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.