I am always amazed and often saddened that "religious" people can be so blind to the heart of their claimed faith and live so contrarily to its core and example. I have to speak to Christianity because that is my background, but it does not have a corner on the market of hypocricy and ignorance.
Would someone please tell me how anyone who claims to follow Jesus of Nazareth can be so consumed with guns and violence. How do you distort the call/invitation to love God and love the neighbor into consumption of weapons and ammunition. How do you ignore the call to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick, house the homeless and then prepare oneself for death and destruction. How do you twist humility into aggression. How do you redefine service as selfish isolation. How do you pray for God's kingdom to come on earth as it is in heaven and go about preparing for armaggadden and actively advocating violence and insurrection. [That same Bible they read admonishes submission to earthly powers-----and does not call them "communist" and a multitude of other derogatory lies.]
Matthew invites hearers to enter God's kingdom and live in service. Mark asks hearers to suffer like Jesus giving life and limb for the weak and defenceless. Luke is the clearest voice for social justice in the gospels. John shows us in Jesus' washing feet how to humble ourselves in service to others. Living in God's kingdom is being fear-less, self-less, love-full, trusting, knowing that this is an imperfect world but hoping that as we strive to be God's hands and feet we faith-fully share in that dream.
A YES to God is a NO to violence, hatred, and prejudice.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Monday, January 14, 2013
Moral values in the public arena
One of the most astutue and insightful pieces of political philosophy I have read recently is Michael Sandel's Justice. I highly recommend it to you. It is well written, in lay people's language, and argued with clarity and passion.
In it Sandel compares and contrasts three positions that are at work in contemporary political/social dialogue. The first two, utilitarianism and libertarianism, are driving the polarization in today's environment. Do not be turned off by big, philosophical labels if you are unfamiliar with them. Simply stated the former argues for the will of the majority (the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people) and the latter argues for laissez faire, free market rules. Or in Sandel's terms, welfare and freedom of choice. He does a masterful job illustrating the positive (benefits) and negative (shortcomings) aspects of each. But then he reminds us of ancient, Aristotelian ethics and invites us to a restoration of virtue and honor as guiding values in today's contentious debates.
I have argued in earlier blogs against the first two positions, and honestly probably more strongly against libertarianism. But I have tried, then and now, to insist on a place for morality and virtue in guiding public policy making. I firmly agree with Sandel on the necessity of a moral basis for decision making, and with him, I do not claim to occupy the moral high ground in every instance. I believe there are good moral people on both sides of practically every debate. I do not think or expect that one side is always going to have the correct, moral answer. But there should be a respectful, vigorous moral debate in the public arena. I reject the "rights" claim of moral superiority. I reject the "lefts" abandoning of moral values and principles in public decision making.
I agree with the Danish Christian existentialist Soren Kiergegaard, "every decision is a moral decision." Join the debate. Silence is complicity.
In it Sandel compares and contrasts three positions that are at work in contemporary political/social dialogue. The first two, utilitarianism and libertarianism, are driving the polarization in today's environment. Do not be turned off by big, philosophical labels if you are unfamiliar with them. Simply stated the former argues for the will of the majority (the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people) and the latter argues for laissez faire, free market rules. Or in Sandel's terms, welfare and freedom of choice. He does a masterful job illustrating the positive (benefits) and negative (shortcomings) aspects of each. But then he reminds us of ancient, Aristotelian ethics and invites us to a restoration of virtue and honor as guiding values in today's contentious debates.
I have argued in earlier blogs against the first two positions, and honestly probably more strongly against libertarianism. But I have tried, then and now, to insist on a place for morality and virtue in guiding public policy making. I firmly agree with Sandel on the necessity of a moral basis for decision making, and with him, I do not claim to occupy the moral high ground in every instance. I believe there are good moral people on both sides of practically every debate. I do not think or expect that one side is always going to have the correct, moral answer. But there should be a respectful, vigorous moral debate in the public arena. I reject the "rights" claim of moral superiority. I reject the "lefts" abandoning of moral values and principles in public decision making.
I agree with the Danish Christian existentialist Soren Kiergegaard, "every decision is a moral decision." Join the debate. Silence is complicity.
Sunday, January 6, 2013
Church and Culture
As if we needed to be reminded or shown for the first time, the discussion over gun control after the tragedy at Sandy Hook and the fiasco in Washington over the holidays are just two examples of the fact that the American "church" has renounced its core values and succombed to the values of the culture around it. It is absolutely inconceivable to me that "religious" people can seriously defend the arming of the public, increasing access to semi-automatic weapons, and, with a straight face, say that this is the "Christian" thing to do. It is inconceivable to me that so-called religious people can claim that this country was founded as a Christian nation, claiming to base their lives on the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, and elect and support leaders who would balance a budget on the backs of the sick, the poor, the marginalized, the stranger/immigrants while endorsing and favoring the wealthiest 1%
of our population. It is inconceivable to me that the Tea Party, the Republican Party, and over 60% of Americans are so stupid as to take the Bible literally, denying biological evolution, and run on platforms of anti-intellectualism and anti-feminism and flagrant militarism. And racism continues to fuel their hatred of Obama!
Where is the church? Where are those who claim to follow Jesus of Nazareth? Where are Jews, Muslims, and all others claiming alligiance to the Unknown grounded in love and compassion?
The Darkness is not coming----it is here. Silence is complicity.
People of good will, people of faith, whatever your tradition, be the light where you are. Speak for truth. As Mother Theresa said, we are not called to be successful; we are called to be faithful.
Peace
of our population. It is inconceivable to me that the Tea Party, the Republican Party, and over 60% of Americans are so stupid as to take the Bible literally, denying biological evolution, and run on platforms of anti-intellectualism and anti-feminism and flagrant militarism. And racism continues to fuel their hatred of Obama!
Where is the church? Where are those who claim to follow Jesus of Nazareth? Where are Jews, Muslims, and all others claiming alligiance to the Unknown grounded in love and compassion?
The Darkness is not coming----it is here. Silence is complicity.
People of good will, people of faith, whatever your tradition, be the light where you are. Speak for truth. As Mother Theresa said, we are not called to be successful; we are called to be faithful.
Peace
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)