Results tagged “Christian” from Marilyn Sewell

What if you had a friend with a number of serious problems, what would you say to him?  And when I say "serious problems," I'm referring to problems of character--spiritual problems, as it were--for the spiritual dimension is the ground that we come from, for all of our living, is it not?  Let's say that your friend behaves in the following way:

--He begins to use most any means at all, to justify the ends he was going for.

--He manipulates others by playing on their deepest fears and insecurities.

--He tells lies and encourages others to lie, in service of their goals.

--He discounts science and tries to discredit reputable scientists.

--He shows little compassion for the poor, the sick, the weak.

--He believes that "freedom" means that the strong should take all they can get.

--He says he is a Christian and he has serious doubts about those who are not.

I have a friend like this.  But I am saddened by what has become of him.  Although historically he has had values that differed from mine in significant ways, I could understand and respect his values--values like like preserving tradition, taking personal responsiblity, and loving one's country.  But I no longer respect him or his values.

You may have guessed his name by now: he is called Grand O. Party.  But the moniker of "grand" surely no longer applies, and the "party" lacks all integrity and therefore all cohesion and all power to influence our country in positive ways.

Can my friend be redeemed?  Of course.  We all go down the wrong path at times.  We are led astray by false leaders and promises of wealth and glory.  My friend needs to give up his ways of lying and manipulating, to get his way.  He needs to stop worshiping shallow and vain leaders, more given to ego than to genuine caring about the country.  He needs to learn to respect and co-operate with those who may differ from him, whether in race or class or religion or sexual orientation.  He needs to understand that we are a country, and we must face our demons together as a people, or we are lost.

Will my friend change?  Is he like most of us--that is, he has to fall hard, has to lose everything before he will change his ways?  I hope not.  In the not-too-distant past, my friend has added substantially to the national conversation.  I would hope that someday, some way, that might happen again.

 Share this

During Archbishop TuTu's recent visit to Portland, some of us were asked to participate in panel discussions on several related topics.  I was asked to be on a panel entitled "Religion as a Bridge to Reconciliation."  The following is part of what I said in my introductory remarks:

The word religion comes from the prefix re, meaning back and the Latin ligare, which means "to bind" or "to bind back" or "to reconnect."  One might say that the function of religion is to repair the illusion of our separation.  Religion should play a natural, a logical role in reconciliation--to bind us together in common values of love, compassion, justice, and forgiveness.

Unfortunately, religion--and I can speak with real authority only of the Christian religion, which is my own--religion most often seems to do the opposite: it serves to separate and to divide.  Christianity has such a bad reputation that the very use of the word in the common vernacular connotes "one who is rigid in belief," and people who are not religious are wary of those who are, for these unconverted individuals--those unwashed in the blood, so to speak--too often have been targets for conversion and have not been respected as the persons, theological and otherwise, that they are.

Of course, all religious people are not Fundamentalists by any means, but even so, when any group of people begin to say, "My way is the way, my path is the only path," the result is division and acrimony.

In fact, religion then becomes no different in this way from any other ideology, whethers an idealogy of communism or capitalism or racism or deconstructionist thinking.  One who becomes an ideologist, or a true believer, begins to exist in a closed system.  Whatever fits into this chosen system is labeled "true" and whatever does not is labeled "false."  The curiosity, spontaneity, and growth of such an individual become limited.

Because each of us is troubled by a multitude of interior forces we do not and will not ever totally understand, it is our nature to look for a system which explains our angst and which makes us feel safe within the walls of that system.  We do not see that system as arbitrary, as created by humans who are terrified of our own inevitable demise, and so we reify those structures--that is, we come to believe that there is a concrete reality there.  Therefore, we cling to these beliefs as to life itself, and whatever threatens them must be challenged--or perhaps stemped out, eliminated.

Given this very human and very pervasive problem with religion, one can see why religion often fails to be a sturdy instrument of reconciliation.  At the same time, we know that there have been instances when it has been.  I'm thinking of enlightened leaders who have internalized the radical way of being that seems to be at the heart of all major religions--the radical way of love, compassion, peace.  Violence and retribution have no part to play.  I'm thinking, for example, for Martin Luther King, Jr., who taught non-violence in the Civil Rights movement; or Gandhi, who practiced satyagraha, or passive resistance, to free his people from British rule; or a more recent example, the Amish, who forgave the man who gunned down their children in a Pennsylvania schoolhouse a few years ago, because these gentle people could do no other: forgiveness is their way of being.

So if we mean by religion, a spiritual commitment to love and compassion and non-violence--if we mean by religion, a radical change of being in which the individual or community understands that we are all one and that love and forgiveness are central to their being, then yes, religion is the essence of reconciliation and a path to that difficult state.

But if we mean by religion--which we generally do--an institutionalized set of beliefs, then, no, just the opposite.  For religion in that sense divides people into the righteous and the unrighteous, the saved and the unsaved, the good and the evil.  And of course if we have made "the other" evil, then the righteous must have control over the evil ones.  We righteous ones can then project all of our shadow side onto these evil ones, and then Christians can smile as we say things to gays and lesbians like, "I hate the sin, but love the sinner," or say to those of another faith tradition, "If you haven't accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior, you're going to hell."  Not to mention the generations of wars between believers of various faiths throughout the world, throughout all time.  Make the people of a different tribe or race or religion "other," and they are much easier to kill.

So is religion a path to reconciliation?  Not until its practititioners mature as religious beings.  Not until its institutions become more devoted to the heart-lessons of their prophets than to the divisive theology of their true believers.

 Share this

A new study by the American Religious Identification Survey has shown a sharp decrease in the number of people who claim to be religious.

--the number of people who call themselves Christian is at 76%, down from 86% in 1990

--30% of couples who marry do not bother to have a religious ceremony

--when asked to speciify their religion, 8.2% said "none" in 1990; in this study, 15% said "none"

So what's the deal?  Have people given up on God?

I think people have given up on the kind of religion that they see in the media.  Almost every story about contemporary religion is about fundamentalist religion, and almost every story has to do with some scandal or some abuse of the cloth or some terrible lie or some hypocrisy--or just some nonsense that people who have gone beyond the fifth grade find difficult to respect--like God made the earth in 7 days. 

I have been to the Hall of Justice in the State of Alabama and seen in the rotunda the huge boulder inscribed with the Ten Commandments, plus quotations from our alleged "Christian" founding fathers (it has, thankfully, removed).  I have talked with the creationist who explained that her mentor has 2 large stones on which are pictured dinosaurs and humans, proving therefore that dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth at the same time.  I have seen on TV the woman who says that God brought her dead chicken back to life, through prayer and mouth-to-beak resuscitation.  I have been confounded by the Ph.D. theology professor who told me that Gandhi was in hell because "he did not accept Jesus as his Lord and Savior."

Worse than this, I have seen my gay and lesbian church members fear for their safety because they have been told they are sinners and less than whole by fundamentalist Christians.  I have known Catholic "good old boy" church bureaucrats that have sent priest sex offenders from parish to parish, to molest other children.  I have known people crippled with guilt, running from God, because they had been told they were bad and were going to hell.  And now the latest: the Pope has denounced the use of condoms in Africa to prevent AIDS.  He added that he was bringing  "the Christian message of hope." 

The way I read the New Testament, Jesus is all about love and tolerance, compassion and forgiveness.  How did so many Christians go so wrong?  Are they reading the same Bible I am?

Of course, there are liberal religious people--like Unitarian Universalists and many liberal Christians.  If we got a little more press, perhaps religion wouldn't have such a bad name.  At least I would like to think so.  God is obviously a liberal--who could be more bounteous, generous, beneficent, caring, more lavish, prodigal, profuse, and charitable? 

Why are people giving up on church?  Because church has given up on them.  Churches of whatever name or theological persuasion had better get back to the core message.  It's the shortest verse in the Bible, and it's pretty simple: "God is love."

 Share this

A ferocious conversation about shoe-throwing is taking place all over the Middle East just now.  It appears that there are two schools of thought at the moment regarding the action of Muntader al-Zaidi, the journalist who threw two shoes at President Bush during a press conference.  Some people are saying that the act was wrong, that traditional Arab hospitality towards a guest demands respect, even if a person disapproves of the guest (as most Arabs apparently do, of this guest).  Far more people, however, seem elated by the defiant act--in fact, Muntader al-Zaidi has become something of folk hero to many.  In the Sadr City section of Baghdad, people are taking off their shoes and sandals and putting them on long poles, and waving them high in the air, demanding that Americans immediately withdraw from their country.  (See NYTimes, 12/16)

I must say that it was pretty amazing to see repeated television images of someone throwing a shoe at the President, hard and fast, and the President ducking, and then, whoops, here comes another one, again just barely missing.  Bush made light of it, saying "This is how democracy works."  Well, actually, no--being in a democracy doesn't give a person permission to fling shoes at their President.  The act, no doubt, was disrespectful.  But was it brave and appropriate--or rash and foolish?

I grew up in the South, in a society in which politeness was paramount--rules were followed.  It was "Yes, Ma'am" and "Yes, Sir."  It was speaking softly and slowly, it was moving gently in the world.  And yet often, out of the mouths of these good and gentle people, who would stretch and strain never to offend, came horrendous remarks and acts of racism.  The rules about black and white were clear: "Nigras" were fine so long as they "stayed in their place."  When they did not, when they dared to violate the rules, violence erupted.

Well, who makes the rules, and for what purpose?  And when should rules be broken? 

I am of two minds of this.  I am all for rules of decorum.  I prefer polite behavior.  Let me tell you, that a man can open the door for me any time.  And I like to visit the South, where children have been saying "Yes, Ma'm" to me since I was 35.  I believe that these rules of behavior are there for a reason, and generally that reason is so that society can remain civilized, and people will remain respectful of one another.

On the other hand, sometimes rules and traditions need to be broken, and their very breaking shines a light on something that is awry in the society.  Martin Luther King, Jr., taught his followers to practice civil disobedience, and so they sat in restaurants and at drugstore counters that were "White Only."  Rosa Parks did not follow the rules of the city bus line.  The Berrigan brothers poured blood on draft records during the Vietnam War.  Every year demonstrators go to the School of the Americas in Georgia, where the U.S. trains foreign soldiers to terrorize their own citizens, and these demonstrators break the rules--they step over the government "line" and are arrested, and many have been jailed, some for as long as six months--nuns and priests and ministers, among them.

Every person must discern for himself or herself when it's right and appropriate to break the rules.  One rule of thumb would be your motive, of course--are you breaking the rule for your own benefit, or to grandstand--or because you believe a statement must be made that cannot better be made another way. 

I myself--well, I'm a good girl and always have been.  I follow the rules.  That's why I was elected "Best Christian" in my senior year in high school.  And then I became an English teacher, and you know how they are about rules.  Now I'm a minister, and we all are aware of the rule-bound-ness of religion.  Except there's one rule in religion that's bigger than all the others--it's called the Rule of Love.  So when we face a dilemma, we can ask, "What is the most loving thing to do?"  Sometimes it's fasting.  Sometimes it's not eating British salt.  Sometimes it's speaking the truth to power, even though that's going to get you in a mess of trouble. 

Sometimes it's throwing a shoe.

 Share this

It was predictable--conservative Episcopalians have decided to just by golly go off and sulk and have their own church.  They can't stand the idea of gay clergy.  When Gene Robinson was ordained a bishop (wearing a bullet-proof vest, as I remember), bishops representing around 14 dioceses met to explore the possibility of a new Anglican church in North America.  Only 4 dioceses have actually broken away, however.  Bishop Martyn Minns, a leader of the breakaway movement, explained "there's some people standing back to wait and see if we pull this off, which I think we'll do.  Then others will join us--parishes, and maybe dioceses."

Dream on, Bishop Minns.  You are the last of a dying breed--the same guys who didn't want to ordain women and who didn't want to ever, ever change a word of the Book of Common Prayer.  Time is not on your side, ethical evolution is not on your side, and for sure youth are not on your side.  A case in point: California voted against gay rights in this last election--but when you look at who voted which way, you see that it was the older folks who said no to gays and the younger ones who said yes.  It's just a matter of time. 

And don't forget that we just elected a young African American President.  How does this event relate to the question at hand?  Well, things are changing.  It's not all old white men anymore, in their dark suits.  It's women and people of color and gays and young people.  It's all of us.  I like what Jim Naughton, canon for the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, and a liberal blogger, wrote in response to the viability of this new church: "I think this organization does not have much of a future because there are already a lot of churches in the United States for people who don't want to worship with gays and lesbians.  That's not a market niche that is underserved."

Listen up, Christian churches everywhere!  Why are churches often the last to extend love and acceptance to all who enter their doors?  Who is this Jesus that I read about in the New Testament who loved and accepted prostitutes, tax collectors, Roman soldiers, women, children, lepers, rich people, poor people, etc., etc.  Where is the church's prophetic voice?  The church should be the first to speak out for the disenfranchised, Bishop Minns--not the institution to keep people out, but the one to broaden the circle and invite people in. 

Jesus asked us to do one thing, and one thing only: he asked us to be on the side of love.  In our personal lives, we all measure up to this standard imperfectly.  But with love as the standard and goal, systemic discrimination has no place in Christian churches and institutions. 

And my prediction?  Love will win the day.  It's just too beautiful to disregard.  Let's watch and see.

 Share this