The Hellish Depths of Truth

Drawing the Line

2009-12-11T17:00:00.005-06:00

Rev. Rick Warren finally bowed to the pressure and released a statement denouncing the pending legislation in Uganda that would make homosexual activity a capital offense on the grounds that “ALL life, no matter how humble or broken, whether unborn or dying, is precious to God.”[1],[2] In the same statement, Rev. Warren also went on record that he opposes the imprisonment of homosexuals, stating, “I oppose the criminalization of homosexuality. The freedom to make moral choices is endowed by God. Since God gives us that freedom, we must protect it for all, even when we disagree with their choices.”

This is certainly a move in the right direction for Rev. Warren, and he should be commended for speaking out against a clear evil, even if it was late in coming. However, the problem is that his new reasoning is inconsistent with his previous positions on homosexuality, and so it begs us to ask where Rev. Warren now draws the line on the treatment of homosexuals.

Killing homosexuals is clearly out, as is imprisoning them, in Rev. Warren’s latest press release.

How about stripping homosexuals of civil rights? Here it gets dicey for him; Rev. Warren supported Proposition 8—which stripped the right to marriage from homosexuals in California—saying in a statement to his congregation, “now let me say this really clearly: we support Proposition 8—and if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8.”[3],[4] The problem is the stripping of civil rights is a form of criminalization; the only other way in our country to lose civil rights is criminal activity.

Perhaps Rev. Warren realized this when he tried to deny that he had ever publicly endorsed Proposition 8 on Larry King Live.[5] So it seems that denying civil rights to homosexuals could go either way for Rev. Warren, at least until he gets too much criticism for it. The problem is that Rev. Warren has two mutually exclusive positions on what to do about homosexuals.

On one hand, as his latest statement shows, Rev. Warren opposes criminalizing homosexuals and supports the freedom to make moral choices. In the other hand, Rev. Warren believes that homosexuality cannot be tolerated, as a statement given in his March 2008 visit to Uganda attests.[6] Does this mean that Rev. Warren supports intolerance of homosexuals so long as it doesn’t go so far as to criminalize them?

As a seminarian, my professors would never allow me to get away with such inconsistency and ambiguity in my work. Who will call Rev. Warren out on this?

Unholy Cowardice

2009-12-08T20:27:00.003-06:00

The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the origin of God’s creation: “I know your works; you are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were either cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth.” –Revelation 3: 14b-16

I write concerning Rev. Rick Warren and unholy cowardice, for in the face the great evil of Uganda’s state-sponsored genocide, Rev. Warren has publicly pronounced his neutrality and remained silent. In his tepidity, he has become a foul taste in God’s mouth.

Rev. Warren tried to excuse his cowardice as unwillingness to “comment or interfere in the political process of other nations.” However, at best this is a new conviction as his corpus of writings and public appearances clearly demonstrate a willingness to engage the international scene when it suites his purposes.

As recently as December of 2008, Rev. Warren is publicly quoted on national television as supporting the assassination of President Ahmadinejad. Commenting and interfering in the political process of another nation does not get any clearer than this. Rev. Warren was willing to interfere with other nations in order to advocate for assassination, but he is unwilling to interfere with other nations in order to speak out against murder.

Nor has Rev. Warren’s international meddling been limited to the political sphere.

Rev. Warren has not shied away from such meddling in the past, so clearly the moral high ground he is trying to claim now is founded in cowardice. But what, exactly, is he afraid of?
There are two possibilities. The first, God forbid, is that Rev. Warren actually agree with the planned legislation in Uganda, which would make homosexuality a capital punishment and the reporting of homosexuals a state-mandated duty of citizens, and he are afraid of the political fallout of such a radical position. If this is the case, his support of a great evil is further condemned by his weakness of conviction. Consider the great cloud of witnesses of the Christian Faith who were martyred for the strength of their conviction; they were willing to die for what they believe, but Rev. Warren is not even willing to face political fallout for his beliefs.

The second and worse possibility is that Rev. Warren privately disagrees with the proposed actions of the Ugandan government, but is afraid to speak out against their actions lest he offend his followers and those close to him. If this is the case, then may God have mercy, for the prophets have taught us that God rains down judgment on those who allow injustice to stand. The greatest evils of modern history were delivered on the silver plate of silent acquiescence of those who might have spoken out but did not: the Holocaust, segregation and racism in the United States, and the genocide of Native Americans come to mind.

So Rev. Warren, which will it be? Will you be either cold or hot and renounce your tepidity? A person cannot be a Christian and a coward; the conviction of our faith in Jesus Christ compels us to speak out and stand by our beliefs even when there are consequences for doing so. As Christians, we cannot stand by and keep silence while great evil is underfoot.

Turning the Other Cheek

2007-11-21T14:53:00.000-06:00

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

2007-11-16T10:14:00.000-06:00

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

2007-10-28T19:30:00.000-05:00

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

2007-10-22T21:36:00.000-05:00

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

2007-10-12T12:11:00.000-05:00

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

2007-10-06T09:48:00.000-05:00

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

2007-09-28T15:18:00.000-05:00

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.

The March Goes On

2007-09-26T08:33:00.001-05:00

The Bishops of the Episcopal Church concluded its talks yesterday in New Orleans where they met to discuss their position on homosexuality in light of pressures placed upon them by the greater Anglican Communion. In order to provide a brief background, members of the Anglican Communion, lead by the African Church, have been threatening a schism with the Episcopal Church if it did not address their demands regarding the practice of consecrating openly gay bishops and blessing same-sex unions. To complicate matters, a few individual dioceses of the Episcopal Church have begun the process of schism with the Episcopal Church over the same issue.

At the end of the talks, the response of the Episcopal Church was to preserve the unity of the Anglican Communion and cave on its open and affirming practice of consecration of openly gay bishops and blessing of same-sex unions. There were a few other clauses in their statement, including a demand for the immediate cessation of interference in local diocese by African Bishops and a strongly worded statement outlining the church's stance on homosexual rights.

"...we also be clear and outspoken in our shared commitment to establish and protect the civil rights of gay and lesbian persons, and to name and oppose at every turn any action or policy that does violence to them, encourages violence toward them, or violates their dignity as children of God."

As a person of faith and more specifically, as a person aspiring to ordination in the Episcopal Church, I am greatly saddened by our Bishops' decision. While I understand the importance of unity in the Anglican tradition, I have to ask at times like this, "at what cost?" In the words of Isaiah, "A highway shall be there, and it will be called the Holy Way." We were on the path of the Holy, but we have left it in order to appease the greater church. While some may point with hope to the statement of dedication to the rights of homosexuals, the hypocrisy that we would claim to uphold their dignity as children of God and deny their ability to be consecrated as Bishops or have their union blessed is almost to great to bear.

So what now? We cannot lose hope--the path of righteousness is long and demanding. We must strengthen the weak hands and make firm the feeble knees, because the march must go on. When we choose to be in communion with Christ, then we must always stand by the oppressed and the suffering.

Bewitched Thinking

2007-09-22T09:14:00.000-05:00

An interesting little news piece appeared on the BBC today that tells a story of intrigue and shame for a little town, Glarus, Switzerland. 225 years ago, a maid by the name Anna Goeldi underwent torture and execution as a witch, bearing the distinction of being the last person executed for witchcraft in Western Europe.

It is sometimes good to hear stories such as these to remind ourselves how far we've come. Today we accept other people's religions openly and without fear. Today we are above institutionalized torture and death. Today we are wise enough not to blame our societies' problems and shortcomings on categories of people based on race, economics, creed, or lifestyle.

Thanks be to God that we need not fear the alienation of God, who looks down upon these iniquities with displeasure.

Shifting Sands

2007-09-17T21:40:00.000-05:00

Today's news broke the story concerning the cancellation of the operating license of Blackwater, a private security firm based in the United States, by the Iraqi Minister of the Interior following a Sunday shootout that killed 8 and wounded 10 people. Blackwater has been a fixture of the United States' efforts in Iraq throughout the war, although their presence has not been without controversy--including the mounting disfavor in which Blackwater is held by the Iraqi people.

Whatever your concern is about Blackwater--whether it be a lack of accountability to the law, inequality of pay when compared to soldiers, greater availability of protective gear for mercenaries, or lack of benefits for Blackstone veterans--I think that it is important to step back and consider the big picture.

Our society has been in a trend towards privatization of government programs in recent years. While this has been a trend over a period of time, it has become pronounced in the Iraqi war. Whether it be food services, technical support, nation building, or in the case of Blackwater, mercenaries, we have seen a large effort to commercialize the process of war.

This raises a number of troubling questions. When war becomes a for-profit venture, is it still possible to make a claim for just war? When war becomes a for-profit venture, what code of ethics guides our actions? When war becomes a for-profit venture, what impetus is there to stop?

For people of faith, the question must also be, "When the economy guides some of the most profound decisions of humanity, where is God?" Have we become like the foolish man who built his foundation upon the shifting sands? Who is our God?

Waters of the Deep

2007-09-14T22:56:00.000-05:00

In a study released by the United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2/3 of the world's polar bears are expected to disappear in the next 50 years--the icy landscape that comprises their world is literally dissolving into the watery deep of the Arctic Ocean.

However, it doesn't take scientific reports for the average person to see that there is something amiss in our natural world. Two weeks ago, I walked down to the shore of Lake Michigan to soak my feet in the sand. As I stood there enjoying the feel of the water on that hot day, a lifeguard rushed over and informed me that the water was unsafe due to high levels of pollution, that I could not stand in it.

It is terrifyingly clear that the world is becoming hostile to life, to our existence. The polar bears watch as their land is reclaimed by the watery chaos, I watch as the water which once provided food, recreation, and pleasure now provides disease. What is tragic is that this transformation has occurred by the human hand. We are actively opposing, reversing, the work of God that began with the creative urge that swept over the formless deep.

The voice of the Prophet Isaiah offers a vision for those people who oppose God's will, a chilling vision in that it describes a world that is inhospitable to humanity--a world much like the one we are creating. The act of subversion against the divine actively produces the consequences of our behavior.

Is there hope? Can we allow the eyes of the blind to be opened, the ears of the deaf to be unstopped, and become agents of God's work within creation?

A Tortuous Walk to School

2007-09-11T19:29:00.000-05:00

Today while walking to class with friends, we passed a house with a large black banner that read in bold letters, "Torture is Wrong." One of my friends wryly commented, "10 years ago that statement would have been uncontested, now we consider it open to debate." Although we chuckled at his dark irony, the thought stayed with me.

It seems that so much of the moral character of our once proud nation has descended into the murky depths in the past 10 years. Once we would have considered it abhorrent to lead a preemptive strike another nation. Once we fought wars to defend our God-given freedoms and responsibilities we now freely surrender in the name of fear. Once we considered lying to the public an impeachable charge for our leaders.

As a person of faith, I find this all to be greatly disturbing because it betrays a dangerous arrogance, for in the Gospel of Matthew we are taught that the path of righteousness and morality requires us not to seek retaliation. Instead, we are compelled to offer ourselves willingly to those who strike against us. To do otherwise is to believe that the justice we deliver is superior or more satisfying than the justice of God, and as Paul writes to the Romans, who are we to think that we can understand the radical justice and mercy of God?

Existential Eschatology

2007-09-11T01:19:00.000-05:00

It has been said that there is only one philosophical question, "is life worth living?" and all other questions presume the affirmative answer to that question. While this certainly appears to be a profound question--and it is certainly important--our everyday actions betray the mundanity of this preeminent question for most of us. When we get up in the morning, go to work, ride the bus, and chat with friends, our behavior clearly says that we have said, "yes, life is worth living."

I believe that the far more devastating question is, "to what end?" That is, as we go about our daily lives, for what ultimate purpose do we commit our acts? At the end of the day, the end of our lives, the end of all things, will our actions still have purpose and meaning? This is a terrifying line of inquiry because so much of what we do fails the test of this question.

I struggle with this question and I do not yet have an answer for it. However, I believe that the words of Micah have the ring of truth, "To do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with God."

Of course, this is all rendered mute if you answer the first question in the negative.