.

Framing this complex issue in terms of the "humanity" of the ovum is dishonest.

Recognizing that none of us are sinless, the ELCA recognizes the struggle and turmoil for those facing such an issue. While clearly stating it is to be avoided, if possible, it does not abandon the woman who believes she must choose to abort. It even goes further than just "not abandoning" her! It recognizes that she remains a child of God, deserving love and acceptance from the church community. She is not a pariah.

In the 1970s it was possible for people of faith to discuss the abortion issue; to identify those areas in which there could be agreement [greater education on contraception and sex; and the need for support programs for women who chose to abort]; and to work together towards creating a society in which every child - every person - is honored and treated with love and care.

We need to work towards renewing a society in which such conversations can be had so we can focus our energy on the even greater issues of hunger and poverty and violence.

WAS IT A GOOD THING?

• On August 16th Pastor Rick Warren hosted a televised discussion with John McCain and Barrack Obama on issues related to faith and morality. Most agree that Pr. Warren did a good job as the interrogator/questioner [many thought he was head & shoulders above the job done by many network leaders during the debates!].
  On stage singly, both candidates responded to questions about evil, sin, faith, Jesus, abortion, homosexuality and the usual issues normally associated with one’s views about religion. While technically it was presented as a “neutral” atmosphere, the applauses spontaneously generated by the audience to the un-nuanced answers of McCain left little doubt as to where their own views were.
  The whole event seemed surreal, especially when viewed against the backdrop of multiple election campaigns dating back to Truman vis Dewey:
• In 1952 Eisenhower was queried about the fact he had never been baptized. His answer: I’m busy right now, but after the election & installation I’ll do it! [And he did.]
• In 1960 Kennedy asked the nation to disregard his religion [ie. denomination]. His argument to not regard questions of faith as factors in voting prevailed through 1972. When George Romney ran in 1968 for the Republican nomination, being a Mormom was not an issue!
• Faith did become an issue in 1976, when the nation turned to a Southern Baptist Sunday School teacher in rebellion against the lies and corruption in the Nixon era.
  Since 1980, however, there has been a steady growth towards the development of a “test” to determine the religiosity of candidates. Increasingly, candidates are assessed on factors that are, without doubt, religious. Factors directly related to the questions posed by Rick Warren on that Saturday night.
  The United States Constitution is very clear as to the role of Religion in government. Article VI states: no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
  And, since there is little agreement as to how one’s religious faith actually plays out in the day-to-day operations of government, I think Article VI is a good thing!
  There will be many efforts between today and November 4th [Election Day] to posit which of the two candidates is more [or, less] Christian. Those statements will be related to their views about Israel, abortion, homosexuality, the pastor of their church, and other issues. Issues which, we know, have little reference to how our nation treats the poor, provides for the sick, seeks peace with other nations, and responds towards God’s Creation.
  Knowing whether Jesus is, or is not, their personal Savior is largely irrelevant! Not because of anything about Jesus! But because we know that throughout history some of the most cruel acts were perpetrated “in the Name of Jesus”.
  Both candidates are decent persons.Let’s work to make sure that on November 4th all people have the necessary facts to cast their vote for that candidate whose views on resolving our nation’s problems seem most relevant to how we see our own faith in relationship to community.

Profligacy

I couldn't remember the last time I had heard anyone use that term in an open discussion. The speaker was Andrew J. Bacevich. He was on the August 17th Bill Moyers Journal, discussing his latest book - The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism.
Per Bacevich, "profligacy" may well be the major cause of our decline as a nation.
The word comes from the Latin profligatus and profligare - meaning to "ruin" or "overthrow" or to be "dissolute". A profligate person is "recklessly extravagant or wasteful" (Compact Oxford English Disctionary)
The ancients, at least back when we discussed the 7 Deadly Sins, might well place such behavior under Avarice, even Gluttony.
Many moderns refer to is as Consumerism - that desire to have unlimited options and to buy, buy, buy regardless of our need.
Bacevich posits that regardless of whom we elect this coming November, this problem will not go away unless we - the people - are willing to face the truth about ourselves.
We knew about the oil crisis in the early 1970s - and continued to purchase large, gas-guzzling automobiles.
We know there is a growing world-wide food shortage - and continue to purchase food "stuff" with empty calories, demanding unlimited choices.
We know there is a severe economic crisis - yet still allow campaign debates on whether or not there should be limits on wealth.
Do we have too much "stuff"? One clue would be the significant growth of the storage building industry. We have more "stuff" than we can store in our homes!
There are several Sundays this fall when a sermon about our "Profligate" nature might serve as a wake-up call to all of us. STOP BUYING what isn't necessary.
As long as we insist on being a nation that "deserves" unlimited choices and goods we keep our men and women in Service in harm's way - because that is truly why we are at war.

The Church Confessing? To what?

The Diaspora is a “Journal of the Missions and Faith Communities that have evolved from the Church of the Savior” located in our nation’s capitol. A lead article in the Summer 2008 had this to say.
The famous German leader, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, came back to his homeland [from the US where he was safe] at the request of some in the German church who saw the awful rise to evil power of Hitler and his minions. He and they struggled to bring into being what he called the ‘confessing church’ to recall the biblical prophetic challenges to the wrongs they perceived in the state. Also to confess that the church had been quiet too long in coming to grips with this issue. “A time comes when silence is betrayal” is the way Dr. Martin Luther King put it.
In addressing this issue, Bonhoeffer asked “are we still of any use?” The same question must be asked of today’s churches. In his efforts to be faithful, Bonhoeffer was arrested, and died in prison before the end of WW II. If the institutional churches cannot speak out against torture and unnecessary war, what good is it to have pulpits? The elements of atrocity, manipulation, and indifference add up to a spiritual crisis.
In his response to my previous blog, Hubbie shared the quote from Judaism: “…anger at the sight of wrong done is holy. If the anger kindles into passion, it will become conducive to strife.” He later adds: “perhaps what that quote means is that anger can be a good thing, but that you need to wait to act upon that anger until it has matured into reasoned action rather than raw passion.” [Emphasis is mine.]
One of our tasks as preachers is to assist in the maturation of anger into reasoned action. We lead our people in prayer, often highlighting the evils in our world. We will be guiding our people in the ELCA initiative Book of Faith, a five year process with the goal of heightening the awareness of Lutherans regards Scriptures.
Each of the above are ways for the maturation of anger.
However – the pulpit is a vital element that we must not waste! The maturation of anger requires that our anger be identified, made relevant, and defined as our response to wrongs.
- It was/is wrong to manufacture evidence to support a war against the sovereign people of Iraq.
- It was/is wrong to torture.
- It was/is wrong to direct so much of our budget towards that war, while allowing our neighbors to go hungry.
“Are we still of any use?”, to ask the question of Bonhoeffer. Is our silence “betrayal” ala MLK?
Speaking out from the pulpit can be a scary action for any preacher.
That fear, however, can be assuaged when we know we are not alone. When our sisters and brothers in other pulpits are also speaking out.
Seems to me a fairly strong rationale for joining colleagues in the weekly scripture studies!

ANGER Revisited

A colleague/friend [thanks, Hub] commented that my previous Blog about anger
might well leave folks the thought that I was saying/implying that anger is
either bad or wrong. To whatever degree his observations are correct, I
apologize.
ANGER is a gift with which we are created! Placing any moral judgment on it is
extremely inappropiate - as it would be to so judge breathing or hunger or any
other natural aspect of our created selves.
ANGER's purpose is very basic - protection. Watch a newborn baby. If hungry or
suffering from wet diaper or being hurt - the baby's anger is automatically
activated. As a newborn this gets commuicated with a lusty howl, a red face, and
extreme action. No one claims that such reaction is "wrong". [Uncomfortable,
perhaps, for the care-giver - but not wrong!]
ANGER, however, that is NOT acted upon - and as I said in the Blog is "nurtured"
- opens the door to becoming a victim.
And VICTIMHOOD is a deadly state of being.
Vicktor Frankl, in his book "From Death Camp to Existentialism", told the story
of a Jew incarcerated in one of the death camps of WW II. As he was being
marched towards the gas house the prisoner said to the guard: "You're not taking
my life. I'm giving it to you!"
This made the guard furious. One of those "No you're not!" / "Yes I am!" type
exchanges took place.
Finally, the guard pulled the prisoner out of line and sent him back to the
camp!
Frankl pointed out the man's refusal to being a victim. He was able to utilize
his anger to claim, even in the face of being killed, that he was a human being
with the ability to decide how he would die.
(Frankl's book, incidentally, might be a good place to begin our dialogues with
out Jewish friends as we seek answers to the conflicts with the Palestinians.
Has the Holocaust become more a source of maintaining "victimhood" rather than a
call to action?)
The changes that need to occur in our nation these next months, regardless of
whom is elected, will provoke many feelings - fear and anger amongst the most
dominate. We in the churches, synagogues and mosques need to remind our people
that "feelings" are not sinful. The issues are always what we do with them. Let
us help them explore ways to use their feelings as "calls to action" rather than
invitations to being victims.

Anger towards “they” = Victimhood!

Dean Koontz, in his book The Good Guy, offers this interesting dialogue about anger:

Tim: “So you were watching these angry people on the talk show.”

Linda: “And suddenly I realized, under a lot of chronic anger is a sewer of self-pity.”

T: “Was there a sewer of self-pity under your anger?”

L: I hadn’t thought so. But when I recognized it , I saw it in myself, and it sickened me.”

T: “Sounds like a moment.”

L: It was a moment. Those people loved their anger, they were always going to be angry, and when they died, their last words would be some self-pitying drivel. I was suddenly scared I might end up like them.”

T: “You could never end up like that.”

L: “Oh, yeah, I could’ve. I was on my way. But I gave up anger cold turkey.”

T: “You can do that?”

L: “Adults can do that. Perpetual adolescents can’t.”

One could certainly state that these are times of considerable “anger”.

1. There are daily revelations of how far our nation’s leaders have strayed from basic values.
2. Every major Faith group has divisions in which considerable anger is generated as they all wrestle with the impact of modern civilization. Christians, Jews and Muslims all have “in-fighting” as they strive to claim the “right”. Even the Buddhists show similar divisions.
3. The problems with our economy reveal the growing gaps between the “haves” and the “have nots” – gaps that are even worse than the 1920s just before the Great Depression. The quarterly reports of profits by the major oil companies, when the price of gasoline has soared, add to the anger.
4. The list could continue – local communities, states, industry, etc. All struggle in these times and many feel helpless to change.

Koontz’ “Linda” is correct. Under a lot of chronic anger is a sewer of self-pity. It is so easy to place the blame on “them”. It keeps us as victims.

• If our leaders have strayed from basic American values, why do so few vote? Why do so few bother to keep abreast of the information available?
• It is difficult for religious folks with a 5^th or 6^th grade education in/about their faith to be open to change.
• How long did we think the economy could continue with our consumerism at full steam? Did we really believe we could fight terrorism by buying more?
• Driving 8 cylinder SUVs, when we have known for more than 30 years we have an addiction to oil, has been our choices.

We have major issues to consider and work at in these next months and years – Major Issues! None of them has a chance of resolution if we remain “victims”. Neither McCain nor Obama nor Paul nor any other presidential candidate can “solve” the issues without us – each of us! Nor can the interpretation of Scripture [the Koran, the Torah or the Bible] be resolved by assuming there is “one” correct translation or interpretation. Nor can the crisis in paying for the care of the sick be resolved if each of us proceeds as if “full care” is a ‘right’ and not a ‘privilege’.

Our congregations, synagogues and mosques must become places where persons are assisted in their movement away from “victim” status. Our clergy must reclaim their roles as prophets and teachers so that persons may access a vital faith.

Let’s all work to give up our anger “cold turkey”. We can help each other be the adult that can do it.

SPIRITUAL "WHOLISM"

A recent conversation with several clergy-colleagues focused on a practice some folks employ as a means of “punishing” their congregation when they are anger over some issue. That practice is to withhold their financial support. It is used by individuals as well as congregations. It may be initiated in response to some actual event or decision – and can even be initiated over a study of some action.

One colleague commented that such action was “wrong” because giving was a spiritual action, which somehow meant different rules. Our “offerings” are gifts/resources we have been given by God. Withholding them suggests that we have lost sight of God’s ownership.

Another colleague was more accepting of the practice even while disliking it. Sometimes the gap between a member and the leadership of an organization is such that there are only limited ways to express one’s approval or disapproval. Certainly we could celebrate if my “offering” were increased due to my support of a particular ministry. [For example, many are increasing their gifts for Campus Ministry because they are pleased at the ministries provided our young.] So, might not a reduction or suppression also be in order when one is displeased?

Valid arguments exist for either view – but… The discussion avoids the significant question of “What makes something spiritual?”

We know that humans are cognitive, emotional, political, physical, mental and spiritual creatures. It is easy to engage in a sort-of short-hand that places our actions and our thoughts into only one of the categories:
- eating is a physical action
- loving is an emotional action
- voting is a political action
- etc.

The danger is that such short-hand perpetuates a greater danger. The danger which fails to recognize that everything I do involves every aspect of my creatureliness.
Eating, when done as if it were only physical action can cause obesity and fails to remind me of how much my Creator gifts me!
Loving, if seen only as emotional, can be too easily made synonymous with sex or too easily justify breaking relationships.
Voting, when relegated to only a political act, fails to recognize and support my involvement in and responsibility to the community.
Or, far more dangerous, when Pastoral Care for the sick is seen as only a spiritual act then it becomes too easy to treat patients as if their were only collections rather than wholes!

Recognizing that we are cognitive, emotional, political, physical, mental and spiritual creatures opens up multiple doors through which to engage each other.
The person or congregation that withholds funds can still be confronted with the challenge to be responsible in their membership.
Prayer at a time of illness does have an impact on all aspects of creatureliness.
Voting, as one important duty of living in community, is also a function of one’s spirituality.

Emphasizing the wholism of each person is vital. Only when we are cognitive, emotional, political, physical, mental and spiritual creatures is their valid support for integrating “church” into daily life.

Perspective on Costs!

Gas is over $4.00/gallon. We all know that. But, as a Grandfather I really had no idea of the cost of milk until our grandkids for their annual time with us. Milk cost me even more than gasoline per gallon!
That gave me another view about the annual budgets for both the ELCA and the Northern Illinois Synod. While I believe both organizations accomplish many excellent results as stewards of scarce resources - I am also aware that both face major challenges due to finances.
Then I read this figure in the June 9th issue of The Nation. "The American cost of the Iraq War per second (as of March 2008): $4,563.18."
That means our entire budget in Northern Illinois Synod would cover less than 15 minutes of the Iraq War costs!
Whether one supports Obama [as I do] or McCain, the next President of our country has to provide tough leadership for an economic period some even liken to the 1920s before the crash in October 1929. That leadership has to confront us with choices we make. Choices not only how we spend our own monies - but choices on how we want government to spend our tax monies.
That leadership will not be easy - for either candidate! A significant portion of our citizenry has no idea of how tax money is spent - nor do they have daily access to the information sources in which such data can be accessed.
Do we, as persons who strive to follow Jesus as our norm, have any role to play in assisting our President-to-be?
I believe we do. Jesus said: "I am the way and the truth and the life." He then went on to say:
"If you love me, you will obey what command. And I will ask God to give you another Counselor to be with you forever--the Spirit of truth." (John 14:6.15-17a)
Putting "truth" before our co-believers will not be easy. Kierkegaard one said that "truth only exists in action". That is, there is no "static" truth.
Further, "truth" will always be impacted by our biases! Always.
So, in these next months lets gird up our loins, work collectively to gain a stronger understanding of "truth" for 2008, and use the resources within our congregations to educate our members so that they might make more informed decisions when they vote - locally, state-wide and nationally.

Politics, Moral Deliberations and Religion

The ELCA social statement For Peace in God’s World identifies the church “as a community of moral deliberation”. And, as I discussed here in a previous Blog entry, “moral deliberation” is the task/challenge accepted by the Northern Illinois Synod (ELCA) in Assembly on June 14, 2008!
On the surface such a challenge seems appropriate. Many within the church community believe speaking to morals and morality is one of the tasks of the church. (A task which some would argue has not been well addressed in recent decades.) Teaching youth right from wrong, correct behavior, and encouraging involvement of all ages in those charitable activities that make our communities kinder and better places – certainly those are important in addressing morals.
Yet moral deliberation on the major issues today – terrorism, poverty, hunger, war and peace, health services, global commerce – is a rarity in many of our church communities. Whether from fear or hesitation to take a stand, few parishes engage themselves in searching the resources of Scripture and/or church history relative to those issues!
I think the greater reason is our (clergy and laity) lack of education and training regarding morals and ethics and the processes whereby we come to some acceptable stances. There were no classes on either morality or ethics in my seminary days. The same was true in medicine, nursing, law and almost every other area of studies. Rather there was an assumption that the candidates would just be “morally acceptable”. Period.
Certainly such an approach began to change in the healing occupations in the 1980s. Still, even with added courses on ethics the controversy over treatment decisions for Mary Schiavo indicated there is still much to be done.
Morality as an individual is a major challenge. The right and wrong options each of us face daily are manifold – and our choices, as our Lutheran theology affirms, are never 100% “right”.
Morality in politics – that is, in the public arenas of life, is an even greater challenge. In The Moral Choice [Doubleday & Company 1978] Daniel C. Maguire (a Professor at Marquette University) said:
There is a perennial dilemma surrounding the relationship of good politics and good morals… The fact is that it is necessary and moral to do things in politics that would be unjustifiable in the circumstances of private life. In the political sphere, war might have to be waged, punishment inflicted, personal freedoms limited, properties appropriated by way of eminent domain, etc. The political order has exigencies and complexities that have no part of private life. Thus, moral behavior there will be correspondingly more difficult to judge.
The problem is that because it is more difficult, the moral dimension tends to be dropped. As a result, politics often gets done without conscience. Moral values get relegated to “questions of last resort”. Outside of last-resort matters, then, it appears that one enters a moral free zone where conscience can be dropped before entering….The tendency to create this moral vacuum is the prime problem confronting political ethics…
Questions that are important in private morality are more important in politics, because there is so much more power there. Bringing moral values to bear on the uses of power is the soul of the civilizing process and the goal of ethics. (pp. 19-21)
Pastors and congregations ought to challenge each other during the next months to truly engage in moral deliberations. The focus ought not to judge who has the “right” answer or who the “wrong”. More important is to help each other identify the process and processes whereby one arrives at her or his answer.
There are resources available to help.
Go for it – and there will be changes in which all of us can have hope because public involvement is the key to making democracy work.

Sound Doctrine

“For the time is coming when people will not put up with sound doctrine, but having itching ears, they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own desires, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander away to myths.” [2 Timothy 4:3-4]
This was one of the lessons read at the recent Northern Illinois Synod Ordination Service at which three (3) young persons accepted the commitments for service as an ordained clergy in the ELCA. I’m sure it has been reads at countless other Ordination Services – but, for some reasons, it spoke to me with impact this year.
For the time is coming when people will not put up with sound doctrine –
The HarperCollins Study Bible states that the author “regarded this prediction as being fulfilled in his time.” History suggests Paul wrote this while imprisoned, probably in Rome, Friends seemed to have deserted him and death was imminent. Understandable that any of these factors would precipitate a depression – yet interesting that he ties his misfortunate time to the thought that people were rejecting sound doctrine.
Hearing this text – and reminiscing about my 50+ years of ordination – I realized how often it is tempting to project blame for one’s struggles in ministry to the “people”:
- if only “they” were more faithful
- if only “they” were better educated
- if only “they” were not so easily duped by unsound (?) doctrine and myths.
Certainly such “projections” are frequent today as we (ELCA) strive to understand diminishing numbers or to resolve significant differences about biblical teachings or to find better ways of remaining true to values and be honest with the areas of cognitive dissonances that life in the 21st century presents.
I wondered if these young colleagues in ministry realized what challenges they face. Yet, it was no different in 1957 at my ordination. And, as 2 Timothy suggests, the challenges date back to be beginning of the Church (as well as Old Testament passages that suggest these challenges date to the beginning of time).
Interestingly, that thought was comforting.
We do not minister “alone”. Our seminary education gave us tools to use in our challenges – tools of Systematic Theology, Biblical text studies, Church History. These are not “static” resources, memorized by rote. Rather, they are to be used which includes keeping them up-dated. [The same is true for the tools in my garage workshop. Drills are still drills; hammers are still hammers; - but how they have changed over the years and how easily they rust if care is not provided.] Thus, collegiality is not just an elective. Collegiality is a necessity. We keep each other well-tuned and, where indicated, corrected.
Our real challenge is to “be persistent whether the time is favorable or unfavorable (2 Tim 4:2). Success is the responsibility of God!
Later that evening someone asked if, after all these decades, I’d “do it again?” Without hesitation my answer was – and is – YES.
Hopefully I’d make fewer mistakes; do better in honing the skills and maintaining the tools for and of ministry.
Without hesitation, I can think of no other vocation in this age that is more challenging, more needed, and more rewarding than the Ordained Ministry.
[And when I really get bogged down by “their” addictions to unsound doctrine, may the words of Pogo stay with me: I [we} has met the enemy and he is I [us]!

MORAL DELIBERATION AND NEUTRALITY

One of the Resolutions considered by the Northern Illinois Synod [ELCA] at its 2008 Assembly was a “Call for Moral Deliberation”. The many “Whereas” statements preceding the “Resolves” focused on:
The Call of the Gospel to be peacemakers, to repent and to “transform” the world, not “conform” to it.
The repeated role of biblical prophets to “speak truth in love” to the powers & principalities.
Reminder of Bonhoeffer’s instructions to the church to be an active voice for peace.
Reminder of the ELCA social statement For Peace in God’s World and our call to be a “setting of freedom and respect where believers of different perspectives may learn from one another”.
There were two (2) “Resolves”. One was for the Synod, in Assembly, encourage members to enter moral deliberation & discussion concerning our nation’s foreign & military policy. The other was to encourage persons, congregations, clusters et al to become involved in studying a document known as “The Kairos Statement: A Time to Speak and a Time to Act” as well as resources from the ELCA.
There is little doubt that the Kairos Statement takes a definite stand against the U.S. policies as they proceeded to pre-emptive war against Iraq, of the use of brutal treatment of our enemies, and of the growing military budget that necessitates a lower budget for peaceful needs.
That “lack of neutrality” exceedingly bothered some members. There were no discussions as to whether or not we were/are bothered by:
the deceit which led us into a war against Iraq
the loss of more than 4,000 lives and the injuries/trauma to over 25,000 US soldiers
the loss of as many as 100,000 Iraqi lives and untold numbers injured
a cost of billions at a time when our nation and our states are having difficulty funding programs of service to the poor, the homeless, and those in need of healthcare.
Moral deliberation will involve us in “taking sides”! Neutrality, when confronted by evil, [whether it is the evil of 9/11 or the evil of bombing Iraq pre-emptively] is the worst response a Christian can make! It is the “luke-warmness” that Jesus found offensive.
Both the Republican and the Democrat candidates for President are stating that this is a time for change.
Effecting those changes will require the involvement of all citizens in a “moral deliberation” that will be passionate! The congregations and the pastors of the ELCA could play a critical role in these deliberations – provided we are willing to risk moving beyond neutrality.
Dare to believe in your values. This will be a process during which women and men of all persuasions will come from opposing stances. Trust that we can discuss those differences and remain committed to the community of faith to which we have been called.
Let’s have no more calls for neutrality.