It seems to be such common sense. If someone breaks the law, they should expect punishment if they get caught and there should be no expectation of benefit to any lawbreaker for doing so. In the abstract it is hard to argue against that logic. But what if it is an ill conceived law? For example, what if the rule of law says one must pay the English throne a punitive tax for tea? According to the above stated logic, those under British authority, if they wanted to be law abiding citizens, should have paid the tax so long as it was the law. Yet, when I was taught American history, I was taught that those who carried out the civil disobedience and vandalism that came to be known as the "Boston Tea Party" were considered American Revolution heroes. Their act of sneaking onto a British ship and throwing its cargo into Boston Harbor helped fuel the passion for the ultimate revolt against England by our nation's founders.
It was once against the law to assist a runaway slave. Harsh penalties were called for by the courts for anyone caught doing so. Yet, today, most people regard the activists who operated the "Underground Railroad" which gave sanctuary and assistance to slaves escaping from the cruelties of slavery to be humanitarian role models.
And who can forget that Jesus was executed for the charge of being a lawbreaker?
Some laws are not good laws, especially laws that are intended to preserve the status quo of the "already haves" while prolonging the suffering of those circumstantially ensnared in poverty and struggle. Laws and attitudes that arise from a self-focused withholding of opportunity and resources from the disadvantaged are not good laws. In fact, in my view, they are evil laws that need to be changed.
What is very troubling to me is that some of those arguing for harsh "law and order" treatment of immigrants who have made their way across our borders in search of work and a better life without waiting years and years to maybe get legal permission, also claim to be followers of Jesus. Since I can't for the life of me find anything in the teachings of Jesus, or the overall biblical ethos that justifies treating people this way, I have to conclude that this insensitive and inflexible attitude arises from another source. Some apparently have confused their Americanism with their Christian discipleship.
Sadly, this confusion has become a breeding ground for angry sterotyping and scapegoating in these times of economic downturn and rising unemployment. Otherwise decent and well meaning people are being swept up in what can only be described as ugliness and hostility toward whole neighborhoods and ethnicities. Some media commentators are enriching themselves by working their listeners into a bigoted froth.
Come on, my fellow Americans, we're better than this, aren't we? Everyone knows we have been hanging a help wanted sign over the no tresspassing signs at our borders for years, as Jim Wallis of Sojourners has pointed out. Rounding up people who only seek to work and make a better life for their family, putting them in chains and handcuffs, jailing them and forcing them to leave the country and very often their immediate family members because they do not have the right piece of paper is not the answer. Changing existing laws to remove the roadblocks and delays so that America will once again be a welcoming land of opportunity for hard working individuals who want to contribute to the strength and growth of our economy and our communities is the answer.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Monday, March 15, 2010
LET'S MAKE IT A LIFESTYLE
$164 million PER HOUR from private donations poured into relief for Haiti in the week following the calamitous January 12 earthquake. That bears repeating. $164,000,000 per hour!, according to The Chronicle for Philanthropy. Not all of that came from the U.S., to be sure, but much of it did, and rightly so. Haiti, after all, is right in our backyard. One of the poorest nations on planet earth, where the average income is only $2 a day, languishes in the shadow of what is arguably the richest nation in the history of the world.
Of course, there have been on the ground in Haiti for many decades committed and compassionate missionaries and social workers doing stellar work to relieve the suffering of this oppressed nation. Yet, progress has been painfully slow. Navigating through the obstacle course of language barrier, rampant corruption, almost nonexistent infrastructure and all the accompanying ills of systemic poverty, we cannot overstate the significance of their sacrificial service. But, truth be told, most of us seldom if ever thought about Haiti before this earthquake.
Presidents Clinton and Bush, who accepted the assignment to oversee the United States' relief effort, have stated that Haiti has an unprecedented opportunity to rebuild, modernize and rise up stronger than ever as a consequence of the benevolent spotlight that is currently upon them. May it be so.
Perhaps you, like me, take a look at all this and ask yourself, what's wrong with this picture? How is it that we can allow such abject poverty to exist year after year, decade after decade right in our own "neighborhood"? Why is it that we wait until there is a natural disaster of epic proportions to arouse us to direct the resources we had in hand all along to help this suffering people? Were there things we should have been doing in a more proactive way to preempt the suffering? What if the focus of our foreign policy was to eradicate such chronic suffering? What if the primary role of our military was to assist people groups that need a hand to help them overcome circumstances that have held them back for too long? What if we didn't wait for an earthquake to establish modern hospitals, schools and food distribution points? What if we were proactive in assisting them in building earthquake resistant dwellings with proper sewage and water treatment? What if we made caring for the poor the top priority rather than fighting elective wars and bailing out Wall Street?
I do not think it is as big a step as one might imagine to link the responsive to crisis generosity of the American people with a well planned, proactive "war on poverty", to borrow an old, beat up phrase. If we're so ready to flood incredible sums of money into crisis stricken areas when called upon, surely it is reasonable to think we could do so much more to head off the dimensions of potential crises in advance. Let's envision the improvements in foreign relations that could come about if the world truly began to see and believe that our goal, first and foremost, was to serve the world with no-strings-attached generosity and kindness rather than the self-interested bullying that has been the nature of so much of what we have done in foreign policy lately. Rather than our extraordinary generosity toward Haiti being seen as crisis response, why not strive to make it a lifestyle?
Of course, there have been on the ground in Haiti for many decades committed and compassionate missionaries and social workers doing stellar work to relieve the suffering of this oppressed nation. Yet, progress has been painfully slow. Navigating through the obstacle course of language barrier, rampant corruption, almost nonexistent infrastructure and all the accompanying ills of systemic poverty, we cannot overstate the significance of their sacrificial service. But, truth be told, most of us seldom if ever thought about Haiti before this earthquake.
Presidents Clinton and Bush, who accepted the assignment to oversee the United States' relief effort, have stated that Haiti has an unprecedented opportunity to rebuild, modernize and rise up stronger than ever as a consequence of the benevolent spotlight that is currently upon them. May it be so.
Perhaps you, like me, take a look at all this and ask yourself, what's wrong with this picture? How is it that we can allow such abject poverty to exist year after year, decade after decade right in our own "neighborhood"? Why is it that we wait until there is a natural disaster of epic proportions to arouse us to direct the resources we had in hand all along to help this suffering people? Were there things we should have been doing in a more proactive way to preempt the suffering? What if the focus of our foreign policy was to eradicate such chronic suffering? What if the primary role of our military was to assist people groups that need a hand to help them overcome circumstances that have held them back for too long? What if we didn't wait for an earthquake to establish modern hospitals, schools and food distribution points? What if we were proactive in assisting them in building earthquake resistant dwellings with proper sewage and water treatment? What if we made caring for the poor the top priority rather than fighting elective wars and bailing out Wall Street?
I do not think it is as big a step as one might imagine to link the responsive to crisis generosity of the American people with a well planned, proactive "war on poverty", to borrow an old, beat up phrase. If we're so ready to flood incredible sums of money into crisis stricken areas when called upon, surely it is reasonable to think we could do so much more to head off the dimensions of potential crises in advance. Let's envision the improvements in foreign relations that could come about if the world truly began to see and believe that our goal, first and foremost, was to serve the world with no-strings-attached generosity and kindness rather than the self-interested bullying that has been the nature of so much of what we have done in foreign policy lately. Rather than our extraordinary generosity toward Haiti being seen as crisis response, why not strive to make it a lifestyle?
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Eden's Lie
Has it ever occurred to you that religion has fallen into the trap of repeating the lie of Eden to solve the problem created by Eden’s lie?
For those who may not know the story told in Genesis chapter 3, a cunning talking serpent convinced Eve and Adam that God was withholding something from them. He sowed a seed thought of discontent concerning their current standing with their Creator. “God doesn’t want you to be like him, knowing good and evil,” the tempter reportedly said. Apparently that was all it took to tip Adam and Eve over into the reckless behavior of breaking out of the boundaries of their ideal existence and trying to fix the problem they, until that moment, didn’t know they had.
The duped and disobedient couple took charge of their own destiny, ate fruit they weren’t supposed to eat and set themselves and their descendents on a downward spiral of self-doubt, victimization, blaming others and the gamut of dysfunctions and disorders common to us today. Merely the suggestion that they didn’t measure up in some way was all it took for the Deceiver to ruin the harmony that had existed between the Creator and the created.
Trying to solve the resulting sense of exposure and vulnerability their action had brought to their awareness, the guilty pair tried to hide behind fig leaves they sewed together. To which God, as he was confronting them with their folly, offered a better solution to their nakedness—fur coats he had made (sorry PETA). In other words, God in effect said to them and demonstrated by his action, “Your solutions don’t work. You can’t fix this. Only I can. Whatever resolution of this problem you’ve created and the resulting reconciliation is going to have to come from me.” I can further imagine God saying, “Don’t do anything else. You’ve already caused enough harm with your efforts.”
Now let’s fast forward through time and see what much of religion in its various forms offers us. Again we are told in many different ways that this God of ours is withholding something from us. In fact, as some versions would stress, he stands ready to give us the cold shoulder and the “hot forever” unless we do something. Subtly and not so subtly we are told the ball is in our court and if we’re going to rise to God’s level it depends on us. Make this decision, attend these events, say these prayers, give this money, read this book, act this way, do this and do that. If you don’t, the lie continues, you are really missing it with God. God won’t claim you.
So, if religion is telling us the same lie as the serpent in the Garden of Eden, where does that leave us? It leaves us right where Adam and Eve were totally dependent upon God to fix things. The good news for them and for us is that he did. Now all we have to do is quit looking for some fruit tree of personal effort.
For those who may not know the story told in Genesis chapter 3, a cunning talking serpent convinced Eve and Adam that God was withholding something from them. He sowed a seed thought of discontent concerning their current standing with their Creator. “God doesn’t want you to be like him, knowing good and evil,” the tempter reportedly said. Apparently that was all it took to tip Adam and Eve over into the reckless behavior of breaking out of the boundaries of their ideal existence and trying to fix the problem they, until that moment, didn’t know they had.
The duped and disobedient couple took charge of their own destiny, ate fruit they weren’t supposed to eat and set themselves and their descendents on a downward spiral of self-doubt, victimization, blaming others and the gamut of dysfunctions and disorders common to us today. Merely the suggestion that they didn’t measure up in some way was all it took for the Deceiver to ruin the harmony that had existed between the Creator and the created.
Trying to solve the resulting sense of exposure and vulnerability their action had brought to their awareness, the guilty pair tried to hide behind fig leaves they sewed together. To which God, as he was confronting them with their folly, offered a better solution to their nakedness—fur coats he had made (sorry PETA). In other words, God in effect said to them and demonstrated by his action, “Your solutions don’t work. You can’t fix this. Only I can. Whatever resolution of this problem you’ve created and the resulting reconciliation is going to have to come from me.” I can further imagine God saying, “Don’t do anything else. You’ve already caused enough harm with your efforts.”
Now let’s fast forward through time and see what much of religion in its various forms offers us. Again we are told in many different ways that this God of ours is withholding something from us. In fact, as some versions would stress, he stands ready to give us the cold shoulder and the “hot forever” unless we do something. Subtly and not so subtly we are told the ball is in our court and if we’re going to rise to God’s level it depends on us. Make this decision, attend these events, say these prayers, give this money, read this book, act this way, do this and do that. If you don’t, the lie continues, you are really missing it with God. God won’t claim you.
So, if religion is telling us the same lie as the serpent in the Garden of Eden, where does that leave us? It leaves us right where Adam and Eve were totally dependent upon God to fix things. The good news for them and for us is that he did. Now all we have to do is quit looking for some fruit tree of personal effort.
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
The Peril of Foundationalism (believing you know something you don't really know)
Foundationalism has been defined as the claim that certain truths are self evident. Foundationalists claim to build rational arguments upon hard truths that must not be questioned. Foundationalism is the companion of fundamentalism. My early religious upbringing and college training at a denominational school was steeped in both.
Here's the problem. Most of the foundationalism I was taught cannot be "proven" scientifically. It must be accepted by belief. For example, God is the creator of all things. I believe that is true and can argue it to be so, but I can't prove it. Another example, the Bible is the written word of God. Any defense of that proposition that I have heard relies on verses in the Bible to establish that fact. The Bible is the word of God because the Bible says it is. Some would argue further that the validity of the Bible is strengthened by church history and long held tradition that the Bible is authoritative. In other words, people who believed the Bible to be accurate and reliable depended upon the Bible's claims of authority to claim it is authoritative. It is a circular argument to which one cannot ultimately subscribe without some sort of belief model. Belief that could be defined this way: I believe it because I believe it. So, problem number one with religious foundationalism is that truth claims rely upon belief and circular reasoning.
The second problem is our humanity. We seldom live up to most of the foundational things we claim to believe. Remember these words, "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal?" That is a foundational statement-- a supposed "self evident" truth. Unfortunately, the folks who wrote it didn't really believe it. What they really meant was that if you were a white male land owner you were equal. But if you were an African slave, a female or Native American you weren't even on the radar of equality. The way the founders put that "truth" into practice is a dramatic illustration of what Brandon O'Brien, in describing Jim Belcher's critique of foundationalism asserts: "[Christian] traditionalists are bound to rational foundationalism...which leads to preoccupation with dogma and a bounded-set mentality that is eager to define who's in and who's out on doctrinal grounds" ("Emerging vs. Traditional", Christianity Today, Dec. 2009, p. 63). Remember, America's founding fathers did not grant the right to vote to any of the aforementioned excluded groups in the early days of the Republic, even going so far as to putting it into the constitution that a slave could only be considered three-fifths of an equal as they defined it. Their "doctrinal statement" excluded everyone but them.
A more simple illustration might be found in one who claims he believes in and lives by the Bible cover to cover while telling the occasional lie and visiting the occasional internet porn website. In practice, the Bible is not his final authority and makes that person's argument that it is ring hollow and hypocritical.
My purpose here is not to disparage the Bible. I love the Bible and consider it the best source of revelation on how God interacts with us and how one should try to live. Rather, what I am trying to point out is that rational foundationalism will almost always lead one to a dogma driven, argumentative and excluding posture toward anyone who doesn't agree with or fit into your definitions. As a recovering foundationalist I can honestly say that when I aspired to be one, I tended to come across as disproportionately critical, judgmental and contentious. Instead of knowing we are Christians by our love, people begin to label us as fundamentalists by our arguments.
The lessons I have drawn from this are:
1) Just as the constitution had to be amended to redefine equality, so have many of the foundations I was taught to defend and argue been amended by life experience and a more mature understanding. I have learned that I may not know what I think I know.
2) While one may (and I say so with great caution) make some assessments about the quality of one's character based upon that person's behavior, it is virtually impossible to judge the validity of another person's faith. Foundationalism is not helpful for that purpose because it, too often, leads to the wrong conclusion. That's what happened when the foundationalists boldly claimed Jesus could not be a prophet because he was from Galilee. They had their "fundamentals" but they didn't have a clue about the heart and faith transactions that were taking place between Jesus and the Heavenly Father.
3) Life goes better for me when I take the posture of a truth seeker rather than a defender of foundations. Over the years I have wasted countless hours arguing over stuff that doesn't even matter to me now. Foundationalism is a breeding ground for contention and ill will.
4) Jesus said, "Seek and you shall find." I must never assume that my seeking is going to be more successful than someone else's. If Jesus' words are true for me, they are equally true for any other seeker. Foundationalism tends to lead us into the ugly business of being seeker inspectors who confront people with claims that until they start following our dogmatic map they will not find anything of value. How arrogant!
5) "Without faith it is impossible to please God," says the scripture. I believe that.
Here's the problem. Most of the foundationalism I was taught cannot be "proven" scientifically. It must be accepted by belief. For example, God is the creator of all things. I believe that is true and can argue it to be so, but I can't prove it. Another example, the Bible is the written word of God. Any defense of that proposition that I have heard relies on verses in the Bible to establish that fact. The Bible is the word of God because the Bible says it is. Some would argue further that the validity of the Bible is strengthened by church history and long held tradition that the Bible is authoritative. In other words, people who believed the Bible to be accurate and reliable depended upon the Bible's claims of authority to claim it is authoritative. It is a circular argument to which one cannot ultimately subscribe without some sort of belief model. Belief that could be defined this way: I believe it because I believe it. So, problem number one with religious foundationalism is that truth claims rely upon belief and circular reasoning.
The second problem is our humanity. We seldom live up to most of the foundational things we claim to believe. Remember these words, "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal?" That is a foundational statement-- a supposed "self evident" truth. Unfortunately, the folks who wrote it didn't really believe it. What they really meant was that if you were a white male land owner you were equal. But if you were an African slave, a female or Native American you weren't even on the radar of equality. The way the founders put that "truth" into practice is a dramatic illustration of what Brandon O'Brien, in describing Jim Belcher's critique of foundationalism asserts: "[Christian] traditionalists are bound to rational foundationalism...which leads to preoccupation with dogma and a bounded-set mentality that is eager to define who's in and who's out on doctrinal grounds" ("Emerging vs. Traditional", Christianity Today, Dec. 2009, p. 63). Remember, America's founding fathers did not grant the right to vote to any of the aforementioned excluded groups in the early days of the Republic, even going so far as to putting it into the constitution that a slave could only be considered three-fifths of an equal as they defined it. Their "doctrinal statement" excluded everyone but them.
A more simple illustration might be found in one who claims he believes in and lives by the Bible cover to cover while telling the occasional lie and visiting the occasional internet porn website. In practice, the Bible is not his final authority and makes that person's argument that it is ring hollow and hypocritical.
My purpose here is not to disparage the Bible. I love the Bible and consider it the best source of revelation on how God interacts with us and how one should try to live. Rather, what I am trying to point out is that rational foundationalism will almost always lead one to a dogma driven, argumentative and excluding posture toward anyone who doesn't agree with or fit into your definitions. As a recovering foundationalist I can honestly say that when I aspired to be one, I tended to come across as disproportionately critical, judgmental and contentious. Instead of knowing we are Christians by our love, people begin to label us as fundamentalists by our arguments.
The lessons I have drawn from this are:
1) Just as the constitution had to be amended to redefine equality, so have many of the foundations I was taught to defend and argue been amended by life experience and a more mature understanding. I have learned that I may not know what I think I know.
2) While one may (and I say so with great caution) make some assessments about the quality of one's character based upon that person's behavior, it is virtually impossible to judge the validity of another person's faith. Foundationalism is not helpful for that purpose because it, too often, leads to the wrong conclusion. That's what happened when the foundationalists boldly claimed Jesus could not be a prophet because he was from Galilee. They had their "fundamentals" but they didn't have a clue about the heart and faith transactions that were taking place between Jesus and the Heavenly Father.
3) Life goes better for me when I take the posture of a truth seeker rather than a defender of foundations. Over the years I have wasted countless hours arguing over stuff that doesn't even matter to me now. Foundationalism is a breeding ground for contention and ill will.
4) Jesus said, "Seek and you shall find." I must never assume that my seeking is going to be more successful than someone else's. If Jesus' words are true for me, they are equally true for any other seeker. Foundationalism tends to lead us into the ugly business of being seeker inspectors who confront people with claims that until they start following our dogmatic map they will not find anything of value. How arrogant!
5) "Without faith it is impossible to please God," says the scripture. I believe that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)