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!