Requiescat In Pace

Terri Schiavo died today. I wish God's blessings upon Terri and her family. May they have the opportunity to mourn for her in the midst of attention and curiosity. And may Terri be with the God who made her.

Catholics and Evangelicals

In the midst of a culture war that I happen to despise, I am heartened by a silver lining in an otherwise ominous cloud. Catholics and Evangelicals, separated by the strife of centuries-old reformation and counter-reformation, are coming together in this country to promote a "culture of life."

This unlikely union has not been prompted by theological rumblings or a surge of love by either side. Rather, Catholics and Evangelicals are coming to grips with the simple fact that they need each other. They agree on a number of issues, and they are finally realizing that together they can accomplish so much more than what would be done alone. Both groups look at our country and see a myriad of interests that they perceive to be hostile to a message of truth and morality. And as they have begun to circle the wagons, they are realizing that it is better to make the circle as wide and strong as possible.

I will not comment on the defensive posture being adopted by many Catholics and Evangelicals in this country, other than to say that I think these moves to be premature. And if history is any guide, then when the day comes that this country is truly hostile to the message of Christianity, we will finally be ripe for another movement of God's Spirit.

My point is there is no better cure for fractious division than an attack by outsiders. A good friend of mine is Eastern Orthodox, and his take on the Protestant Reformation is a breath of fresh air. According to him, the Orthodox view the Reformation as a family squabble. This of course reminds me of a comment people invariably make about the tumultuous relationship one has with one's sibling: "Don't say a word about my brother... I'm the only person who can say anything bad about him."

Are Catholics and Evangelicals learning this lesson? At long last, it appears that this is the case. These are the first steps, of course, and any real movement in the larger issues that separate Christians is a long way off. But in the interim, I am deeply encouraged by the realization that what unites Catholics and Evangelicals can be of great importance. And perhaps some of the issues we used to think were so important will recede into the background as a larger culture grows more skeptical of the Christian worldview. It's remarkable the clarity and insight that comes with opposition. I'm oversimplifying things a bit, but I suspect that Fundamentalists were so concerned with liquor during the early part of the 20th century because, well, that was the only thing they had that they could worry about. Now that our culture has undergone such dramatic change, may we see the things that are truly important, and prove ourselves faithful disciples of the God who calls all Christians, both Catholics and Evangelicals.

Christ, the Lord, is risen today, Alleluia!

Blessings to you on this Easter Sunday.

"And the angel answered and said to the women, 'Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified. He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said."

Matthew 28:5-6

Terri Shivo Should Still Be Treated As A Person And We Should Act As If We Are People Too.

Terri Schiavo has surfaced many issues for Americans and certainly M.G.’s last post brought to light several other issues for “Pro-Life” Americans today. Although I don’t think food and water constitute “artificial” life support, I do think that it might be better to euthanize her instead of starving her to death. If you are going to end someone’s life, then do it properly and admit that you are doing exactly that. I don’t care for “let nature take its course.” I am generally opposed to euthanasia, but I am more opposed to euthanasia by neglect.

Legally I don’t know what are the limits and acceptable actions, but certainly there are some rights every person has even if they are handicapped. I don’t buy into this “vegetative state” rhetoric. There have been people who have been in similar states who have recovered when doctors said this was not possible. Even if recovery does not happen I don't think it is a wise practice to insure that it does not. I am well aware of the consequences of this ides because I have worked with all levels of disabilities as a direct care worker, and I have changed the dippers and fed people like Terri. She is still a person and not a vegetable. I also don’t think that a person’s mental life is strictly limited to brain function, and neither should you. If your mental life is strictly limited to states of your brain then you need to accept the fact that you are not conscious. The medical field will never be able find the center of consciousness in the brain because it is not there. Another implication if that were the case is that you would not have free will. Your decisions would be direct consequences of your body chemistry, and so all actions by physical organisms are determined such that no one could be ethically accountable for his or her actions. Now, I know there is much here I have asserted and not properly argued for, and have read attempts by philosophers and physicians to account for a physcialist (that is one who believes that the world is strictly physical) form of consciousness. I think these fail. Additionally, I think the testimony of experts is a weighty thing that one should not overturn lightly, but I don’t think that Neurosurgeons have a complete picture. I don’t think I do either, but I believe I have enough information to rebut, if not refute their claims…at least enough to have my own opinion of dissent in THIS case. Terri is a person, and if we can not provide her with food and water, lets not pretend that we are not taking her life and “let her die” slowly.

On the other hand these issues are very difficult. As human beings we should be thoughtful about these things and think though whatever we believe very carefully. I think that too many people have instinctively chosen sides because their party says one thing, or in the past they thought one thing. What do you think now? Why do you think THAT? How certain are you that you are correct? May we all dig into the issues with courage and hold our convictions with humility.

What is a "Culture of Life?"

One of the rallying cries heard often in the debate swirling around Terri Schiavo is that her cause is part of an effort to create a culture of life in this country and around the world. This is a laudable goal. This world would be a better place, or perhaps even a perfect one, if every individual on the planet were committed to making peace and preserving life. Life is, so the truism goes, a gift from God. Yet, in the midst of all this, I wonder if our conception of a culture of life truly reflects the heart of God, or is just as much a reflection of 21st century fears and insecurities.

Americans fear death. Although cemetaries are everywhere in this country, good luck in finding one just by driving around. We tend to hide them. Our culture glorifies the beauty of youth. Death is only for the aged, who live in homes reserved especially for them, away from the young. Above all, medicine is meant to improve and lengthen our lives. And if medicine has a way of lengthening our lives, no matter the quality, then it must be God's will that life continue.

This is in stark contrast to the generations preceding us. Traditionally, death has been everywhere. Mothers had many children, often because they knew that not all of them would make it. As people aged, they stayed with their families. And children saw for themselves what it was to die, and accompanied their elders at home as they passed on. Likewise, the emphasis on the manner in which individuals died that has been lost. For the ancient Greeks, as well as countless of other cultures, a hero's death during the course of battle was among the greatest honors a mortal could receive.

Have we lost some perspective on the place of death in all of our lives? I think so. The enemy of Terri Schiavo is not the husband who wishes to remove her feeding tube. In many ways, Terri Schiavo died on the day she collapsed and fell into her present condition. So we must question the role technology has in preserving a life that has been robbed of so much. The technology is both a curse and a blessing. It seems so cruel to let her die of dehydration, but there is a tragic quality to the life she leads now. We mourn for what happened, but celebrate and protect the life she leads. Her life is in a twilight zone unseen by previous generations.

Perhaps it is important for all people to be more accepting of death, more willing to accept the fact that all we do is delay the inevitable. And since it is inevitable, perhaps we should return again to the idea that the manner in which we die is important too.

My final wish is that all individuals who are committed to a "culture of life" would not limit their interest to the lightning rod issues of today. In my mind, a true "culture of life" is a culture that is committed to eradicating not just abortion and euthanasia, but poverty as well. I understand the reason why people are so concerned with Terri Schiavo, and rightfully so. Her story has captured the attention of a nation. But why aren't people in this country more concerned with the plight of AIDS in Africa? Or why aren't people more concerned with the epidemic of sexual trafficking in parts of Asia? The idea that life is precious means that we should not only preserve life, but protect it as well. There are many lives around the world that are in bondage to the shackles of poverty, disease, and oppression. What are we doing about that?

Some Thoughts on Terri Schiavo

A federal judge heard arguments today on whether he should order the feeding tube that keeps Terri Schiavo alive to be reinserted. This tug-of-war over Terri's life and and possible death has generated tremendous debate around this country and around the world. What has struck me is not the issue people are discussing: the interplay betweeen Terri's husband, Terri's parents, and remarkably, the United States Congress is naturally a topic that needs exploring. Rather, what has stood out to me is what is not being discussed. Specifically, what the removal of a feeding tube will do to Terri.

Granted, this has been going on for seven years, so I've probably missed a great deal of debate. But I'm curious as to know whether this is going to result in a great deal of pain for Terri. I imagine it will. Assuming that it does, I'm also curious as to how the desire for a "good" death can justify the means employed to get there. Terri's husband has emphasized that this is what Terri would have wanted. But we are certainly far removed from what she could have ever envisioned. Aren't we?

Much is also made of whether a feeding tube is an extraordinary means of keeping someone alive. I worry that we make too much of the distinction between extraordinary and ordinary means. Can you really justify inflicting pain on an individual by simply claiming that you are refusing to intervene using extraordinary methods? In fact, it is extraordinary interventions that normally evoke images of needless suffering. When people don't want excessive intervention, it's often because they think that many strategies for prolonging life are invasive and painful. But in this instance, I cannot grasp why there is a perceived need to remove the feeding tube, when it's the very thing that keeps her from suffering.

Above all, this is a saddening situation. My prayers go out to Terri and her family.

Fast Food Fixes and Some Soul Searching

Although I support better living through chemistry to a certain extent, I find the quest for healthy junk food interesting. Does it surprise anyone that a guy who lives on Fast food restaurant food for one month gets fat or that a diet of fries, burgers and greasy fair is bad for you?

What do we do if the pixie dust that enables junk food consumption without its consequences is discovered? Check out this link that says we are finding out some secrets in this area
Scientific American: Additive Might Fight Fast-Food Fat

Note that the scientist is says that we should eat less (bad) fats.

MY QUESTION is about the nature of the real problem. I personally like junk food, but desire to maintain a healthier balance than I currently do. Consider some root issues of why I eat poorly. 1) Is it that we simply do not really believe that these things are bad for us? So, like the smoker who says well it may cause cancer, but I probably will not get cancer. 2) Is it a character issue such that I believe that it will kill me but I have not the internal fortitude to resist the temptation of the bad food? Or maybe I know that it will kill me, but I really don’t want to end my life quickly (plus death by ice cream sounds acceptable). 3) Is it a priority issue so that my life is so fast paced, I just don’t have time to eat properly now – but my long term goal is to eat right. 4) Is it ignorance and there are people who just did not know that junk food is junk? 5) Is it laziness? Who really wants to cook tonight? 6) Or is it a combination or something else that is at the root of this junk food nation – the siren songs of commercials, radiation that has corrupted out DNA, I eat what I like and I simply don’t care if it has food in it mentality.

I don’t have any answers here, but I do suspect two things: that good food is just good for you, and that bad food will never be fully redeemed by the science gods. The only sacrifice that can save one's dietary habits is one’s own.

Augustine’s Cure for Religious Contempt

In The Confessions of St. Augustine (Book II, Chapter 7), Augustine creates a map for Christian’s to follow who wish to avoid the pitfalls of self-righteousness and judgmentalism. First, Augustine begins from the humble position of a pardoned sinner. Second, his understanding of God’s grace and mercy includes the sins that he avoided because of God’s guidance. Methodologically he suggests that starting with oneself and one’s own weakness, which is a natural self-righteous inhibitor. Humility of this sort is not simply for building virtue, but to enhance ones ability to love. Third, Augustine expands the details of the map for one spared various sins by the guidance of God. This spared one, should not reject the person who fell into the pit like a bad ex-smoker. Instead, they (the spared ones) should love that person (who like Augustine) fell into the pit but were healed by the same Physician who guided them away from danger. In fact, Augustine says the proper reaction is that the fallen one should be loved that much more because he (or she) has recovered from the common Physician who preserved the other.

Isn’t the ironic cultural indictment against the “narrow minded Christians” of today a sign that at least some Christians have failed to heed Augustine’s advice? Another way to state this charge is that the ones sent to love offer only unjust judgments or condemnations, and for those who are guilty of self-righteous finger pointing Augustine has good advice. This objection would totally fail if they were no experiences to relate to it. The crazy “sin police” are out there proclaiming that girls wearing make-up are whores, and guys with long hair worship the devil. And most informed American’s know that one need not carry a placard to be a bigot.

Further, were Christians to keep in mind that if they ARE right and Christ did guide them safely past various sins or pitfalls, then they have more to be thankful for and humbled by. I have met many of these humble Christians that follow Augustine’s map, and “narrow minded” and “self-righteous” are titles that even their critics would not use them. I

However, I also think that the picture of health and of Augustine’s healer remind me that some of those who wish to point fingers at the finger pointers do so by one or more of the following : 1) claiming that all religious truth claims (and/or all claims generally) are like witch hunts (that is fictions that kill innocent people), 2) committing the genetic fallacy (something is wrong because of the source it came from – even liars might tell the truth), 3) Deny there is sickness (or health). Although the list may not be exhaustive, the point is we all need to look at what the person is saying and discover the truth of the matter before we join a possible witch hunt against Christians. Maybe as we investigate such claims, we might begin by following Augustine’s map so we can love a little more. In this way even if they ARE self-righteous bigots, we don’t become like them.

Reward in Full

I heard a good message about the Sermon on the Mount this morning. The message touched on Christ's warnings regarding the pitfalls of giving. In stark contrast to those already controlled by the sin of pride, the followers of Jesus are commanded to give in secret. Our giving should be so secret, according to Jesus, that our left hand shouldn't know what the right hand is doing.

I've always been fascinated with this image. Jesus loved his hyperbole, and it makes me wonder if people have ever tried to fulfill this command literally. Who knows, maybe that's why they invented pockets.

The substance of Jesus' point, of course, wasn't to change the manner in which people give. The point, as far as I can tell, was to contrast those who are prideful from those who are not. If you're prideful, you'll go out of your way to reap the praises of people, but the reward stops there. If you're concerned with pursuing good, then the manner in which you give really doesn't matter. Public or private, you are hopeful that your giving makes a difference.

It's remarkable, though, to think of how easy it is to turn hyperbole into another rule. Christians are undoubtedly obsessed with rules. Even those individuals who supposedly focus on the grace of God instead of the rules can fall into deceptive traps. I'll always remember a conversation I had with an acquaintance of mine about Christians and dancing. My friend referenced the anti-dancing crowd as "legalists." I found that unsettling. What he said didn't bother me, but rather the way he said it. There was no small measure of contempt in his voice. Though I think that dancing is perfectly fine, I'd like to think I save my contempt for something other than individuals who choose not to dance. I figure if they don't have rhythm then they are quite possibly doing all of us a favor.

Christianity and Context

I occasionally attend a progressive reading group at my law school. Last night, the topic of the discussion was the "religious right" and the conversation centered on trying to understand evangelicalism as a movement. The discussion started with a clip from the film adaptation of the bestselling novel "Left Behind." The response to the clip was mostly bewilderment, mixed in with some confusion.

Honestly, I can see why. For the most part, our lives are dominated by the mundane. We spend most days thinking about meetings, classes, dinner, the weather, etc.. To go from that, to a movie where the central plot line revolves around the disappearance of millions of individuals is shocking. It's shocking because the movie isn't science fiction, but rather one movement's idea as to what the future is supposed to look like.

But for individuals who believe in God, and who believe in the possibility of miracles, it's a much easier transition from that to the vision of the future put forward by "Left Behind." And it needs to be noted that just because one is even a Christian doesn't mean such an individual is committed to believing in that particular idea about the end of the world. So if you want to analyze evangelicals, or religious folk in general, I suppose the best thing to do is to start with theism and then work your way to "Left Behind." That way, you not only could start to understand why "Left Behind" was such a huge hit, but you could get a better understanding of religious folk as a whole, and not just one individual's idea of the future.

The interesting question, then, is do evangelicals know that non-Christians think that "Left Behind" is inexplicably strange, and should they even care? I suspect that many evangelicals don't know what non-Christians think about "Left Behind." But we should know what others think, and we should care as well. There needs to be a balance between presenting some conception of Christianity to a secular culture that resonates with that culture, and the desire to be provocative. "Left Behind", if nothing else, is provocative. But did it strike anyone not associated with evangelicalism as remotely plausible? I suspect that it did not.

About the Name

After (prep) subsequent in time to; at a later time than.

The phrase, after progress, from one perspective is critical, thinking of the political and cultural changes in this country as a project or experiment, filled with more promises broken than kept. Now that we, or some of us at least, see that, then we perhaps can reexamine our priorities and adjust them, moving back again from where we started. Many individuals within the Christian tradition are sympathetic to these thoughts. In the midst of a so-called cultural war, it is those within the Christian tradition who call for a return to what is perceived as the moral foundations of this country, without which we as a people will be as lost as travelers without a compass.

After (prep) in quest of or pursuit of.

In another light, after progress is a call for more change, more progress, more justice. A small, yet growing, voice within the Christian community is focusing its attention upon the need to separate the basic message of Christianity from the political platform of the religious right. Christians are realizing that the marriage of religion and politics not only hurts the political process, narrowing the scope of political debate, but hurts religion as well. People are turned off by Christianity if they think it is not only a worldview but a political identity as well. Jesus calls us to care about the poor, the sick, and the imprisoned. But are the followers of Christ doing that?

This blog, in its finer moments at least, will be a synthesis of these two thoughts. Working through the rhetoric and hewing to no agenda, our thoughts will focus on looking at how a Christian worldview should affect our lives, both politically and culturally. It will be a conversation, with diverse viewpoints, united in our connection with the Christian tradition. And hopefully, it would hold nothing sacred, at least nothing that wasn't sacred two thousand years ago.

Ecclesia Erratum

Why is culture the way it is? One place the church has goofed is education. I do NOT mean anything about prayer in schools (examinations are a sufficient condition for prayer), or posting the Ten Commandments in the building. What I DO mean is that the church abandoned the ship, to some degree, in American Universities. Most of the top schools in the country were founded by Christians, often for the purpose of ministry (Harvard, Princeton, etc.). Ministry of course, back in the early days of our country implied that one needed a top notch education. I agree with JOHN WESLEY when he said “Ought not a Minister to have, First, a good understanding, a clear apprehension, a sound judgment, and a capacity of reasoning with some closeness? Is not this necessary in an high degree for the work of the ministry? Otherwise, how will he be able to understand the various states of those under his care; or to steer them through a thousand difficulties and dangers, to the haven where they would be? Is it not necessary, with respect to the numerous enemies whom he has to encounter?” Wesley (later in the text) includes knowledge of philosophy, geometry, science, etc., as BASIC knowledge, standard equipment for the minister.

What about today? Although there are many Christian Universities, not many of them are still top notch educationally. In fact, much of the Christian church today is anti-intellectual. A good historical summary of this is in (including the antidote for the poison) J.P. Moreland’s Love God with All Your Mind. I more detailed understanding is
Part of the solution would be to simply encourage and support budding Christian scholars. Put yourself in the shoes of a potential Christian academic that has a choice between paying lots of money to go to a school that is Not respected academically (but has a better world view), or be paid to go to a respected school (even though “you” might make deep compromises to “your” faith) and where “you,” the budding scholar, will increase the chances of “getting a job.” What would you do?

Now imagine that you decide that your religious beliefs are more important to you than the ones that SOME would force upon you at certain academic institutions. You decide to go to the Christian institution and study Mathematics or Science or Literature (something other than the Bible). Your Church family seems disappointed, or at a loss to understand the value of education.

Further, consider the great Christian thinkers that have simply abandoned the “Secular” universities for whatever the reasons. What encouragement are they getting?

The bottom line: It is difficult for me to hear complaints about culture, from those have left it. It is harder yet for me to think of the great Christian minds of history, like Galileo (a committed Christian) who were over looked by the church too hastily. The church may be more effective if she would complain a bit less (assuming reality matches the perception at least in part), a love God with ALL her mind, and her neighbor as herself (which I think entails education in general, etc.) a bit more.

What is After Progress?

The Condensed Version
After: subsequent to. After: in pursuit of. Rethinking our culture, but seeking progress all the same. Make sense? Tension. Left and Right. Engagement and separation. The only constants are a Christian worldview, but even that needs explaining...