Results tagged “sin” 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

I recently received an anonymous letter.  Now no leader is immune to these things, and I've gotten a few in my day.  Generally they are nasty and often incoherent ravings which I don't bother reading.  This one was decidedly different.  This one was a cry for help.  But since I don't know who sent it, I can't respond.  I know only what she has told me about herself in a 3-page letter. 

M is a person not unlike many of you reading this blog.  She says she has a good sense of humor.  She is a single woman from a middle-class, two-parent family who has worked hard to create a good life for herself.  She has struggled successfully with health problems and problems of self-esteem for the past 10 years and has learned  to cope, in her words, "without self-medicating (food/alcohol/drugs)."

M successfully bought and sold her first house, making a tidy profit.  She re-educated herself about U.S. history from the working people's point of view and found her life's passion as an activist. She opened the first fair-trade shop in her area and created a peace movement in her hometown.  Having previously lived in Portland for a short time, she decided to move here and dedicate herself "to creating a just and equitable society with the good people  in the City of Roses."

But job hunting in Portland has been daunting.  After a life of successful employment, she can find nothing.  When she wrote the letter, she was less than two weeks from being kicked out of her rented room and needing to live in her van.  She needs money for food, medical care, and transportation.  She is asking herself the question, "How is it that an able-bodied person with good work skills and a positive mental and spiritual outlook . . . who comes from a solid middle-class family with loving and supportive parents be standing on an economic cliff, just waiting to be pushed off?"

Dear M--

Had you come to me for counseling, I would have given you a cup of tea.  We would have sat quietly together, and I would have listened.  I would have tried to get to know you not only by your words, but by your facial expressions, by the quality of your voice.  I would have tried to be fully present with you during our time together.  I might have said some of the following things:

I'm so sorry that you are in such a state of fear and pain.  You may feel alone in all of this, but so many people in our church and in Portland and all over the country are facing similar frightening circumstances.  You may feel alone also, because you're new to our city--but  there are many compassionate people who care, and some of them may be found in our church.  Come to the church and visit with one of the ministers, or a lay minister.

Please do not blame yourself for the situation you're facing--it's all too easy for an unemployed person to think that there's something wrong with them.  That's just not true.  Our unemployment rate is in the double-digits in this state--and those stats don't include all those who have given up looking for work and all those who are under-employed.  You've had problems with self-esteem in the past, and these same demons may reappear while you're going through this vulnerable period.  Keep telling yourself that you are not the problem.

In your letter you say that this economic crisis is proof that the current economic model is not viable.  I couldn't agree more.  We are trying to "bail out" a system that is corrupt and finally imploded upon itself.  We are going to have to reimagine how we want to be together as a people, and we're going to have to create an economic model that is inclusive of the well-being of all, not just the wealthy.  With your understanding of class and your commitment to change, you will be a part of creating that new future.

As to how we got in this fix--and it is a world-wide phenomenon, of course--the short answer is "sin."  Too many people were willing to look away from what they knew to be true, because they were being enriched by a system that had no integrity, that was bound to fail.  Government and business ane functionally interchangeable, and one might even say that the main purpose of government in this country is to protect and support big business.  Until the people say "no more!" shameful economic inequity will continue,  I hope that the bankers and money brokers and government officials who turned a blind eye to our economic disaster-in-the-making understand that real human beings like you--millions of them--are suffering terribly because of their selfishness and lack of responsibility.

The last question in your letter is "When will it end?"  I wish I could prophesy, and tell you.  But no one can, because the situation we are facing is unprecedented.  Thus far, we have been throwing old solutions at a new problem--kind of like treating AIDS with lots and lots of penicillin. 

I will tell you this--it will end, though, because human beings eventually figure stuff out.  All of us have to be a part of the new age that is coming.  In the meantime, find a community.  Know that you are not alone.  Know that you a good person.  Know that the future will open once again for you, as it has in the past.  

Bless you, my dear, wherever you are.  Though I don't know you, know that I'm thinking of you.

Marilyn 

 Share this

Apparently the Catholic hierarchy--Pope Benedict, in particular--is bringing back indulgences (NY Times 2/10).  This is big news, because they have been out of favor since the Mother Church was selling them to some profit back in the 16th century, setting off the wrath of reformer Martin Luther and fostering the beginning of the Protestant Reformation.

Just what are indulgences, anyway?  The name gives us some hint.  It works this way: Catholics can commit sins, go to confession, but still have to do time in that unpleasant in-between-place, Purgatory, which is sort of a way-station to heaven, after you've paid your dues with enough suffering for said sins.  To avoid this stop, you can say certain prayers, make certain devotions, or go on certain pilgrimages--such will keep you safe until you commit another sin, which is almost certain to happen, knowing ourselves as we do. You can also reduce purgatorial time for dead people--but as one baffled Catholic complained, "What does it mean to get time off in Purgatory?  What is five years in terms of eternity?"  Good point.

Why are indulgences coming back into favor now?  Well, sin is out of favor these days.  People just "make mistakes."  Or have "dysfunctional families."  If only every child were given milk and cookies at bedtime, there would be no such thing as evil, many secularists believe.  Instead of going to a priest, we go to a psychiatrist--or if money is short in the current economic downturn, we check out a self-help book from the library.  Without sin, of course, there can be no repentence.  (And no real need for confession or indulgences, of course.)

I see the point.  I'm for sin, myself--that is, I believe we all commit them.  And repentence is a good thing.  But personal sins, which seem to be the focus of confession and indulgences, pale in the face of systemic sins, like war, hunger, and the lack of health care (for starters).  Just think about the systemic sins of the bankers and investment firms!  How many prayers or piltrimages would it take to wipe out these sins?  It boggles the mind.  Of course, the Church allows "charitable contributions" to count toward indulgences as well (presumably, to the Church, among other worthy organizations), so perhaps some of the TARP money could go for that.

According to the article in the Times, Portland, Oregon, is one of the locations where the Church has enthusiastically offered indulgences this year.  For those looking for an alternative, I would like to counter with the Universalist view of "universal salvation," in which we posit a God who is too good to send anyone to a burning lake of fire for eternity--or even for a few thousand years to Purgatory.  We believe that hell is what we make for ourselves right here on this earth, when we separate ourselves from God and from one another. 

Like the Catholics, we also take contributions.  But we don't guarantee heaven.  Our God doesn't do deals.  Sorry. 

 Share this

Greenspan Passes the Buck

People are mad at Greenspan.  Yes, the Lord of the Stock Market, the One True God we worshiped, has failed us, we see.  Alan Greenspan, almost three years after retiring as chair of the Federal Reserve, is realizing that free markets don't always self-correct.  Last Thursday he told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, "Those of us who have looked to the self interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders' equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief."  (NY Times 10/23)

Lawmakers asked him to say, "I was wrong, and I'm sorry."  Pretty simple.  But Greenspan declined.  At a time when unprecedented numbers of people all over the nation are losing homes and now losing jobs, as well, the former Chair refused to accept responsibility for the crisis.  He did say, however, that his faith in deregulation has been shaken.  We were hoping you might have noticed sooner, Mr. Greenspan.  And since you have fiercely opposed deregulation for almost 15 years, one would hope that you would at least apologize for letting ideology rather than market realities determine our economic policy.  "The whole intellectual edifice . . . collapsed in the summer of last year," he said. 

This kind of real-world crash is what happens when leaders hold to a blind faith in abstract notions of how things work, to the exclusion of what is happening to real people in real time.  (Another good example of the dominance of ideology over common sense and the lessons of history is President Bush's belief that the war in Iraq would be quick and easy, and we would be "greeted as liberators.")

Did Alan Greenspan really believe that people would fail to act in their own (short-term) self-interest in a culture in which that is the absolute name of the game?  Did he think that most bankers would fail to sell mortgages to people, if these bankers had no risk of losing money and had every reason to gain?  Did he think that ordinary people who had always wanted a home but thought they might not ever be able to afford one would turn down a loan that was handed to them so readily?  Did he think that speculators would not try to speculate, when easy money is available?  I am not an economist--my field of study is theology.  But I could have told Mr. Greenspan, had he asked, that people do tend to act in their own self-interest most all of the time, even if their actions might very well hurt others--yes, even if their actions stand to cause massive social dislocation and the suffering of many. 

This is how it works, Mr. Greenspan.  With sin, I mean.  First you decide what you want to do, out of your own need, or greed.  Then you rationalize that this action is not harmful to others--in fact, it probably will even benefit others (consider the totally discredited "trickle-down theory").  Then you ignore the consequences of your behavior, when they don't match your rationale.  When it turns out that your chosen ignorance and your greed have harmed another (or many), you say, "Gee, I just didn't know!" 

Greenspan blamed our troubles on "the modern risk-management paradigm."  Theologians might use the word "concupiscence," meaning lust or greed.  Maybe you economists should consider lacing your curricula of mathematics and logic with a little study in ethics and theology.  You could even consider meditation and prayer, to attempt an engagement of the heart.

 Share this