Balance, Compromise, Action, Apathy

I hear a lot about balance and compromise lately, especially in light of the ever increasing polarized political climate we find ourselves in.

Recently, parents across the country became angry when the President wanted to address the nation’s schoolchildren via television. Right-wing parents screamed that this was an attempt to “indoctrinate” their children in “socialism” and pulled them out of class in droves. That the President only wanted to speak of the value of education and hard work was irrelevant. Then came the infamous “You lie!” shout during Obama’s health care address. Even though the point Obama was making was proven true by independent political watch groups, reform opponents refuse to deny the “liar” claim even if many of them do agree that the way it was voiced during the speech was inappropriate.

So why rehash this now? Everyone else has already mentioned these things. I noticed a few facebook friends had linked an article by Pat Buchanan to their pages, and normally I’d avoid Buchanan’s opinion at any cost but I decided to give it a read. The piece, published on the web on September the 10th is titled “Is America Coming Apart?”  Buchanan makes a few good points, rightly pointing out that when G.H.W. Bush went to a school in 1991 the left freaked out, and went on to mention that those of us on different sides of the “big issues” (like abortion, gay rights, environmental protection and conservation, etc.) tend to label our position much more nobly than our opponents label it and term their position in a much more derogatory term as well. Buchanan goes on to make various observations about cultural and political issues he feels further polarize us today. Oddly enough, he at one point laments that we’ve replaced “heroes” like Robert E. Lee with people like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. I have major problems with the idea that it’s a bad thing to replace Lee with King as a modern hero, and I find it silly that King should be considered “polarizing” when the things he stood and worked for are good for all of us, but that’s another issue altogether.

 Buchanan seems to think that we now have diversity but not unity. Those of us who feel drawn to do work that seeks to help people, to help society, to build things up and those of us with spiritual and/or religious lives, feel a need to be open, tolerant and to seek unity. But some people seem to think this means we must be more “balanced.” I follow that we should speak with respect, debate with care and love those we don’t agree with. Yet I feel it’s worth pointing out that we can’t seek peaceful balance at the cost of mediocrity or apathy. Buchanan asks “where is the unity?” in a way that suggests that we once all got along much more civilly from both sides. I grant him that with the advent of openly biased 24 hour news networks like Fox News and MSNBC, the proliferation of politics on the internet and a slew of amped up anger and judgment, things are more vocally polarized. Yet there have always been universal differences in the right and the left. If in the past those that strove to bring about equality and justice through the civil rights movement, the women’s movement and various peace movements in our country had been too concerned with peaceful balance, progress would never have been made. I stress that peace was necessary– Dr. King used pacifism and nonviolent protest to accomplish his mission. Yet the idea he should have had to “compromise” with the Alabama government without offending their beliefs that African Americans shouldn’t have the same rights as whites seems absurd.

We can have respect for others as people without compromising our beliefs on issues that are very important-take the health care debate. There are hard facts involved. The World Health Organization ranked the US 37th out of 191 on the list of all health care systems in the world in 2008. France was ranked at number 1. Yet despite this FACT, those on the right argue we have nothing to take from the system France uses and that the system they use is really worse than ours because it is “socialism,” the latest hip disparaging word used by a sector of the right that really have no comprehension of what socialism. The struggle to be bi-partisan, to reach across the aisle and to compromise in this health care debate is seemingly fruitless. There is no compromise, because those on the right don’t see a need for reform.

I struggle with knowing how to draw the line. There are people that I love and respect that I don’t see eye to eye on over many issues. Yet when it comes to speaking out on, writing about and working towards positive change and progress on these issues, I feel I can’t be overly concerned with being “balanced” if it means balancing fact, compassion, justice, hope and progress with misinformation, hysteria, prejudice, greed and selfishness. The current health care debate affects the health, wealth, well-being and security of millions of Americans. Any of us making less than $50,000 a year, even with health insurance, aren’t secure under the current system because one serious injury or illness could easily result in bankruptcy for us. Yet to speak these things is considered “polarizing.” What about the environmental issues, as Buchanan mentions? Despite conclusive and repeated studies and warnings from every major scientific mind in the world that state that unless major changes are made we will irreparably harm the planet, must we still “debate” and compromise over that as well, at the cost of all future generations? What about issues concerning women, immigrant, minority and gay rights? Must we compromise that some of these people simply do not deserve all of the rights the rest of us have?

 That ‘s where I see the urging for balance as being misguided. I wholeheartedly agree that we should speak to those on the other side of issues with care, respect and compassion. I agree we should be friends with those that share completely different political and religious ideals than us. We can always learn from them, they can always learn from us. A dialogue and a friendship can provide all of us with a better understanding of the “Other.” Besides, outside of politics and religion, surely we have plenty else to talk about with our fellow human beings in friendship. But, on these issues that affect health, justice, love and equality we must not be afraid to speak, write and work towards a better tomorrow. When facts don’t work to persuade the opposition, non-violent action and devotion might. I remind myself that, according to the Christian scriptures and ideas, even Jesus got angry. When? Anytime an issue of justice came up. Jesus loved and spoke with all, regardless of their personal sins and flaws. He befriended and cared for everyone on a human level. Yet he had no patience for any system , belief or practice that oppressed the “other.” If government, religion or marketplace devalued the rights of the poor, the different, the immigrant, the overlooked, Jesus spoke out. Most other major figures from the enduring world religions and philosophies did this as well. Would they compromise their opinion on justice so as not to trouble or offend anyone?

Definition of a Prophet

In light of the work of Dr. Cornel West ( I recently read his book “Race Matters”) and an article from a current issue of “The American Journal of Theology and Philosophy” by Gary Dorrien,  I’ve been pondering what a true “prophet” is, who some examples in our past are, and the (possible) absence of current examples in our society today.

Contrary to the perception most people have when they hear the word “prophet,” a prophet is not a fortune teller or prediction giver, at least not in a magical sense. Of course, a true prophet may well be able to tell what will happen to their current society if certain changes are not made but it’s not a parlor trick.

A person can be a prophet of rage; a prophet of justice. A prophet of truth, revelation, social gospel, love or peace. Most often a prophet will be a mixture of all of these things. Prophets may be teachers, preachers, rabbis, clerics, doctors, thinkers or writers. They may be singers, poets, artists or activists. They may be religious or irreligious. Pious or plagued by bad habits. Many prophets don’t live full lives; society has a way of using violence to remove them.

Prophets seek truth, regardless of how that truth will be received by those that hear it. Prophets are consumed with purpose, driven by genuine emotion and spirituality. Prophets have connection to the past and a vision for the future. Prophets seek the advance and fulfillment of the entire group, culture and ultimately of all people. Prophets aren’t figures confined just to ancient history and scriptures. Certainly there were figures from those sources: Abraham, Moses, Ezekiel, Elijah and Elisha, Amos, Jesus, Paul, Buddha, Muhammad (for many people), etc.  But in more recent history there have been plenty more: Gandhi, the Dali Lama, Dr. King, Malcolm X, Harvey Milk.

We need Prophetic figures, certainly. Yet we need Prophetic Movements and Prophetic Religion for those figures to emerge from (or perhaps start?).  Such a religion, church or movement calls out greed, apathy, disregard, waste, prejudice, subjugation and hatred wherever it sees it. Such a movement seeks justice, equality, love and progress everywhere. Such spirituality is more concerned with people than dogma, spiritual fulfillment than pious regulation, love rather than misplaced judgment. Of course, judgment pours forth from a prophetic movement but rarely towards specific individuals (unless that individual is a political or religious leader) for specific missteps, but rather towards entire cultures, countries and groups (usually from which the prophet emerged from—critique from within) for their lack of effort toward justice, their acts of oppression, their mistreatment of those with the least…almost every single Prophet in history has called out nations for their mistreatment of the poor.

Okay. What brings in the recent article from the AJTP is that it concerns “liberal Christianity,” which other writers have more accurately captured with the name “Progressive Christianity.” Gary Dorrien published “The Crisis and Necessity of Liberal Theology” in the spring issue of the above mentioned journal. He describes the history of liberal theology and progressive Christianity which in modern forms was predominant in many areas of the country throughout the 1800s and up to the 1930s. The great Depression and the culmination of two world wars reduced its popularity at a time when many people wanted a more concrete, definitive, and unquestioning and strictly rooted religion. The modern problem facing progressive theology and Christianity is, to paraphrase Dorrien from his article, that it’s too religious and spiritually minded for our secular friends who we may otherwise share opinions with on the social issues facing us, it’s too full of openness, doubt, searching and interpretation for our more orthodox traditional Christian counterparts, and it’s too wordy, complex and academic for those that are unversed in philosophy, theology and academia. Dorrien noted that most of us enamored with Liberal Theology feel that Progressive Christianity would spread tremendously if only we could express its message more succinctly, truly and simply. Yet, he writes, it’s wrong to think droves would “flock to our doors” if only we could better express our beliefs. Most people DON”T WANT a Prophetic Religion that seeks to address social change and progress. Most people want a religion that acts as a personal security blanket, reinforcing pre existing thoughts, beliefs and prejudices. But as Cornell West calls out for in his writings, we need those prophets to enlighten those that don’t even seek such progress. We’ve had them throughout history and we’ve made great steps in their wake. When they’re not here we grow complacent. Yet as West writes, we can’t look towards a single person speaking prophetically and say we’ve got it. We must have that entire movement. For there surely are voices crying out now that speak the truth that seek to transform communities, culture and countries. In very recent years West himself as been such a person as well as Noam Chomsky, Ralph Nader, Barbara Ehrenreich, Toni Morrison, Maya Angelou, Nikki Giovanni, Marcus Borg…the list can go on and on and include writers, musicians, poets, teachers and preachers who maybe don’t always live in and think of themselves as prophets, but seize certain prophetic truths and address them to entire groups of people in the hopes of causing positive change. Yet we need an energized movement that speaks to more people and inspires them to do more for others; the more people inspired to do even a little more is like water rolling down hill, the work done for others may inspire some of them to get involved themselves. The point is, we live at a time when drastic prophetic social change truly can occur. We’ve been stuck at a point in which it was possible for some time now, yet it really hasn’t happened. Dorrien may be write that Progressive Christianity may never be fully widespread, and that’s okay. If it’s a niche corner, then it needs to be a strong niche corner in which good work is done, truth is spoken and it needs to partner with like minded niche corners in every sector, religious or irreligious, secular and spiritual, political or communal.

She Said “I Want Some of That Hellfire and Brimstone Stuff”

Okay. I’ve put off this article for awhile. I’ve touched on it several times in other pieces on my site and I’ve spoken of it countless times with friends but I’ve never put it all into one concise article before. But here goes, I’ll try.

“I want some of that old hellfire and brimstone stuff,” a 20-something woman I used to work with once said. She was visiting different churches and when I asked her what she was looking for, that’s what she told me. I thought she was joking. “That’s what you really want?” I asked.
“Well, not for me personally, like I don’t want hellfire and brimstone! I want to hear it in the sermons at church though!”

So, she was saying she didn’t want to experience it herself, but she wanted to hear about it in the sermons preachers gave on Sunday morning when she went to church. She certainly didn’t want to go to hell, but she wanted to hear about how others were going to go there, she wanted to hear about the fire, the gnashing of teeth, the wailing, the violence that would be inflicted on those that don’t believe what she believes. Well, at least she was honest, I’ll give her that. Many people subscribe to a belief in a literal, violent, flaming hell in which everyone who isn’t  a factual-literalist conservative Christian will go to. These people may believe in such a place for a multitude of reasons, many quite innocently. They may think that to be a true Christian you have to believe in such a thing. They may be Biblical literalists that ignore the near absence of a literal hell in the Hebrew Old/First Testament and focus on every parable, reference to Sheol and seemingly actual reference to an eternal pit of fire from the New Testament and apply it to their current lives with fervor. The church has grown significantly in historical periods in which the fear of hell was invoked with the most fervor. The early tent-revival explosion of the early 20th Century owes a large debt to hellfire and brimstone (as well as Rapture theology). For many, it’s fear of hell that initially “converts them” and it’s fear of hell that leads them to evangelize to others to seek their conversion—honestly, if you truly feel that your best friend will writhe in eternal torment if he doesn’t pray the same prayer to Jesus that you did, you’ll spend every waking moment trying to convince him to say that prayer, right? If you truly, deeply believe that you will.

I don’t buy it. Many other Christians don’t buy it either. Let’s take a look at some other ways of looking at this for awhile.

In two recent articles, “Why Church? Why Christianity? + ‘The Heart of Christianity’  by Marcus Borg” and “Salvation,” I tackled other ways of viewing Salvation, the Christian mission and why church and Christianity are and can still be relevant. I mentioned arguments that attempt to deflate Christian exclusivism. So if I believe other Religions have a valid tie to salvation even though I myself hold to Christianity, do I believe that anyone goes to hell? People always throw Hitler out to get hell deniers to concede a point. Yes, what Hitler did was atrocious. But, could anyone who was truly whole, full and complete have believed as he did and done as he did? Something was missing from him at his very core, for whatever reasons and contributing factors. Does that mean he will forever suffer as a result of that, when (and I’m not saying this as a certainty, just a suggestion) what drove him to be so monstrous may have been at least somewhat out of his own hands, in some way? Some Muslims believe that many of us go to hell and “burn off” our sins and transgressions and then proceed to paradise. I can see that more than I can an eternal hell. If God “punishes” humans, isn’t the point of the punishment to cause the person to modify their behavior, change their viewpoint or to grow as a person? If the person is eternally in hell there can be no modification, change or growth. Of course, many Christians don’t believe God chooses to literally “punish” people, yet that’s another issue altogether. But for those many who do believe God may sometimes choose to punish humans in order to grow them, where does that leave hell? I imagine most would say that hell is a last resort, a place for all of those who refused to accept Christ despite their many chances in life to do so. Well, what about all of the millions of folks born, raised and rooted in Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Taoism or Sikhism?  Sure, they can hear about Christ through missionaries. Yet will they be prone to accept him? How prone are we as natively born Christians in America to adopt Buddhism or Islam? We can say that we aren’t very likely to do so because we have the “right” God and doctrines. Yet we have the luxury to say that by feeling so comfortable in our scriptures and traditions, and we would most likely be as such in one of the other enduring world religions had we been born elsewhere or at a different time in history. Marcus Borg once wrote that if we believe that only one religion is right and that there is only one true way to get to heaven, it’s awfully convenient that it’s the tradition we ourselves are born in.

That’s the thing. We as humans love to sort everyone  out into “the saved and the damned.” We desire to classify huge numbers of people as an out-group so that we ourselves can be part of an in-group. Humans do this in grade schools, church groups, workplaces and prisons alike. If we can convince ourselves with utter certainty that our way is right, many of us feel we must identify all other ways as wrong. After all, what’s so special about heaven if everyone gets to go?
That belief makes heaven a prize we have earned through proper beliefs. Heck, if it’s all about proper belief proper action becomes irrelevant. Many that hold this belief do begin to emphasize proper action with the concern that it shows the believer to be authentic, but usually in the personal morality sense. We must act right if we’re truly believe right, but righteous social concerns are often still irrelevant for this group.

It’s important to stress that there are many different ways of looking at the concept of hell and that more than one of these viewpoints are valid within the Christian tradition. Christ himself rarely mentioned the afterlife at all, heaven or hell. He was most concerned about the world here and now: how we treat each other, how we act, live and interact in groups, how we honor God, ourselves and our neighbors. His primary message was concerned with the Kingdom of God, a system very much rooted in present, real life. Often when Jesus mentioned Hell the actual Hebrew term was Sheol. Sheol can be modernly translated as “abode of the dead,” “death” or “the grave.” It often meant simply physical death, the end. It other times was used to imply a “second death,” an ultimate and final end. In the books of Ecclesiastes and Job, Sheol referred to the final destination of both the just and righteous as well as the unjust and unrighteous alike. Jesus used Sheol in parables that linked it to the pits outside of the cities in the Roman empire where trash was hauled and burnt, completely evaporated until nothing was left. This and the concept of a second death both point more to “oblivion” than “eternal punishment.” One major way of looking at hell is this idea of a second death. In this view, those that live, believe and cultivate a spiritual life and core continue on after death, growing and becoming whole. Those that have no spiritual side in life don’t suddenly gain one in death. Those that reject all eternal belief thus will themselves to this “second death,” this eternal oblivion. When Hebrew texts were translated into Greek, many such uses of “Sheol” were substituted with “Hades,” and from there it later became Hell, and once Hell caught on as such a fear tactic and conversion inspiration, it stayed. It was the bread and butter of an entire evangelical movement of Christianity within the United States at the turn of the 20th century.

Also of note is that the majority of popular perceptions of hell come from admittedly fictional works. Dante’s “Inferno” most famously. Christian scriptures don’t literally describe hell, what most people assume comes from scripture on this subject really come from Dante and sermons of early Puritan and traveling evangelist sermons.
Which is not to say that there isn’t any basis for the most persistent views of hell within scriptures. Of course there’s basis for such a viewpoint, it’s been a predominant Christian viewpoint for hundreds of years. But it really boils down to what most other modern theological debates boil down to: how you view scripture interpretation. You either find it to be literal/factual or historical/metaphorical, which affects almost every other issue coming forth from it.

It’s really not of the utmost importance that progressive Christianity goes on a battle to dispel and remove all concepts of hell from modern Christianity. That’s not necessary. But it is important that we step back and take stock of the different views out there. Most importantly we need to think before we ever consign entire groups of people to hell. God is compassionate, forgiving, loving, all-encompassing and divine. He’s not petty, cruel or joyous over inflicting pain. The arguments for inclusivity are numerous, there are so many common-sense approaches that leave room for those of all religious stripes to find a seat at the table and do the earthly work of God’s kingdom in their own way, in their own culture and with their own scriptures. Yes, there are some people that seem to reject all forms of love, compassion and forgiveness. There are people that do horribly heinous things with clear minds and no discernible defects. Are such people still privy to a continuing life after death or any type of “paradise?” It seems odd to think so. For that reason I myself still find room in my theology for some type of what many would call hell, but I don’t perceive a loving compassionate God as making it a place of agony, or making it a place at all for that matter. I think the earliest perceptions of Sheol are the most fitting. Those that reject peace in life and form no spiritual core are apt to “wink out,” to fade away. Then again, there’s no clear teaching from Jesus what heaven is like either. The main point this should show those of us that call ourselves Christians is that far more important than the afterlife is the here and now. “Let the dead bury the dead,” Jesus is said to have stated in Matthew’s gospel. What matters is now, the afterlife however it may be and whatever form it may take will take care of itself someday. Christianity is based around the person of Jesus and Jesus’ concern was ushering in the Kingdom of God through charity and peaceful, nonviolent justice on earth. “A new heaven and a new earth,” isn’t some other dimension but rather a transformed world that we are to work towards. Hell shouldn’t be a threat to scare others into saying a certain prayer and then relaxing at home no longer afraid. What good does that lend the Kingdom of God? Why would God instill a system that’s all about humanity believing proper doctrine without bothering to do righteous action?

This issue isn’t fully encapsulated here, I realize. It’s a weighty issue, and there are many great ways of looking at it from Islam, Buddhist and Jewish world views that help shed some light on what it universally is. I think it’s safe to say that most point to it being almost something we make for ourselves by not allowing ourselves to reach our full potential and purpose in creation, working within and living inside of God itself. So really, if anyone is truly concerned with hell they’re already on the path to overcoming it if they haven’t fully done so yet.

Why Church? Why Christianity? + Marcus Borg’s “Heart of Christianity”

A few weeks ago, I posted an article titled “Salvation” on my blog. Someone I know commented that they liked what I had to say on most of the points, but being agnostic they asked me to answer for them two significant “whys.” Following and agreeing on the call to social justice, compassion, education, spirituality why must “church,” “Christianity,” and “hell” be invoked and used as relevant concepts as part of the deal? First off, “hell” in the traditional sense is pretty irrelevant to the point but I’ll deal with that in another article sometime.

While thinking about the other two terms, which I do find to be relevant and important parts of this ideal, I happened to read “The Heart of Christianity” by Marcus Borg. I can’t recommend it highly enough, he succinctly and efficiently makes all of the best points I tried to make in my “Salvation” article as well as all the points I hope to make here. He does it clearly, understandably and compassionately. So if you’re interested in progressive Christianity, what Borg terms “the emerging paradigm,” seek out that book. Heck, if you’re a happy traditional Christian read it as well, Borg does his best to find common ground for all Christians and aims to build a bridge between both camps (one point he makes is that we should all quit arguing on literality, if something “actually happened“ and focus instead on what each thing really means). At least you’ll get a good overview of some of the other ways of looking at things you may never have considered before from someone with the work experience and scholarly credentials to support his positions.

Okay. So to start with, why is “Christianity” important. After all, if you feel called to work for the cause of peace, justice and compassion you can do so as a member of any religion or of no religion whatsoever. Many times throughout history organized religion has even worked intensely against peace, justice and compassion. Borg focuses on deflating Christian exclusivism at several points in “Heart…” He even takes the few (for there are really only a few passages in which Christianity is stated as being the exclusively right and only way) and approaches them in a new light. In John’s gospel the famous verse that conservative Christians use to defend Christian exclusivism has Jesus saying “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” Borg points out that John’s gospel is one of incarnational theology. Jesus is “Word made flesh,” and so he is “‘the way made flesh.’ the path embodied in a life…what is ‘the way’ that Jesus is?” Borg writes, “For John ‘the way’ embodied in Jesus is the path of death and resurrection. Dying and rising is the only way to God. Christian exclusivism understands this verse to mean that you must know Jesus in order to be saved. But ‘the way’ that John speaks of is not about believing doctrines about Jesus. Rather, it is what we see incarnate in Jesus: the path of death and resurrection as the way to rebirth in God. According to John this is the only way…it is ‘the way’ spoken of by all major religions of the world. Dying and rising is the way. Thus Jesus is “the Way”–the way became flesh…his life and death are the incarnation of a universal way known in all of the enduring religions.”

Borg attempts to deflate exclusivism in many other ways in his book yet also emphasizes the importance and his personal love of and practice in Christianity. So if Christianity isn’t believed to only be about getting to heaven and avoiding hell and it is no longer believed to the only absolute way of reaching our potential and our “salvation,” does that make those of us who feel strongly that it is what is right for us as individuals and good for the world when practiced compassionately foolish or does that make us more sincere since the decision to participate in it doesn’t come from fear or compulsion? Furthermore, why do we find it the right way at this point? I like the anecdote Borg recounts concerning an American meeting the Dali Lama and asking him if he should convert to Buddhism. The Dali Lama told him no and advised him to “stick where your roots are the deepest.” It’s better to have one well dug 50 feet deep than 50 wells dug a foot deep each.

For Progressive Christians in the US, our roots are deepest in the Christian tradition. We are familiar and comfortable in its creeds, hymns, iconography, scriptures, prayers and base. We probably would have been more comfortable with Islam or Judaism if we were born with a faithful base in such, but we weren’t. Yet we recognize the truth at the heart of this tradition, in the person of Jesus and in the scriptures and traditions that emerged from those who were inspired by him. In the church as a force for social justice and compassion in the world if only it can live up to its full potential. Why Christianity? Because as my priest once said, “for me it’s simply where the points line up most fully,” where I can feel myself most in line with God and what I can be and should do.

Why Church? Because although I may not always agree with every person in a pew beside me on every theological and social issue I can still be inspired by the music, prayers, creeds, sacraments and sermons. I prefer a broad, open liberal faith in which I am free to read, think, ponder, doubt and question anything set before me but also that provides me with a link to history and tradition that makes those practices become less about the specific words and doctrines and more about opening the heart to possibility and the mind to inspiration. If the church strives to live up to its potential, as I outlined in an article on this site a few months back, it will be a place of great things. Brian McClaren writes in his book “The Secret Message of Jesus” that a local church should be a place that where at any given time you stumble into it there may be people praying silently in the chapel, students debating philosophy in the classroom, workers serving hot meals to the homeless in the kitchen, adult professionals on their time off planning local and foreign aid to necessary social concerns, people hearing a sermon that both inspires and edifies them while also challenging them to more that they expect. It should be and can be all of these things. Why church? Because as much as we as individuals may feel strongly about, think about and say we plan to do something about important social and community issues we may not stay on ourselves to follow through on them and we may find it difficult to act on such plans without proper resources. A community of like-minded individuals can support, challenge and work side by side to accomplish these types of things as well as have the resources to back them. Of course charitable organizations and clubs can do these things to, so church isn’t the only way for that side of it. Yet equally important is personal edification, inspiration and challenge. We can get a lot of this through personal study and mediation, yet hearing from other perspectives opens our minds to ways we on our own might not have considered. That tie to history and community can open doors and link us to a place outside of ourselves as well. By pointedly leaving our own daily lives to visit a place that aims for a more vertical than lateral approach that is rich in iconography and ritual can help us elevate our hearts. Now I know it takes commitment, which draws many away. Let’s face it, if we work all week and Sunday is our only day off we aren’t always going to want to devote a portion of it to the church for whatever reason. That’s why it should never be viewed as a place where an attendance record is kept like a grade school or a place where we feel pressured to go to every week whether we feel like it or not. No, it should be a place where we feel comfortable to go to once a week or once a month, establishing our own regularity as we feel comfortable to it. Sometimes people want to spend that time with family, in nature or in private study and personal reflection…and that’s good. Yet it should always be there for us, and the deeper some of us get into it the more facets of it we may find ourselves utilizing.

Yes, people in groups can be just as misguided as individuals if not more so. Yes, organized religion in all countries has historical periods of guilt and persecution. Yet the terms “Christian’ and “Church” are still relevant to the modern world and to the works of justice and compassion. The more progressive, thoughtful and varied people that can enter into them can only cause these systems to be more as they truly should be.

Salvation

Recruitment. Conversion. Uniform lifestyles, in-line opinions, conformed worldviews. Membership, belonging, being part of the in-group, tribe, community or church. Salvation?
In case you don’t know, I do not believe that last term belongs in a list of the terms that precede it. Meaning, “salvation” is not synonymous with belonging to a group or adopting an exact worldview.
I would argue that salvation is not a term for a momentary singular moment in which suddenly someone is adopted into a large spiritual family either. Salvation isn’t the reward for praying the right prayer or reciting the right doctrine or interpreting a religious scripture in the exact way as another has.

“Salvation” is a blanket term for something that is hard to describe succinctly. Salvation merely captures the essence as best as an English word (a human word for that matter) can. Yet it also means exactly what it infers. It’s a transformation, a lifted burden, a successful rescue. It’s when one finds what one has been missing, that moment or series of moments when the culmination of searching, pondering, questioning and struggling to make sense of life and the world all line up to give that person a sense of fulfillment, peace, guidance and direction.

It’s not about heaven, not really, at least not entirely. It’s certainly not about escaping a literal, physical place called “hell.” When I was a child I was scared to death of hell, so many church sermons and Sunday school classes convinced me that even as a young kid I was so rotten and misguided that I was hell bound, and that no matter how many times I prayed the right prayer, walked the aisle or got baptized, I never felt secure that I truly believed deeply and rightly enough to dodge the flames of hell. Then I got older, became more cynical, more doubting, a little more rebellious. I soon stripped all of those fears and spiritual insecurities from myself and for a time got over religion altogether. For many, that’s where it ends. A lot of people that are exposed early on to the “hellfire and brimstone” style of preaching turn away. They find such simplistic concepts of heaven, hell, salvation and damnation as out-of-touch and unrealistic and cringe over such stark black and white legalistic codes of morality. They don’t really know of any other version of Christianity, many probably assume the more liberal versions of it are just a softened and more PC version of what they grew up with, and these people are often pretty sure that since the supposed “pure” form of it that they were exposed to is hogwash, any “diluted” form of it is as well.

So as not to recap a lot of impertinent information for this article, I’ll briefly say that despite periods of doubt, cynicism, skepticism and anger at the establishment of modern American Christianity, I’ve always been interested in religion, theology and philosophy and that my searching eventually led me back to it, yet in a much different manner. I’ve written on this site many times about differences between moderate, liberal or traditional Christianity versus conservative, fundamentalist and legalistic Christianity. I’ve written of the multiple Christs that people create from their studies and worship. Yet as I grow deeper into my personal spiritual life, through study, reflection, education, worship and thought, I find a more solid, real perception of salvation, one in which I never fully grasped as a younger person. Salvation as I’ve said here and in other pieces, isn’t a “get out of hell free” card.

If you read my recent post, “The Church as it Could be: Social Justice Hub,” parts of this may sound like I’m beating that same topic to death, but I can’t help it, it seems so important to me. In the past two centuries Christians in America have been the primary “in group,” the group of folks who had such status that any negation of rights seems treasonous. Yet Christians started out as a subversive, alternative and persecuted group. After the Roman Empire, who had been the primary persecutor and opponent of Christ followers adopted Christianity as official national religion, the violence that Christianity so opposed suddenly began to be used to expand it. Now, of course in America it hasn’t been done that way. Yet in a land of civil liberties, religious freedom and encouraged tolerance most Christians haven’t experienced true persecution, intolerance and the like. So, fundamentalist preachers invent that sense of persecution. “The Government doesn’t support us.” Well, they shouldn’t. Separation of church and state is good for both church and state and historically supported by both. Not to mention that even when the government that is in power is a just, morally responsible one that most church members would be supportive of, the church still must exist wholly outside of government. Government and empire are polar opposites in that they are the established normalcy of civilization that the church is called to stand outside to urge toward just action and criticize for unjust action, always remain apart….remember, Rome was “the beast numbered with 666.” Empire is a form of antichrist….nothing more, nothing less.

The imagined persecution as perceived by the fundamentalists goes further. “The education system doesn’t respect us. We send our Christian children to college and they become liberal, anti-Christian.” This perception has created an irrational, eerie fear of education amongst religious fundamentalists. It’s gone so far that fundamentalists churches refuse to consider anyone who has received religious training, education and preparation from a seminary or state university as an applicant for a pastor at their church. Furthermore, in many areas of the country churches have formed “Kingdom Schools,” alternative “Christian” schools that they state exist to train their young to have the same beliefs, share the same doctrines and work in the same manner that they do. No longer do these schools attempt to prepare their children for state universities, universities that will “liberalize” and change them and send them away from their communities. Now they prepare them to step into their own community with the same opinions and values as their parents, right or wrong.
“The Media and pop culture deride us and persecute us.” Well, even though I am an ardent fan of quality pop culture, music, film, television, books or magazines I realize that pop culture and mass media are a reflection of society and it’s people. So, not even accounting for the poorly made garbage containing bad values or poor quality, even the best and most entertaining work still exists as a product of “normal” society. So although Christians may very well enjoy and love much of what comes to them through pop culture, they should always realize that it’s not supposed to express their values, beliefs and perceptions. It may echo them occasionally, sometimes it may capture the heart of it completely (and almost every time I’ve ever seen this happen in art, music or film it has come from established mainstream media and culture, not from so-called “Christian entertainment’ which usually exists to reinforce a small portion of Christianity and to exclude and separate Christians from the rest of the world rather than incorporate them with their fellow human). Christians in America, at least in fundamentalist camp, have forgotten that they aren’t meant to be the “in-group.” They shouldn’t depend on society, government, media or pop culture to prop them up, reinforce their opinions and applaud them.

The past few paragraphs probably seem like a detour since I’m discussing the concept of salvation, but I think it’s central to the issue. Christians that look for acknowledgement, respect and support from all of the above listed institutions are missing the point. Salvation is a release from desiring the support of those institutions. Salvation is a freeing of the mind, a renewing of the spirit. It’s a dying to the old ways of empire, society, wealth, and war and a rising to the ways of love, compassion, peace and nonviolent justice. In the early years, Christians faced real persecution. The kind that consisted of being beaten, beheaded and crucified, not made fun of in a Hollywood comedy film. The law of the land was stacked against their best interest, they were downtrodden, seen as threats to Roman security. Much different than a mere senate ruling that goes against a conservative pet issue (and then gets inflated and badly exaggerated from the pulpit).

A lot is made of England and western Europe being “post Christian” now. In England, only about 13 percent of the population attends any sort of Christian church on any type of basis. After decades of swelling, some have predicted that things would begin moving in that direction in the states as well. I can’t help but think that 13 percent, in England and in the states, is probably much closer to reality anyway. True Christianity is a minority, because it’s demanding, difficult and alternative. It’s a minority mindset, practice and lifestyle. Now, I don’t say this in the sense that some fundamentalists do. Many famous fundamentalists have stated that only a small percentage of their congregations are actually “saved.” I’m not stating that. I don’t consider only 13 percent “saved” in that sense. Of course, I don’t consider evangelicals, conservatives, fundamentalists or traditional Christians as “damned to hell,” but neither do I consider spiritually sound and loving Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews or Agnostics as damned to hell either, but that’s another issue altogether. No, I think 13 percent is more accurate because most of us who are raised in the Christian tradition make a public proclamation of faith at a very young age. I consider most of those early times I traipsed down the aisle more akin to the infant baptisms done in certain religious traditions. That infant baptism is a sign that parents will raise the child in that tradition. That young plod down the aisle and recited prayer was, at best an early sign that I would be raised in the tradition (at worse, and more close to the truth in my personal case, it was an overwhelming fear of the burning fires and gnashing demonic teeth of hell).

The point is, most people in America that walk down the aisle and proclaim the Christian faith really don’t understand the concept fully. It’s hard to understand that the normal machinations of society are built on war, greed, consumption, division, prejudice, violence, destruction and “peace through victory” and to feel a call to an alternative system of peace, love, compassion, forgiveness, self-sacrifice, unity, inclusion and “peace through nonviolent justice” at a young age; for many it’s hard to grasp that at any age. It’s hard to imagine that the majority of young converts feel the weight of societal pressures, personal failure, self-doubt and the incomplete feeling that one gets by being led to believe that happiness can only come from money, power, respect and adoration and thus find that deeper meaning, the sense of real fulfillment that results in realizing true
happiness comes from being at peace, working for justice, displaying love and compassion, and getting in touch with yourself through personal reflection and meditation. That all being said, I’m sure there are young converts that do just as I’m sure that there are many older people who never grasp the issues either.

I was speaking with a friend of mine the other day. We talked about the concepts and forms of Christianity that differ from our personal feelings and beliefs. I mentioned that I am consistently trying to be at peace with other beliefs, respect others positions even when I disagree. Yet my friend and I both agreed that certain aspects of Christianity as it’s expressed, falsely in our opinions, just angers us. My friend said he thought of why that was. “I don’t get angry at Buddhist, Jewish or Hindu doctrines, forms or thoughts I disagree with. Why do I with Christian opinions I differ from. Then I realized its because I am a Christian.” He gets angry at perversions of the central core of Christianity that he sees in popular, conservative thought because it is being done in the name of Christ when he sees no Christ in it.

So although I can peacefully and silently disagree with or politely debate with Christians who hold different opinions and doctrines from my own on a whole host of issues, and I can most certainly work side by side with them doing the actual physical social and community work that needs being done, there are certain issues, thoughts and perceptions that lose Christ so badly that I simply can’t help but feel angry at what is being marketed to huge populations of people who want to do what’s right and our truly seeking God yet are being shoveled something else. It makes me angry that such misperceptions have spread so much that the world at large thinks these misperceptions are generally what Christianity is and so they scoff at it, conversely making many of the intelligent and respectable liberal thinkers to write it off as well and state their own misperceptions towards it.

So I’m ending with a few key statements that set me and those like me far apart from many who claim to be the new mainstream Christians.

My God is not a vengeful God of wrath. My God does not look forward to some great raining down of fire and blood upon humanity, nor does my God prepare to be the cause of the destruction of all creation.
My perception of Christ is that of a Lamb. Jesus defeated evil and injustice through suffering, love, forgiveness and peace. He did not do this through violence, military might, the sword or battle. I am not waiting on a violent return of a Christ clothed in battle gear who will punish the world and accomplish his rule in a manner inconsistent with his teaching and living.

My God doesn’t expect me to wage a holy war on non believers. I am called first and foremost to look for Christ in the heart of the poor, the homeless, the sick, the children, the incarcerated, the forgotten, the war torn, the displaced, the immigrants, the prejudiced against, the discouraged.
I do God’s work by serving and helping others, giving others a kind word, encouraging and supporting, teaching and learning, living and loving. Not by seeking to conform others to a universal thought, opinion or lifestyle.

The Kingdom of God isn’t a future tense far removed place set outside of this world and I do not seek to rescue people from this world and lead them to set by and wait for either their death and removal from the world or some downpour of violence and Armageddon so that this world can be destroyed and replaced by something better. No, if I’m able to at all I point others in the direction of the kingdom of God by showing them help, love and consideration so that they can enter it here and now as a way of living in peace, working for peace and spreading peace wherever they go.
God does not hate. Jesus is not a violent warrior. I am not a Christian soldier.

The Church as it Could Be – Social Justice Hub

Some time back I was speaking with a more conservative friend of mine. The subject of Rick Warren, the evangelical mega church pastor and author of “The Purpose Driven Life” came up. Now, I’m not a huge Warren fan on many issues, but I was speaking favorably of a plan of Warren’s that had  been recounted in a Time magazine interview at that time. In the article, Warren posited the idea that globally, the Christian church could become a central hub of help and support for the community around it. Theological arguments and differences can become so big and divisive that Warren was laying out an area of overlap for all churches to focus on. Poverty, sickness, hunger, depression and other global problems can and should be addressed by the local church. Warren envisioned a system in which each church in a given town could provide shelter and food for the area homeless and poor, basic and preventive medical and dental attention for the sick (after all, there are church going doctor’s and nurses), counseling for the depressed and so on. My friend made a comment similar to ones that many conservatives often make. “If you’re going to be mainly concerned with feeding and clothing people around the world, simply focusing on physical and bodily needs and forsaking the spiritual business of saving souls you may as well just join the peace corps.”

For many conservatives, the church should only be concerned with evangelism in the sense of “soul winning,” and “preaching the good news.” Save their souls, for there’s a better place in heaven and this world’s just a dirty old pond for us to fish folks out of. That’s 19th and 20th century evangelical thought in it’s most basic and concise form.

Yet isn’t it obvious that “preaching the good news” is synonymous with caring for the poor, feeding the hungry, loving the outcast and welcoming in all to the fold? Isn’t that how one breaks the Kingdom of God into the present world in the highest form of outreach that one can do?

I commend Warren’s plan in this case. There are areas in which I would take it much further than he, but I feel that’s okay. I’m sure Warren would be fine with me and “mine” keeping a more liberal theological stance for ourselves as long as we share in the common goal of doing God’s physical work on earth.

Of course, it sounds too simple. Much more simple than it is, unfortunately.  For many people, faith is wrapped up in a few key concepts that tend to leave the true heart of Christianity out. For some, anything that challenges their belief in biblical inerrancy, substitutionary atonement or dispensationalist rapture theology is unacceptable, and often heretical. A quick scour of the internet doing any sort of theology research will load you up with plenty of angry refutations of Borg, Crossan, Funk, Rob Bell and even NT Wright, for their larger probing questions as well as their most basic thought that push far outside of those few “key” concepts. It all comes down to how someone understands the concept of salvation and how someone reads the Bible. It’s worth noting that dispensationalist and rapture theology is largely absent from the Bible in any notable way and only began to be taught in the past 150 years or so and that substitutionary atonement is but one of many interpretations of New Testament thought, not the sole doctrine it’s thought of in certain circles. So bear with me for the sidetrack, but I think a quick summation of this particular doctrine is necessary at this point.

Substitutionary atonement holds pretty much the following: Humankind is sinful, people are born full of sin and earth had become so base and vile that a great sacrifice was required to pay the debt that such sin had created. This debt was so large that only a Godlike sacrifice would suffice. So God became incarnate in the human flesh of Jesus whose entire purpose in life was death, to die on the cross so that the debt could be paid in blood. Now, since that debt has been paid, humans can receive forgiveness and the gift of salvation. Salvation understood in the context of this particular framework is explicitly life after death in heaven and this gift is received by praying a certain prayer once one becomes knowledgeable and thus accountable for their sins.

This may seem like one of those theological tangents that are so divisive that I mentioned earlier. This article is concerned with the local church being a “social justice hub,” so why mention such a thing? Well, such a mindset helps explain why such a seemingly agreeable cause can be considered “radical’ or “liberal” by many Christian groups.  I myself am much more in tune with a more “participatory atonement,” one in which as a  Christian I  don’t rely simply on Christ to die and rise to pay my debts in my place but instead feel that we ourselves must metaphorically die to our old way and rise again to a new way of living, to “pick up our cross daily,” so that it’s never a matter of finished and complete. No, we must constantly die to the ways of the established order, the order in which greed, money, empire, violence, injustice, self interest, anger, bitterness, spite, and war reign and instead rise to live to a new and alternative order, one in which peace, justice, love, compassion, truth, honesty and progress reign. In this sense the world is not a “dirty pond to fish people out of,” no, it’s a wonderful creation full of immense possibility in which we are called to break this alternative kingdom into being, a world in which we do our best to spread peace and non-violent justice everywhere we go. In this sense, salvation isn’t just a gift that provides us a ticket out of this world once we die and so we must simply bide our time till this all falls away, no, it’s instead a means to provide us with inner peace, comfort, guidance and preparation so that we can set about making things here and now the way they ought to be with the belief that we will one day find it so. (Not to mention I also feel Jesus’ life and teachings were very important, not just his death)

It’s understandable how looking at things from a way never before considered can be upsetting to people. Universal inclusion, acceptance, non-violence, equality, an open and evolving interpretation of scripture, environmental preservation and responsibility, and being open to new discoveries every day are challenging to those that have boiled spirituality down to a matter of a “get out of hell free card,” an upcoming violent battle of end times, a well defined and boxed in list of do’s and don’ts. Not to mention that the politicization of a certain religious thought has led to a tie-in with capitalism and republicanism causing peace and justice issues to seem just a bit too “socialistic” for some.

Not to be snide, but all are free to think how they want to, read scripture in the manner they choose to, rally behind whatever causes they are drawn to. Yet knowing that for even the most far-right Christian who holds to their concepts I’ve mentioned earlier, the call to “plead the case of the widow” and “defend the fatherless,” the call to feed the hungry and nurture the sick, to love the outcast, this call is not defined to either liberal or conservative. This is universal, basic, heart of Christianity material. To ignore it is to ignore the entire person of Jesus and his teachings.

So I can let go of my difference of opinion on many issues with Warren and still support his universal cause of outreach to the less fortunate. I feel that this is the call of the church in the modern era to remain relevant.

Thoughts on Dr. George Tiller, Writings of Anne Lamott

Every time this incident is mentioned, Dr. George Tiller is referred solely as “the late-term abortion doctor, one of only three clinics in the country where such a procedure occurs.”

That may be, but little attention is given to why and how such procedures were arranged. The very term “late term abortion” is code word, it’s supposed to be an area even those of us who are very pro-choice are forced to concede, to agree with the opposition that such a thing is heinous and never acceptable. Surely if a woman can’t make up her mind before the 21st week, surely if she’s carried the child to that point and begun to significantly show, surely there can also be no doubt that there is a heartbeat and numerous signs of life, surely we can all agree she has waited to long and to have an abortion at such a stage is irresponsible, wrong and unforgivable. Surely?

Well,  not exactly. Now, I can’t state everything as exhaustively written and researched, but I can’t help but do my part to mention that from what I have read, Dr. Tiller‘s work was not just a matter of very late term pregnant women stumbling in deciding at the last minute they just didn’t feel like having a child after all. No, from what I have read it seems that many tests were always ran, second consultations were requested, and the procedure was for those women who had discovered that the child they were carrying would be born significantly disabled, mentally incapacitated and/or plagued with a very difficult and life-shortening disease. In short, many things that don’t show up until that point of a pregnancy have thus shown up for these women, and they have been forced to face the decision. Will they, or can they, devoted the time, effort, sacrifice and devotion to care for a child that cannot care for him/herself and may not even be aware of him/herself much at all either? Certainly women, men and families raise such children every day and many find such work rewarding and heart fulfilling, and of course many of the people in such situations found themselves without a choice or a preemptive decision in such a regard. Yet can we tell others that do know beforehand what they will be getting into that they must make that decision for themselves? That at the very least they must bring such a child to full term and put him/her up for adoption in the hopes that someone else will seek out and care for them, and failing that leave them to be cared for by the state? Should we be able to tell all others they must have no choice in such a matter? (Keep in mind that at the 22nd week we’re still not dealing with a fully formed human child that would live on their own outside of the mother’s body either.) So should the state strip all women from any choice in the matter when it is indeed such a heartbreaking and difficult decision that none of us would ever hope to have to make ourselves? I don’t think so, and evidently Dr. Tiller did not think so either.

No, the term “late term abortionist” is so loaded that I feel the media strips Dr. Tiller of some honor by negating him to such a term. Here is a man who was violently, ruthlessly gunned down while worshipping in his Lutheran Church on a Sunday morning, a church where both he and his wife were both regular attendants and active, as deacons and choir singers respectively. Here’s a man who has been shot and injured before, and as soon as he recovered he was back at work stating that his community had taken care of him and he wanted to be back at work to care for them. His clinic was bombed, he regularly received death threats and had to be escorted by a body guard much of the time. Yet he honestly believed he was doing work to help others.  Work that sought to help those that were looked down on by much of the world, the desperate and sad, those left to make the hard choices with often little support. He felt he was doing good work and he was gunned down in church for doing so.

I’m ending this article with some excerpts from Christian writer and philosopher Anne Lamott’s chapter on abortion from her book “Grace (Eventually),” which I happened to run across while reading on Sunday.

In this excerpt she was at a panel discussion with two other Christian writers and speakers, both of the somewhat liberal lean (for their particular denominations at least), one an evangelical the other a Catholic. During a question and answer session a man stood up and  asked how they (Lamott and the other speakers) could reconcile their “progressive stance on peace and justice with the ‘murder of a million babies every year in America.’” Lamott’s co-panelists proceeded to address the question, speaking heavily of such a painful issue but that focus should instead be placed on other “pro-life” matters like “capital punishment, the war in Iraq, poverty and HIV,” and that the efforts should go to “reducing unwanted pregnancies, the need to defuse abortion as a political issue,” etc.

Lamott-  “I announced that I needed to speak out on behalf of the many women present, including myself, who had had abortions, and the women whose daughters might need one in the not-too-distant future–people who must know that teenage girls will have abortions, whether in clinics or dirty back rooms. Women whose lives had been righted and redeemed by Roe v. Wade…I actually feel, and said that it was not a morally ambiguous issue for me at all….Then I said that a woman’s right to choose was nobody else’s goddamn business…Plus, I was–I am–so confused about why we still have to argue with patriarchal sentimentality about miniscule zygotes, when real, live, already born women, many of them desperately poor, get such short shrift from the government now in power [the symposium was during the Bush administration]. …But as a Christian and a feminist, the most important message I can carry and fight for is the sacredness of each human life, and reproductive rights for all women are a crucial part of that. It is a moral necessity that we not be forced to bring children into the world for whom we cannot be responsible and adoring and present. We must not inflict life on children who will be resented; we must not inflict unwanted children on society.”

Observations on “The Reader”

I missed seeing “The Reader” during its theatrical release in 2008, otherwise I certainly would have placed it high on my list of “Best Films of 2008,”  it certainly out-classes and out-thinks some of the more basic diversionary films that settled near the bottom of that list.

“The Reader” is now out on DVD, and a viewing of it left me with all sorts of thoughts. First, on a simply film appreciatory level, it’s a wonderfully made movie with tremendous performances by the entire cast. Kate Winslet consistently proves herself to be one of the, if not THE, eminent actresses of her time. Her work in “Iris” and “Little Children” displayed that, “The Reader” solidifies it.

In narrative and artistically, “The Reader” knocks everything out of the park. I’ve never read the novel on which it’s based, yet I’m certain the allegory, subtext, nuance, philosophy and empathy that cuts through in all directions was present there, and if so it’s amazing that was brought to the screen so successfully. The visuals and many certain shots highlight the deeper meanings that come through in the words and actions of the characters so much so that this film works on so many different levels.

The film explores the after affects of the holocaust in a way I’ve never before seen displayed. The story takes place in Germany in the ‘50s, ‘60s and ‘80s (the ‘70s are entirely skipped) and concerns first a boy of about 15, Michael (played by David Cross as a teen and later by Ralph Fiennes as an adult), who is seduced by a thirty-something woman, Hanna Schmitz (played by Kate Winslet) . Hanna abruptly disappears from Michael’s life one day and he sees her again years later when he is a law student in as his class observes the trial of a group of SS women for war crimes. She is one of those on trial.

What this story manages to do is to remove all easy judgments the viewer might normally make on any character. Whereas noir films muddy things up by showing that there is no complete good in all and the heroes and villains alike share darkness within themselves, this film is like a reverse noir in which the emphasis is on no character being completely bad. It’s ingrained in us to feel it’s good and just to hate the Nazi’s. What other human group can be so easy and blameless for us to loathe? It’s true that there were many human monsters traipsing around in SS uniforms, it’s true that people like Hitler, Mendel and the like cause us to question their very humanity in light of their actions. But what of the rest of the country? Those that served in the army, the SS and other jobs as accomplices in the whole messy, evil affair? Those that simply felt they were “doing their job,” or “serving their country,” or merely trying to get by? Those that didn’t take the time to think about the depth and implications of their actions. Or what of those that didn’t work in any related field yet passively allowed such things to happen by not speaking up, by not acting out, by not revolting? This film shines a light on the next generation of Germans who lived knowing their parents, teachers, preachers and older friends had actively or passively allowed one of the absolute worse national crimes in history to occur.  By taking it further and juxtaposing this relationship between a young teen, who represents that next generation, and a thirty-something woman, who represents Nazi-era Germany, this entanglement is even more pronounced. Most difficult and surprisingly, Winslet portrays this woman in such a way that you begin to feel sympathy for her tremendously, yet then you question yourself for doing so. Shouldn’t these people be void of our sympathy? We’re practically trained to think so. Yet her humanness  shows
through anyway, and her protestations of “I never thought about the past” ring true. Were such a terrible ordeal to occur this day, in this country, wouldn’t many act in the same way? This doesn’t excuse the behavior, not at all, and the film never does that., it never excuses the behavior or lightens its impact.

It reminds me quite a bit of a comment theologian NT Wright made in his book “Evil and the Justice of God,”  in which he notes the fervor and ardor that people voice hatred towards pedophilia and child molesters. He writes that although such things are “admittedly stomach-churningly wrong and evil,” the extent to which that one crime is so focused on by some is to his mind a way for a society that looks the other way or justifies most other past “sins” to be vocally critical and morally superior to at least one target group. The extent to which such a thing like child molestation is horrific and wrong allows many people to justify a complete hatred on and judgment passing to others.
We feel comfortable demonizing a select few groups of people this day and age, and Nazis and child molesters are certainly guilty of things that deserve the reaction of moral repulsion. What this film manages to do is to pull back the labels and allow you to view someone underneath that label not all that removed from what some of us would be capable of in the “right”(in this case wrong) situation. Shifted from that position of moral superiority we are left to see that most of us are quite human beneath any quite possibly horrible actions we’ve committed. Interestingly, even past the Nazi issue the female lead character is still guilty of seducing a young teenage boy and then deserting him, leaving him floundering in her shadow the rest of his life to such an extent that it seems all other relationships he has are sullied. He acknowledges her ill affect on him in a conversation with a woman who had survived a concentration camp as a young girl  (played by the remarkable Lena Olin). “Yes I know she’s guilty of much worse to so many others,” he tells her looking like a large part of him still loves her even as it hates her for what she’s done to him.

Another interesting theme that arises in relation to that feeling of moral superiority we all often get is brought home by one of college age Michael’s classmates who points out the absurdity of placing a few female guards on trial for war crimes when virtually the whole country actively or inactively aided in the atrocity. He asserted that society was doing this to make themselves feel better, not to bring about justice. The law teacher insightfully pointed out that society doesn’t determine or go by morality, but by law, and the two can be on quite the opposite ends at many points.

In short summation, in addition to being an entertaining, artistic, perfectly acted, immensely watch-able and heartbreakingly tragic film, “The Reader” also prompts more intelligent consideration and thought that almost any film in recent years.

…Theistic Interpretations

Most people think there is really only one way of thinking about God. If the “Do you believe in God?” question is posed to most, they will be responding to their belief or disbelief in a Theistic God. Theism holds that God is an almost person-like ( but this varies to many different extents for different people) entity living outside of the world, universe and reality as we know it capable of interceding into the world we know to perform miracles, communicate with creation, and become revealed to believers.Some say, critically or endorsing that this version of God is like a parent in the sky. Of course in many ways, theism is the basis for the language we speak of about God in most of the West. Father, Lord, King. Historically the pronoun “He” is used for the theistic version of God, yet in more recent years some have begun to intersperse “He” and “She” interchangeably and some have begun to try to get past gender pronouns altogether. Still others, probably most in the West that still hold to theism, use pronouns for simplification only, understanding that God is genderless.

Deism is the view held by many of the “Founding Fathers” in American History as well as many of their contemporaries. Today most “Deists” lean towards what we now call “Agnosticism.”*  Deism holds that there is a God existing in some form, often viewed in the same form as Theism, yet God in this case remains outside of the world, not “interfering,” not performing miracles, not revealing much to creation. God “set the watch” and stepped back to let things run their own course.

Pantheism is the view that God is in fact in and of everything. This is common in many religions and philosophies of the East. Divinity is present and living in every living thing, so all life in every form is sacred and divine…yet equally so. “Yes I believe Jesus was divine,” said one pantheist to theologian N.T. Wright. “Yet so am I. So is a bunny rabbit.” Western religions parallel with some pantheism in that those that follow true Christianity believe they have the living spirit of God, the holy spirit, residing in them and they also hold to the sacredness of God and the creation, yet it’s that equalizing factor that sets pantheism far apart. For a pantheist, a rabbit and Jesus or a cancer cell and Buddha are equally on par.

In recent years many Christian philosophers and theologians of the more liberal strain have begun to classify themselves as “Panentheist.” I myself find this view very attractive and plausible. It’s the “en” between pan and theism that signifies a dramatic difference from pantheism or even theism. Panentheism holds that God is both above, beyond and outside of the world as we know it yet also moving through and living in creation and the world as we know it as well. Thus the environment and the living creatures throughout the universe share in sacredness and are facets of God yet God also dwells outside of all as well in a type of Deistic manner. In this case, panentheists may differ as to whether God intercedes on behalf of creation, performs miracles or the depth of God’s revelation to creation.

Scriptures point to both Theism and Panentheism at different times. Old Testament records of Judaic thought often spoke of God as “the wind that blows through the trees” and the like. All forms capture different aspects of God and all forms leave room for different views within.

* Generally Agnosticism defines one as stating “not knowing” or “not sure” as to the existence of God. Agnostics believe that there may or may not be a God and find that even if there is a God, that God is so far removed from modern creation that there is no effect on anything in life or the world brought about by that God, which is how this overlaps somewhat with Deism.

Guns, God, Government

In America, especially in the south, if you want to anger someone those above 3 topics pretty much are a way to do so. Perhaps in many areas, guns most of all.

A startling piece on Sunday nights “60 Minutes” profiled the brother of a girl who was shot and killed at VA Tech. The brother, to make a point, attended a Virginia gun show and within an hour had purchased a dozen guns, many of them assault weapons, without having to provide an ID or go through a background check. Virginia is a state with few gun sell restrictions, and the gun show loop even allows people in the parking lot of gun shows to sell weapons directly from the trunk of their cars. The brother of the VA Tech victim was asked if he was even once asked to show identification. He responded that it happened a few times, but each time he refused and was told that for 50 dollars more (or a trip to the parking lot to purchase the gun outside) they would go ahead with the sell.

The sells of guns have shot up dramatically this year. Due to the recession say some, and to the Obama presidency say others. In past recessions, people have stocked up on canned goods and blankets. This time around it’s guns. Gun lobbyists have stated that people are right in thinking that were there a complete economic meltdown, there would be nothing better than guns to get them prepared to survive and gather food (quite a bit of Doomsday Prophecy). As to the Obama presidency, conservatives fear he will bring back the Clinton ban on assault weapons and seek to close the gun-show loophole.

The gun lobby fiercely argues against  bringing back the ban on assault weapons that was in place under Clinton and repealed under Bush. As for waiting periods, that gun show loophole that allowed the VA tech brother to purchase multiple weapons without waiting was responded to by a NRA spokesman in VA with “the second amendment doesn’t say anything about a waiting period before your right to bear arms.” No, the second amendment doesn’t mention waiting periods, or the right to bear assault weapons, nuclear bombs or hazardous material for firebombing either.

A great book on this subject is “Out of Range: Why the Constitution Can’t Win the Battle Over Guns”  by Mark V. Tushnet.  It’s really quite a balanced book, written by a Law Professor at Harvard who claims to be rather disinterested in the debate on personal levels, feeling it’s not a priority on his list of national concerns. He debates both sides and ultimately concludes that each has winning and losing arguments and that the debate must be resolved outside of the constitution, with information and decisions based on further sources because the constitution  doesn’t fully answer this question for us in this day and age. We thus have to look at court precedents, modern interpretations, changing atmospheres as well as original intent.

What truly seems like common sense though, is that regardless of whether the founding fathers intended the right to bear arms with a well armed militia for personal, state and national protection to extend to a personal, private ownership of any citizen at any time or if the original intent is currently fulfilled by having an established national guard and technological advances that negate the necessity, there are a few factors that fall outside of the second amendment when it comes to guns.

No matter what, common sense should tell us that had the forefathers predicted AK47’s in inner cities being used by street gangs or in drug cartels moving throughout the world, there may have been some warning and restriction. There should be no argument against bringing back the ban on assault weapons—at least no logical, sensible, compassionate argument. Military grade weapons have no place in the hands of a private citizen. They exist only to destroy large numbers of people in short spans of time. As for increased background checks, extended waiting periods and closing the gun show loop? Yet again there is no decent argument against these things. Someone going to a gun show should have to provide ID and undergo a background check, the same as they would if they were to go to a gun shop. As for folks to be able to legally sell weapons out of the trunk of their car in the parking lot at such gun shows, it’s almost enough to make one feel lawgivers in Virginia simply aren‘t thinking clearly.

The problem is, as Tushnet points out, for many people this issue is bigger than just guns. Many feel it is a part of the “culture wars,” liberals vs. conservatives, cities vs. rural areas and so on. We need to get past that and make solid judgments in regards to issues that affect the health and safety of everyone living in this country.

Oddly many of those in the south who want no gun restrictions and pride themselves on carrying concealed weapons also are deeply religious, or at least historically so. I understand hunting, especially to provide food. I understand target practicing as a sportsman. Beyond that, carrying weapons with the intent to use them if necessary on another human being is however a form of violence. I’m sure that’s a comment liable to make many angry, yet I have to stress I don’t feel that such an action makes someone a violent person. I completely understand the feelings, emotions and drives that cause many to carry a weapon or keep one in their home solely for “home protection” and to, in theory, keep their loved ones safe (the stats show that simply keeping a gun in your home increases your chances of dying by gunshot dramatically, but that‘s another story). I also know that many jobs require people to carry weapons strictly for the protection of self and others with the intention to shoot to kill if necessary. Yet to invoke the God aspect from the title of this article, carrying, buying or owning a weapon for any reason other than to hunt for food or target practice for sport is a, albeit possibly subtle in some cases, form of violence. Christianity is rooted in nonviolence, so it’s simply odd that many Christians are so vocally pro-gun. Regardless of the actions of the church in low-points in history and the attitudes of many who call themselves Christians, Jesus spoke of complete non-violence yet many of those that praise his name today follow it with “pass the ammunition,” at least metaphorically. I understand self-preservation, defense and a desire to be prepared. Yet can’t those that want guns for that reason view them almost as a necessary evil and not be so enthusiastic about them? Can’t we all agree that restrictions on the sell of and type of guns can be imposed to help curb needless violence? Yes there are many factors that lead to the violence that permeates society, American society in particular. Yes, there are other avenues that must be explored. Yet a step in the direction of moving guns to the area of hunting, emergency and sensibility only is direly needed.

Many notable advocates for non-violence have addressed the issue of the limits of pacifism. A future article on this site will be concerned with how various leaders in the field, Gandhi, MLK and the Dalai Lama have dealt with this issue. That’s it for now.