Results tagged “Jr.” from Marilyn Sewell

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

This morning David Kellerman, 41, Acting CFO of mortgage giant Freddie Mac, was found dead, an apparent suicide.  Freddie Mac has been harshly criticized for financing risky loans that are now defaulting.  The company was also under fire for planning to pay more than $210,000,000 in bonuses to their executives, to give them incentives to stay.  Kellerman, who had taken over when the former CEO had been relieved of his duties, was responsible for 500 employees and was working on the current financial report at the time of his death.  He leaves behind a wife and a five-year-old daughter, Grace.

Why did Kellerman kill himself?  Was it the many points of pressure?  Was in shame, for being involved in what he knew were slight-of-hand loan deals?  Was it some illegal act that is yet to be uncovered?  There will be an investigation.  There will be follow-up articles.  But we may never know the truth.  He himself may not have fully understood the demons which pushed him to take his life.

But the question before us is: what's worth dying for?  Making a mistake--even a big one--is not worth dying for.  Doing something that you are ashamed of--that's not worth dying for, either.  Trying to live up to others' expectations and failing--that's not worth dying for, either.

What is worth dying for?  To save the life of another, perhaps.  To make justice.  To go against the powers that be, when the powers are corrupt and evil.  These are things worth dying for.  We remember those who have done so: the firemen of 9/11; soldiers who lay down their lives for their comrades or for their country; Martin Luther King, Jr.; Archbishop Romero; journalists who are murdered for writing the truth about crooked political leaders.

But suicide?  No.  It is always, always, always possible to start over when you make a mistake, or when you do wrong.  Forgiveness is always an option.  If it were not, which one of us could keep going, with our more or less constantly besmirched lives?  We all "fall short of the glory of God," as my saintly grandmother used to say.  We can say, "I was wrong.  I'm sorry."  And we can start over.  Every day, in fact.

The one who commits suicide just "wants out," because the pain is so great, and that person cannot see an end to the suffering.  Many of us feel that intensity of pain at one time or another.  But depression can be cured, pain will end, and life turns round.  Dear reader, if you're ever considering suicide, remember that. 

It is sad beyond words when a little five-year-old is left without a father--and answerless questions that will last a lifetime.  Suicide colors so many lives, and for so long: a wife left alone; fellow workers asking, "Why?"; friends blaming themselves and saying, "I should have called . . . ." 

 Sometimes it takes courage just to keep going, just to get up every morning and face the day.  But there is no honorable alternative, for it's not just your own life--you belong to all of us.  We are all diminished when any one person takes his life.

We are irrevocably connected, the one with the other.  Stay with us, brother.  Hang in there, sister.  Together, we can find a way through anything. 

 Share this

It has been disturbing to many of us who have supported Sam Adams that he lied to the public about his sexual relationship with Beau Breedlove.  During the mayoral campaign, Sam was accused by a rival candidate of having sex with a minor, and fearful that the public would not believe him (Sam) if he explained that Breedlove was of age, he lied.  In fact, Sam claimed to be only a mentor and feigned indignance that people might think that he, a gay man, might not be trusted in a mentoring relationship with a handsome young man.  He created a public relations campaign to discredit his detractors, and as part of that effort, coached Breedlove to lie effectively, as well.  Moreover, Sam may have hired an unqualified individual, a former reporter, as part of his staff, in order to stop her investigation of his relationship with Breedlove. 

Many citizens have called for Sam to step down, saying that he has lost the public trust.  Others have urged him to stay on as our Mayor, saying that he has done nothing illegal, and though his deceit was reprehensible, he has learned his lesson and that he has the skills and commitment to serve the city well. This is a complex issue, with no clear-cut answers.  I have tried to sort out my thinking on the situation, and want to share those thoughts with you. 

My God is a God of love and mercy, rather than a God of judgment and condemnation.  Therefore, I believe that if Sam truly understands the import of what he has done and repents of his behavior, then he should stay in office.  If he is opportunistic and devious, thinking of his own career and well-being, then he should by all means resign.  Only Sam knows what is in Sam's heart, and I would urge him to consider what is there.  Those of us in the Judeo-Christian tradition might be reminded of King David, who sent Bathsheba's husband into the front lines of battle, that he might be killed, so David could have his wife.  We might remember Paul, who was a fierce prosecutor of Christians before his conversion on the road to Damascus.

We might ask ourselves: who among us has not done something absolutely stupid, because we were sexually attracted to another, or "in love"?  We might ask ourselves if we have ever lied to avoid getting in trouble.  "Yes, but Adams is a public servant!" we say.  And public servants are also human beings.  We often forget that.  And we often forget the immense pressures that leaders are under, and the isolation they feel.  Does this excuse bad behavior?  No, but it helps to explain it.

Another dimension of Sam's offense is the abuse of power.  The two men were not equals, and Sam needed to recognize that his age and position made Breedlove vulnerable.  Fortunately, by his own testimony, Breedlove seems to not have been harmed by the relationship.  But Sam must recognize that with the power of office comes the responsbility to use that power to serve and protect--otherwise, other abuses of power will come into play. 

Incidentally, the question of whether or not Breedlove was 18 when he and Sam had sex is a legal question, but not a moral question, to me.  Was it two weeks after his 18th birthday, or two weeks before?  The moral question is whether or not any liason, at any age, has integrity.  When I was growing up in the '50's in rural Louisiana, people often married young.  I remember that my brother's best friend was a young farmer who married at the age of 15 to a beautiful young woman of fourteen.  They had four beautiful daughters and a good, sound marriage.  Age and sexual propriety changes with time and with various cultures.  It is arbitrary.  (And yes, one should respect the laws of the land.)

Another consideration is whether or not it makes a difference that Sam Adams is gay.  Are we more forgiving of Bill Clinton, because after all "men will be men"?  In recent days we have brought into office a President who seems to have great integrity--and we breathe a sigh of relief.  We don't want to see any more sexual scandals in high places.  But it is interesting that during the past few days, dotted frequently with memories of other heroes, when JFK was mentioned or when MLK, Jr., was mentioned, no one seems to remember their well-documented extra-marital sexual liasons, again an abuse of power.  And indeed, I'm happy not to go there, either.  But we cannot have it both ways--condemning people we don't like (Larry Craig), while passing on people we admire (Clinton).

So again, I say, what kind of man are you, Sam Adams?  Do you know what you have done?  Have you truly repented?  Are you willing to go forward in good faith, and serve the public with honesty and integrity, understanding that it's not about you?  If so, I say, "Don't resign.  We all make mistakes.  We can change.  I believe that you have much to offer our city, and I hope you have the character and will to offer it."

 Share this

The sub-text of this fascinating Presidential campaign is race.  Does race matter?  Only Stephen Colbert, of the Colbert Report, can look viewers in the eye and say, "I don't see color."  Perhaps one day in the distant future, no one will see color at all.  But now everyone does.  The question is not, "Does race matter?" the question is, "How much does race matter, and to whom?"

I am from the South.  I know the South.  So I should not have been surprised when I talked with a Southerner last summer--a well-educated woman, a liberal, a long-time Democrat--who told me at that time, "Obama is not electable."  And when I asked why, she said, "He hasn't had enough experience."  Did her comment come from her own unconscious racism?  Or was she simply echoing the views of most of her neighbors and friends?  It now looks as though Obama is electable--but the new question becomes, "What about the Bradley effect?  Will people who say they would vote for a black person actually be reluctant to do so in the confines of the voting booth?"  I suppose we will see in three weeks.

One way to measure the division of the races in our country is the extent to which blacks and whites differ on the issue.  Whites were truly shocked when blacks cheered as O.J. Simpson was judged innocent in his first murder trial.  Didn't everyone know he was guilty as sin?  Maybe so.  But did whites understand the depth of anger that blacks carry about police corruption and police brutality?  Not a chance.  And more recently, whites were shocked to hear the remarks of Jeremiah Wright, Obama's former minister, regarding his anger toward this country.  Again, whites mostly have no idea of the amount of unspoken anger that festers in people of color when they are talked down to, ignored by taxi drivers, disregarded when decisions are made.  And most whites have never attended a black church service, which is one place where blacks speak are able to freely not only about their own sins, but about their hopes and dreams, and about the systemic sins that plague this country.

Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, whether you support Obama or McCain, I think all Americans will judge it a positive step forward that a black man is being seriously considered by either party as a viable candidate for President of the United States.  This in itself is something of a moral miracle, considering that blacks were being still being lynched in this country in the 1940's, and Civil Rights legislation wasn't passed until the 1960's.

So are we color blind yet?  Not yet.  But though Obama is called black, we should remember that he is bi-racial, as more and more of our citizens will be, as time goes on.  We will begin to wonder, as people do of my bi-racial grandson now--what race is he, actually?  Maybe just the human race.  Whether or not he is elected President, Obama and his kind are the future, a future when truly, as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., suggested, people will be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. 

Let us set our hearts and minds toward this long-awaited time of justice and reconciliation.

 Share this