Turning the Other Cheek

The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to hear an appeal from Washington, D.C. in regards to a decision by an Appeals Court that ruled a hand-gun ban in the District unconstitutional. This case is receiving a great deal of national attention not only because it will affect a number of gun control laws throughout the country, including here in Chicago, but because it will likely become a hot topic in the upcoming presidential race.

The gun control debate is an interesting issue in part due to the wide number of considerations that shape its discussion: Constitutional law, crime prevention, child safety, etc. However as this blog is based on religion and not the finer point of the U.S. Constitution, I will frame my comments religiously--more specifically, with a Christian perspective.

Perhaps one common argument given for the ownership of guns is self-defense; it is this very argument that set off the whole controversy that now faces the Court. However, as a Christian, I find this argument to be completely contrary to our faith tradition. When we look to the life and teachings of Christ, we find that he is about as much of a pacifist as one can get.

In the garden, the night that Christ was arrested, Peter lifted his sword to defend the Messiah. Yet even then as he was faced with the prospect of death, Christ rebuked Peter and told him to put down his sword. If we are not allowed to defend even the Son of God, how can we claim the right to defend ourselves?

Voting by Faith

In what was perhaps a controversial move, the Catholic Bishops of the United States released a statement yesterday concerning the upcoming presidential elections. After compelling their members to vote in accordance with the moral teachings of the Catholic Church--especially in regards to abortion, just war, immigration, and poverty--the Bishops warned that failure to do so would result in judgment by God.

Just so that you don't think that I am succumbing to hyperbole, the Bishops actually said, "It is important to be clear that the political choices faced by citizens have an impact on general peace and prosperity and also the individual's salvation." Taking it a step further, they then turned their attention to our political leadership saying, "Similarly, the kinds of laws and policies supported by public officials affect their spiritual well-being."

My initial reaction to this announcement was aversion; I am always somewhat wary of hand of religion playing in politics. However, after resting on the story for a while, it occurred to me that everything I am doing in this blog is advocating for the involvement of religion and faith in all aspects of our life, especially the political. While I might not always agree with the Catholic Church on their individual stands, I have to admire them for trying to get their followers to take their faith a step beyond Sunday worship.

What would our world look like if we really did apply our beliefs that we profess on Sunday morning in all aspects of our life? What if I went to the polling booth to vote for promises welfare to care for the sick and the needy and not promises of tax cuts for the rich? What if I loved my neighbor like Christ taught, even the ones who sleep on the sidewalks in front stores, instead of quickening my pace? What if my decisions in the grocery store were shaped by the Genesis charge to care for creation, and not merely what was cheap and convenient? What if our foreign policy were shaped by love for our enemy and not hate?

Perhaps the Catholic Church is on to something. The question remains, will the rest of the church have the courage to step up to the challenge? Will I have the courage?

Ideological Idolatry

This week, the Senate of the United States will be taking up the issue of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which just passed in the House of Representatives this past week. The bill is likely to meet with a veto from President Bush, the same fate it met at the beginning of October when it first found its way onto the President's desk. The response from the White House towards the bill--which would provide health care for children of low-income families who earn too much to qualify for Medicare but not enough to afford private health insurance--is supported by a bi-partisan majority and is seen as a compassionate and necessary bill.

Why the apparently cold opposition? An insightful article from a high school newspaper offers a clue. The Bush administration has become entangled in the quagmire of ideological rigidness. Through a combination of unwavering support of privatization, moral opposition to welfare, political entrenchment against taxes, and a sheer pig-headed adherence to ideology that has been the hallmark of his administration, President Bush cannot see, much less act, outside of his self-imposed boundaries.

While it is easy to stand on the outside and criticize President Bush for his failure of vision and compassion, it is much harder to recognize the same ideological traps when you are caught in them yourself. As a religious person and a seminarian, I frequently encounter such ideological blindness. Perhaps the biggest example of the same phenomenon is the issue of homosexuality in the Episcopal Church.

As I have written previously, the House of Bishops called for the Bishops of the Episcopal Church to show restraint in the consecration of openly homosexual Bishops. It just so happens that the Diocese of Chicago is in the process of choosing a new Bishop, and this weekend I had the opportunity to meet the candidates. A few of the 8 individuals strike be as potentially making wonderful Bishops for our Diocese. Unfortunately, one of the high quality candidates is a lesbian in a committed and loving relationship with her partner.

As a result, it is unlikely that she will be allowed to bring her ministry and talent to our Diocese, even we were to determine that she is the best qualified to fill the position. The Episcopal Church has acquiesced the Anglican Communion and in doing so has allowed itself to become bound by an ideology that prevents us from doing what is right and compassionate.

Bondage to ideology is nothing less than idolatry--by binding ourselves we deny our ability to follow the movement of the Spirit, thereby placing our own beliefs above God. Rigidness in belief places the idea of God before God. How can it be overcome? By accepting the unknowability of God and walking humbly on the path of God.

The Tides of Change

It seems that at least Congress is beginning to break down partisan barriers on the threat of global warming. In a statement yesterday, Senator Gregg (Republican from New Hampshire) stated that global warming deserves serious consideration in reference to a new bill, America's Climate Security Act of 2007 sponsored by Republican Senator Warner (VA) and Independent Senator Lieberman (CT).

After Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, and the subsequent Nobel Prize, the issue of global warming is firmly in the minds of the public. Now, after a recent study is showing that CO2 levels are rising at a rate 3 times faster than the previous decade, the immediacy of the problem is also in the public square.

The question is now whether the issue will be one of rhetoric or real change with the upcoming presidential election. Religious circles have played a large role in previous elections--can we as God's people guide our leaders into doing the work of God in the world? Can we be a part of the swelling tide to save God's creation?

Courage to Do

Al Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize this morning for his work towards raising awareness about global warming, which he sees as not an issue of politics but, "a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity." I personally have a great deal of admiration for Al Gore, if for no other reason than he seems to understand the courage necessary to make positive changes in this world.

I do not mean the courage to stand up against those who would detract from what you say, although that is important. I mean the courage to look inwards and make the necessary changes in our values and worldview. The dark secret of the environmental movement, and of social justice for that matter, is that it is not compatible with our societal way of life. That is, we cannot change the world by continuing to live the same way.

I bring in social justice because it has been a topic of discussion in one of my classes, and I find myself coming to realize that social justice stands at a right angle to the values of our society. We can make inroads here and there for social justice without making a substantive change to our lifestyle, but if we are to bring about a socially engaged world then we must re-orient ourselves.

When Christ called his disciples, he did not say, "Continue to fish while I make you ministers for the world." He said, "Put down your nets and follow me." Christ calls us to re-order our lives so that our jobs, education, even family ties are no longer of paramount concern. Christ calls us to put down those things and make our sole priority to walk with God.

It takes a little bit of courage and a whole deal of honesty to realize that. It takes a great amount of courage to actually do it.

Righteous Estrangement

For those who have been living in a hole, in a cave, with your fingers in your ears, Iranian President, Ahmadinejad, visited Columbia University a week ago where he had been invited to speak. Controversial as this invitation was, what has received equal, if not greater, attention was the scathing introduction given by the president of Columbia University. The timeliness of this topic may seem to have passed, but what I want to discuss here is an issue which is timeless and only exemplified in this news story.

We seem to love stories in which there is a clear bad guy, stories in which we can clearly delineate that which is wrong from ourselves. If you don't believe me, consider stories in the news such as a mother killing her children, or a politician embroiled in a sex scandal. Now consider the responses which we often voice and hear voiced, responses that in various ways condemn the guilty party and verify that it is not possible for us to act in such a way. Case and point: the introduction for President Ahmadinejad at Columbia University.

So what's the problem? I am not saying that there are not actions against which we should stand. The problem is when we use condemnations of others to define our self, to delineate the self through separation of the other. This results in estrangement--I cannot hope to encounter the other as a human being because I have so effectively walled them off.

This estrangement extends beyond the other too. As Paul Tillich, the 20th Century theologian identified, the estrangement of the self from the other also implies an estrangement of the self from the self and an estrangement of the self from God. Furthermore, it is this estrangement which is the root of sin. That is, we sin because we are estranged from the other, the self, and God.

Therefore, as Christians and as people of faith, are we not called to stand against estrangement, to break down those barriers which we have constructed? Next time you catch yourself saying, "I can't imagine..." Stop and ask, "am I trying hard enough?"

Right Action

Today marks the 11th day of protests in Burma, where a popular uprising led by Buddhist monks is challenging the military government on issues of economic hardships and political freedom. While at first treating the protests peacefully, the government has now turned to violence to bring the demonstrations down. As a result, at least 13 people have lost their lives and many more have been injured.

As the intensity rises, the number of monks at the protest has begun to decline, not for lack of support, but because the government has begun rounding up monks from their monasteries and arresting them for inciting dissidence. The Burmese government has rightly identified the monks as bearing a great deal of moral power within their society, a power which they are not afraid to use.

This raises the question, are we as people of faith--as leaders in our community--fulfilling our responsibility to the moral power that we bear? Is it enough to join a Facebook group that supports our cause? When Christ called us to drop everything and follow him, what did he mean? Was it to live comfortably and do what we can or did he mean for us to submit ourselves completely to the will of God, to abandon our pursuits and focus our being on serving the work of the Lord?

The more I read, the more I learn, and the more I experience life and the world, the more I think that Christ intended the latter. It is terrifying and we are so good at justifying why it is not what Christ really wanted. Yet the monks went to lead the people, the monks went to stand up against power, the monks went to provide courage for the people in the face of terror, and the monks went and gave up their safety and their lives.