Too Good to be True

--Is there good without God? Can people be good without God? How can people be good, in the moral and ethical sense, without being grounded in some sort of belief in a being which is greater than they are? Where do concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, come from if not from religion? From where do you get your sense of good and evil, right and wrong?

Any person can aspire to Goodness. Any Christian, Any Buddhist. Any Atheist. God, or a belief in God, is not necessary. What is necessary to aspire to Goodness is religion. What is necessary to define Goodness, is love.

The desire to be good or to do good: that is morality. The intentional and dedicated pursuit of Goodness as a guiding principle in our lives: that is religion. It is important to note in that definition that the principle “guides” us, it does not determine for us what is Good. How we define what is Good is cultural, it is elusive and changeable, and ultimately it is emotional.

Take the example of an Eco-Friendly acquaintance of mine. Environmentalism informs every aspect of her life: how she dresses, what she eats, how she votes, who she marries, etc. That sounds like a religion. She avidly pursues the Good without ever considering God.

But what if her “religion” excludes on moral grounds testing that might save human lives? What of my religion, which permits medical testing but pollutes the planet irrevocably? If either of us gets our way, the other is trampled, surely such a thing cannot be Good.

Surely the Good is a compromise between what I believe and what she believes, what I am willing to surrender to her and what she is willing to surrender to me. Goodness exists in a space between us, we define it communally and since we are both avidly pursuing it, we can hope to achieve it together. We do this with humility, with compassion, with a desire to please and to be pleased. We do this with love.

And when we reach a loving compromise in this way, it means that we have experienced Goodness without either of us achieving that elusive Good we desired.

When we speak of Christianity as a religion, we acknowledge that the ideal of Christ, his life and works, infuses what we do. Christ does not TELL us what to do, but an intentional determination to lead a Christ-like life guides us. But in every action we take toward that goal of Christ-like living, we must know that He would never want us to trample those in our path. That would not be Christ-like, it would not be Good. We believe we are created in the image of God and that our moral fiber s a reflection of that “drop of perfection” in our souls. I believe that. I just don’t think it’s necessary to believe it to aspire to Goodness.

Nothing I have said here is new. Plato, Kant, Keats, Eckhart all have explored it more thoroughly and intelligently. None, perhaps, so well as Iris Murdoch, the British philosopher and author of many brilliant novels and essays including “The Sovereignty of Good” in which she argues every nuance with elegant simplicity. That books ends with the conclusion that we should not try to define Goodness, or Love, for that matter, but be aware that humility is the road to both.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck….

The Vatican has offered to create a loophole in Catholicism through which Anglicans and conservative Anglo-Episcopalians can slip into their pews with little or no adjustment of principle. That simply cannot be true. The Conservative Anglicans may wish to distinguish themselves from Catholics, and those who care enough to ask may see the distinction, but out in the real world of generalizations and rounded off numbers, they will be counted as Catholics.

While that isn’t a bad thing, per se, be careful, I say to my Anglican brethren, that you are joining a Church not only that will accept you, but that will represent your values to the world.

If disenchanted Anglicans add their numbers to the Catholic Church’s count, they throw their weight behind the Catholic Church’s agenda. With their inclusion, statistically more people will, for example, believe in the supremacy of the Pope. No, they may say, we are Anglicans, but on a grand scheme, in the real world, who is going to know or even care about that distinction. The next time there is a poll of religious affiliation and political activism will there be an asterisk by Catholic? Or a box between Episcopalian and Catholic marked “Walks like a Duck but not a Duck.”

As an Episcopalian, I am not a duck. I believe in ordaining women and homosexuals. When the Pope pardons clergy who deny the Shoah, I don’t have to own it. When he states that the distribution of condoms in Africa contributes to the spread of AIDS there, I get to be outraged.

Now, in my experience, most Catholics read the Papal declarations, but then they do what they want. From the perspective of personal piety, I am hard pressed to discern between my conservative Anglican friends and my Catholic friends. As far as I can see, Catholicism is not addressing the current realties of the lives of Catholics. Nor is the Anglican Community satisfying the needs of its conservative congregants. If my Anglican brethren join the Catholic Communion, I pray that their critical mass will be felt and not subsumed by the church, that both communities will converge to form a new species that is clearly being called for.

In a previous blog, I argued that worshipers should feel free to change churches to fit their needs. I want to rephrase that now to say that worshipers, when they feel their churches do not meet their needs, should change the church. As was saliently said by Diana Butler Bass last week, people of faith have been voting with their feet since the dawn of time. You might call it Religious Darwinism: churches adapt or they disappear. I love and admire the Catholic Church. I just think it could use a wee smidgeon of evolution.

Plenty Good Rooms

This week the Vatican announced its intention to make a place at its table for Anglican and Episcopalian brethren who are discontented with recent trends in their own denominations. The Vatican’s stated objective is to increase their numbers and they have been accused of “sheep stealing” by various pundits and commentators. Regardless of the motive, the Vatican is performing a fundamentally Christian act: reaching out to brethren who feel disconnected and welcoming them into the fold of fellowship and worship in the Church. What matters is that a people of faith find a place where they can worship in community and without compromising their closely held values. In the words of that beautiful spiritual, there are “plenty good rooms in my father’s kingdom” and these Christians feel that they are at liberty to “choose their seat and sit down.” I would argue, however, that they feel that way because they are at the end of the day, fundamentally not Catholic.

In the Anglican Communion, we believe that God speaks directly to us, not through an intermediary. In the Anglican Communion, the denomination is driven from the pews and not the Pope. As a result we are “messy.” We disagree on clerical qualifications, we argue about inclusive language, heck, we can’t even decide whether to sit or stand during the prayers at communion! We argue about these things sometimes so heatedly that we have to agree not to talk about them for years at a time, as was done at a recent convention. And yes, sometimes it makes us look absurd, extreme or disjointed. That is because our denomination is predicated on the ability of the laity to discern and determine the call of the church as a body. Growing pains are a natural side effect of an institution that is growing.

I am a Theology and Ethics major at a Methodist Seminary. When my colleagues tease me about being an Episcopalian, I say that we are indeed one step away from Catholicism… but it is a step to the left. I think that means that we applaud our Anglo-Episcopalian and Anglican fellows for having the integrity to acknowledge their discomfort with trends in our denomination and desiring to align their worship with their convictions. I hope it means that they will always feel they have a place with us, that they are welcome in our churches, in our homes and at our tables in the understanding that we are all guided by the same desire for authentic faith. I hope for them, as I hope for all of us on any journey in any faith or community, that their discernment is as thoroughgoing as their commitment to their faith. “Blessed are they that keep his testimonies, and that seek him with the whole heart.” May his word be as a lamp unto your feet.

Throwing Christians to the Lions in the 21st Century

This week my daughter’s high school had standardized testing. Out in front, meticulously restrained to the sidewalk pavement and therefore not on the grounds of a public school, representatives of The Gideons, handed out to the entering students, pocket sized copies of Christian Scripture. The books are quite small, they are bound in one of the school colors and they were thrust into the hands of the students just as casually as if they were flyers for the sandwich shop down the street. The students took them, too, just as casually. Inside the school, however, these little books were tossed in the garbage, used as projectiles, defaced, defamed and disrespected.

Now I am not one who proclaims the sanctity of the book. Frankly, that smacks of idolatry to me. The Word is sacred, the book paper. My own Bible has writing in the margins and dog eared pages. Isaiah was once soaked in coffee and smells like Kona Blend to this day. This, to my mind, is a good thing. No, it is not the defacement of the icon that concerns me.

Nor do I want to give the impression that every one of the kids who took a book from the Gideons subsequently abused or disrespected it. Most were bemused but respectful and either set them aside or crammed them into the bottomless pit that is a high school locker. Really, the vast majority of kids couldn’t care less either way.

And I am sure that the hearts of the Gideons outside were in the right place. . These good men reached out in accordance with their mission to “promote the Gospel of Christ to all people.” They intended to offer support and consolation on an incredibly stressful day. Perhaps they thought that, going into that Algebra AP, the feel of the recitation of Scripture might make a student more calm. In point of fact, the recitation of the Pythagorean Theorem might make them calmer, but whatever. They might even have imagined that in a moment of crisis or despair someone might open the little book to the Gospels or the Psalms or the Proverbs and have their lives changed by the Scripture in that moment. These are worthy aims, I have no beef with this.

What concerns me is the Christian in the crowd. I am thinking of the teenager who is just at that age where going to Church Camp or Youth Group outings is really fun to do, but a little embarrassing to admit. This is the teen who is right at that moment in their faith life where they wonder if the obvious and pervasive stupidity that they have just begun to notice is a part of every single adult of their acquaintance extends to their pastor and therefore their faith. This is the teen who is deciding how religion will fit on the horizon of their emerging adulthood. What this child sees inside that building is that his faith is a liability. His peers jeer at the Scripture, they read the words with dripping sarcasm and the laugh at the dopey language and tired parables. The Christian student in this scenario is in the horrible position of having to stand up for his faith in the face of the loudest of his peers, or to deny his faith and slink away, resenting the Scripture for having put him in this position in the first place. The Gideons who lovingly handed out those scriptures in the hope of reaching the Christians inside the building have only succeeded in throwing the most vulnerable of their brethren to the Lions.

Scripture could very likely help a person who is anxious and unsure as he or she enters a testing situation or an interview room or an application process, but in order for the Scripture to do that person any good, he has to have read it before hand, to have processed it, incorporated it into his bones and made it his own somehow. That isn’t done on Testing Day, on the sidewalk outside of school by a stranger with a blaze orange book. By all means minister to the youth of our community, evangelize right up until the very last day, but do it with compassion, thoughtfully and intelligently. Possibly, on the day of the SAT’s, hand that sweating sophomore a role of Tums and a card with an inscription that says, “I’m hoping for the best for you.” That seems like, well, what Jesus would do.

Hate Crimes Legislation is a Federal Anti Bullying Campaign

Congress is expected to expand federal hate crimes laws to add "sexual orientation" to a list that already includes "race, color, religion or national origin." Is this necessary? Should there be special laws against crimes motivated by intolerance, bigotry and hatred? Isn't a crime a crime?

Hate crimes are particularly horrific because they say not, “I hurt you because you hurt me,” but “I hurt you because you are.” And also, frequently, “because I can.” Hate crimes are so common in our culture that we have multiple names for it. One of them is bullying. Virtually every school district in the United States has an anti-bullying campaign to teach our children to recognize intimidation, take it to the authorities and let the authorities work out the consequences. Hate crimes legislation is no more than a Federal Anti-Bullying Campaign. Where a citizen is victimized for being who he is and is afraid to stand up for himself, the government says, “If he threatens you again, you come and get me and I’ll deal with it.” But what any school child will tell you, whether he is the victim, witness or bully, is that the ani-bullying campaign is only as strong as the punishment it delivers. If the principle wags his finger at the bully and says, “Now don’t kick sand in Dexter’s eyes anymore, Spike,” the bully will go right out and fearlessly victimize the little guy again. In a culture where we have to teach our children to do what is right and where an adult sized potion of courage is required to do it, the least we can do is promise that the legislation that protects them has teeth. It doesn’t matter who the little guy is, the big guy can’t push him around on our block.

The H1N1 Vaccine Debate and a Christian Compromise

Polls show a majority of Americans are concerned about the H1N1 virus (swine flu), but also about the safety and efficacy of the swine flu vaccine. Is it ethical to say no to this or any vaccine? Are there valid religious reasons to accept or decline a vaccine? Will you get a swine flu shot? Will your children?

The H1N1 virus threatens the national and administration of the vaccine should be mandatory. Certainly, there are valid religious reasons to refuse or accept vaccination. However, in the face of a serious threat to national health, the United States of America has historically, and without remorse, set aside the religious reservations of a few in the interest of protecting the majority of its population. It must be done, but it need not be disrespectful. If we are compelled to ask our Christian Scientist and Jehovah’s Witness brethren, among others, to trample their religious principles for our benefit, the least we can do is be kind about it, be respectful, and if at all possible, grateful to them for threatening their salvation in favor of ours.

I compromise my principles a little bit every day in order to ensure religious freedom for my neighbors. In my own state of Illinois, a parent choosing to refuse state-required immunizations must jump through a series of state and county hoops, produce signed documents and testimonies and prove their religious affiliation. In exchange, the state offers me as much assurance as it possibly can that my vaccinated children will be safe from infection. It does not, it cannot, categorically promise to isolate my children from their unvaccinated classmates. This is a risk I live with because I would not want to live in a country that required “separate but equal” facilities for people who had made choices based on their faith traditions. Once in a while, in one fell swoop and in recognition of special circumstances, I ask these same neighbors to make a similar sacrifice for me. I am confident in their empathy and reasonableness.

Jesus told us to preserve the Sabbath and we respect people who honor the Sabbath. He also healed the sick on the Sabbath. He argued that violating the Sabbath laws did not invalidate the Sabbath but that his father in heaven valued human life above ritual purity. He made these arguments and he performed these miracles with respect and kindness toward those whose religions he compromised through his actions. We can do no less in his name.

Dream into Being: A Post Racial World

Gravity works like this: everything we do, everything we have created to live on earth, every cell in our bodies and every expectation we have in our lives depends on gravity. We develop strong bodies, muscles, dense bones, parallel hips and shoulder structures, so that we can stand up in opposition to gravity. Our cells are oriented by and function in concert with gravitational pull. We design buildings and use materials that counter act gravity. The forces of gravity move the largest bodies of water known to man back and forth across the face of the planet. The force of gravity is so ingrained in us that we are able to anticipate a falling snowflake. Even our animals comprehend of gravity: my dog is not performing elaborate computations to predict the pitch and drag of the Frisbee he catches I his mouth. It is instinctive. Gravity is like that: so instinctive that we don’t think about it at all, it’s a given. And yet everything we do and everything we are is premised on gravity. That is being White in the U.S.

Now imagine that gravity increased ten-fold. Imagine it pushed you down. Imagine you could not build the structures or catch the snowflake, imagine that you had to use every ounce of your strength to stand. That is being non-white in the U.S.

This was brought home to me in an essay by Alice Walker called “Saving the Life that is Your Own” in which she examines role models she’s held for her own writing. It struck me that she had to go looking for role models who were not what she was, but what she wanted to be. She quotes Toni Morrison saying that she has to be “her own model as well as the artist attending from, learning and realizing the model.” What struck me about this is that my race has never defined my role models, because my potential is not limited by my race. In my entire life as a writer, until that moment, it never occurred to me that I could not aspire to be Leo Tolstoy.

I look around at the books on my shelves and their stories jump out at me. I know the characters like old friends, I know their lines, I can envision their most moving scenes with an immediacy that gives me great joy. I have to stop and think and in several cases Google and check the race and sometimes gender of the writer. This, in my sheltered little mind, is the road to the kingdom. In her essay, Alice Walker says that white writers tend to write the reality they live in now, “as if there were no better existence for which to struggle.” Black writers, however, expect a “larger freedom” and their characters struggle toward it.

One thing all theologians agree on is that human beings are narrative animals. They take their realities and write them into legends: they call that history. They write their dreams and imagine a reality that is more perfect, more satisfying than what they know: they call that fiction. But when those stories are read and their fictions take root in the imagination of the reader, then there is the beginning of reality. I know this story, you know it. A truth exists between us and between us we can live that truth into being, speak imagination into revolution, create the reality that once was only a dream.

I don’t know what I post racial world looks like. But I can imagine a city whose buildings are constructed in different ways and with different materials, I can imagine evolutionary adaptations that enabled people to walk and breathe comfortably. I can imagine bowling becoming a more popular sport than tennis. And then suddenly having the weight lifted, the entire paradigm changing and how a culture would have to adapt to their “larger freedom.” Imagine that.