Whom does God love more?

For all you people of faith, I am assuming you would agree that God loves all children?   Equally?  Yes?   That God loves the children in Mexico, or Syria, or Chicago, just as dearly as God loves your very own sons and daughters?  I also assume that a worthy goal, and maybe even the ultimate goal, is grow to love more and more as God loves?

So then how do we justify building walls around our homes and lives, and at our borders, to protect our own and keep out those who are desperately trying to find a better life?  Estimates are that in 2016, nearly 1000 children drowned in the Mediterranean seeking a better life.

 At my church the youth choir enthusiastically sings  "Draw the circle, draw the circle wide . . ."   How is it that we ask God to bless America when this is happening in our world?   I suspect God might be wondering when we will ask for his blessing on ALL children .. .   everywhere.  Yes, lets make our faith great . . .   Draw the circle wide.

Religious Liberty

I continue to be interested in the conversation around religious liberty.  Those on the right argue that religious freedom has been curtailed in recent years by liberals who suggest that government sponsored public forums should be religiously neutral.  For example there are those who lament that teachers and coaches cannot pray publicly at school or that public schools are restricted from celebrating Christmas.  I recently ran across a survey that helps bring this issue into focus.  A survey by the National Opinion Research Center for Public Affairs Research and the Associated Press found that 82 percent called religious liberty important for Christians, but only 72 percent felt it was important for Jews, 67% for Mormons, and only 61% felt it was important to protect religious freedom for Muslims.

(Check this link for a Washington Post Editorial)

Does this then suggest that not all of us truly want a nation that supports religious freedom?  Rather, it appears that what we really want is the personal freedom to express our beliefs but we don't want to hear from those who have different beliefs.  We speak of freedom but it is not freedom if it is only granted the majority class.  That is theocracy - the opposite of freedom.

A commitment to religious freedom entails protecting the freedom of those whose beliefs are not in the majority.  A commitment to religious freedom recognizes that my views, whether in the majority or not, should not be forced on children whose families may have a different story, a different culture, a different faith.

Lets be clear about whether we are committed to religious freedom - or whether we simply want the right to practice our faith while ignoring or denying the rights of others.

Political Correctness and our Values

I have been struggling with recent attacks on political correctness that have occurred during this campaign season.  There are those who suggest that the push to be politically correct is getting in the way of being honest and straightforward.  In fact Ben Carson has stated that we are throwing away our traditional values in the name of political correctness.

I don't understand that.  Can we clarify what political correctness is?   Is the attack on political correctness simply a disagreement about values?

I have assumed that to be political correct is to be sensitive to those who are different or marginalized in society. For example, I support gender neutral language.  I think we should avoid using "he" when we are speaking about males and females. Research has shown that language has power.  It provides the lens through which each of us views and interprets our world.  If I want to help create a world where women are equal, one of the important steps I can take is use language that is consistent with that vision.  Rather than destroying our values, it is an important step toward acting in a way that is aligned with my values.  

Another area where I hear people complain about political correctness is around keeping public places religiously neutral.   This often comes up at Christmas time when public schools are asked to avoid celebrating Christmas.  Again, the issue is our commitment to religious liberty.  My commitment to religious liberty and my concern for those whose faith is a minority requires that I exercise sensitivity in my speech and actions.  This "PC behavior" does not destroy my values and inhibit behavior, rather it is in alignment with my values.

Maybe the answer is do away with the term policitical correctness and simply have a values discussion.  I value gender equality and religious liberty.  I see gender neutral language and religiously neutral school celebrations as consistent with those values.  If you do not, lets talk about it.

How do we look - at our selves - and at one another. . .

When I have taught sociology i have given students an assignment that required them to look at a slice of their own culture from a more objective perspective.  Prompted by Dr. Paul Colomy from the University of Denver, I ask students to look more closely as social behaviors and attempt to decipher social patterns.  Students noticed that males drove cars and paid for dinner dates more often than females, that their high school teachers did most of the talking in classes, that strangers in elevators avoided eye contact, etc.  This was an attempt to make the unconscious conscious and thereby take a more analytical look at one's own social behaviors - recognizing norms and structures.   We called the assignment a "Pattern Paper" as students were encouraged to see social patterns, see order, see institutional norms where before they may have not seen anything.  Hopefully, by encouraging students to increase their awareness they also gained an ability to question, reflect, and ultimately take more control of their lives???   And be more respectful of differences?

As students in anthropology we attempt to do something different, at least initially.  We "do ethnographies," that is, as participant observers in a different culture, we attempt to notice their behaviors, their norms and practices and social patterns without ethnocentric judgment.  Anthropology takes a relativistic perspective, assuming that what strangers do makes sense from within that world view.  We bracket our own tendency to judge others from our perspective and attempt to see and accept and understand others from within their own social context.

And then ultimately we are able to better see ourselves from that other's point of view?    Is this not what is needed in order to have true dialogue?

Kim Davis and the origins of our conscience

I suspect Kim Davis is sincere; and from all accounts, extremely devout in her faith.   She stood up for what she believed despite opposition and despite the prospect of being arrested and going to jail.  Is that not admirable?  She demonstrated the courage of her convictions.  

But, while her courage is laudable, her convictions require further examination.  She claims that her decision to deny marriage licenses to gay couples is grounded in scripture.  But if that were the case wouldn’t she be just as adamant in denying marriage licenses to straight couples that include a divorced woman?  In scripture, there are at least as many explicit admonitions against divorced women remarrying as there are against homosexuality.  (Check out the gospel of Matthew chapter 5 verse 32 for example.)  How could someone so devout and so sincere in her faith who claims that following scripture is a moral imperative and a matter of heaven and hell, blatantly defy these explicit Biblical precepts?

The answer?  Though Ms. Davis attributes her moral code to scripture, it is more likely a product of her social milieu - her family, her friends, her faith community to be sure, but clearly not scripture.  And while the social environment in which she lives has grown to accept divorce, it has not accepted homosexuality. Thus she is able to disregard Bible verses that prohibit divorcees from remarrying, while feeling compelled to go to jail to adhere literally and fervently to those that concern homosexuality.  It is quite a contradiction.  Hypocritical? Not necessarily. Confused? No doubt.  Discriminatory and injurious? Absolutely.

And don’t we all do it?  We find the verse in the Bible (or some other moral authority) that supports what we already believe.  We read into scripture what is already in our minds and hearts. And we thereby claim victory for our side, or even deny others their basic human rights, while asserting that our views and actions carry the weight of the will of God?  We must not forget that slavery at one time was considered by many to reflect the will of God.

The Bible assures us that we are all created in God’s image.  Our challenge is to avoid seeking to create God in ours.

The value of stories

Met last night with a group of people from our church who are reading/studying We Make the Road by Walking by Brian McClaren.    I am finding the group really interesting, the conversation thought-provoking.   A quote from the author explaining the title of the book:
  
The Christian faith is still "in the making" (Dr. John Cobb). It continues to grow, evolve, learn, change, emerge, and mature ... in and through us. What we will be as Christians in the 21st century, for better or worse, will surely change what Christian faith will be in the 22nd century and beyond. So, with that in mind, I wanted to introduce people to a vision of the Christian faith and the biblical narrative not as a box, set in stone, and not as a parking lot (where we await the ferry to heaven), but as a road ... that is extended into the future by all of us, walking forward in the Spirit together.

  Some takeaways from last night?

1) the bible is a library of stories.   Example - There are two different creation stories in the first two chapters and they are very different.  They are each reflections of a community's effort to understand who they are, why they are here . . .  They are stories to be shared, read aloud, pondered.  They are not history.  They are not to be taken literally.  They are considered scripture.  As the author states, two are better than one because they "challenge us to see life from a variety of angles - adding depth, a sense of direction, and wisdom."   Likewise there are 4 different gospels and they are different as well.  Where does this leave us?   Liberated for sure and with some work to do.

2)  McClaren suggests warning against eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (in the second creation story) as a warning against judgment.  Can we discern right and wrong without labeling part of creation as bad or evil?   Can we be clear about what is good and moral while remaining humble and open to dialogue?   This feels very consistent with Pope's message over the past few days.

Pope Francis - Getting Past Sinners and Saints

Quite a lot has changed since people had concerns about John F. Kennedy’s Catholic faith and whether his allegiance to the Pope would interfere with his allegiance to his country and its constitution. Now we have 164 Catholic congressmen and women - and the Pope spoke this week to their joint session.   More than just “spoke,” he was welcomed enthusiastically -  and celebrated.  It was very cool that Congress could embrace this leader in what felt like a rare bipartisan moment.  It is also an historic moment and a hopeful one.  A major takeaway is the Pope’s invitation to dialogue - his invitation to rise above the duality of sinner and saint that dominates, or more accurately, prevents, political discourse.  Can our leaders respond?  Could both sides relax their claim on rightness and righteousness, refrain from demonizing the other and open themselves up to dialogue?

In another sense little has changed, as Ben Carson recently suggested that a Muslim is not fit to be president. He voiced the same fears that Kennedy and Catholicism faced in 1960.  And those fears are not his alone, as his statements have been followed by a surge in his popularity.  But if history is a lesson, in the end fear doesn’t win. (Check out Krauthammer's opinion of Carson's comments here.)

And I do agree with Dr. Carson on this point:  we must guard against the violation of the first amendment. We must not allow the government establishment of religion - any religion - even my religion.  We must work constantly to provide space for people of different religions and differing understandings to exercise their faith - even if their faith conflicts with ours.  Or especially if their faith conflicts with ours!    

No, that does not mean anything goes.  That does not strip away our history.  Our country is founded on fundamental morals and values that will stand the test of time. The Pope spoke of the most  important one yesterday - he referred to it as he advocated for a humane and just approach to immigrants and reminded us of our responsibility to protect and defend human life.   So as Pope Francis suggested to our leaders, let us drop the saints vs sinners partisanship.  “Let us treat others with the same passion and compassion with which we want to be treated.”   Yes - maybe we can give the Golden Rule another try.