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.