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.