Hiatus

Hello! 

Yes, I'm still here.  Just ended up taking a bit of a break.  Work was particularly hectic.  Family life too.  A lot more on my plate than normal.  Something had to give.  Eventually I had to push the pause button on blogging for a while.  That is over now.  I'm back at it.

Taking a step back from every day responsibilities and routines is deeply entrenched in Christian culture.  Jesus took breaks to spend time alone in prayer with his Heavenly Father.  He encouraged others to do the same.  Throughout the ages, Christians have periodically taken a step out of the hussle and bussle of the world for spiritual renewal and reflection.  Those of us who tend to be more like Martha need to follow Mary's example, at least sometimes.

Taking those breaks can be helpful on many levels.  Our weary souls need a little R&R sometimes.  But those breaks to listen to the Holy Spirit can also lead to epiphanies, both great and small.

During my time away from blogging, I read and listened to a lot of perspectives.  I was exposed to a lot of information relevant to the focus of this blog.  I believe I had at least a few epiphanies while I was away.  Some are going to shape the focus of this blog in the future.

For example, I had some time to get back to why I wanted to start this blog.  During my lifetime, I had been perplexed by the use of Jesus's name and teaching in secular politics and in the shaping of public policy. 

My first exposure to this was in the late 1970s.  Ronald Reagan was divorced, rarely went to church and was passionately devoted to his wife, who was an ardent follower of astrology.  Yet he was embraced so vigorously by the "Religious Right." He was touted by many as a president with "Christian values."  This was particularly perplexing to me because they embraced him over Jimmy Carter, who has tried hard throughout his life to integrate his faith and his politics.  You may not agree with his politics in all cases, but he did seem to be walking the walk, not just talking the talk.  I found Mr. Carter's efforts to use diplomacy over militarism in keeping with the teachings of the Prince of Peace.  His concern for the poor seemed to reflect the thrust of much of the Bible, which emphasizes economic vulnerability over and over again.  Yet I still don't understand where the Bible says anything that remotely endorses increasing military spending, tax cuts and trickle down economics.  I've read and thought about these issues a lot.  I just don't see any Biblical support for these political issues.

Then the use of Jesus for political gain seemed to reach fever pitch in the 2000s.  Based on what I've read, I do believe that George W. Bush had a meaningful conversion experience in mid-life that saved him from a life of drunken debauchery.  But with all due respect, his political life has not shown much evidence of his conversion.  As governor of Texas, he oversaw a racist, error-ridden capital punishment apparatus, which he made no effort to fix.  He apparently lied when he told us that he reviewed each case carefully before determining whether or not to intervene.  It turns out he had no interest in more than cursory reviews; human life was not important enough.  As president, he took us into two disastrous wars that were of questionable legitimacy or utility.  Misinformation and the use of fear enabled him to take us into those wars. Because of his policies, thousands of civilians have been displaced or killed.  He has created power vacuums in which the already vulnerable in society lead an even more perilous existence.  During his reign, we came to use torture--TORTURE--against our supposed enemies.  Instead of being a leader on human rights and setting an example for others to follow, we joined the ranks of rogue nations like Iran and the People's Republic of China.  Finally, to win reelection after all these horrors, Mr. Bush and his political cronies demonized gay people because homophobia apparently entices many to the polls in critical swing states.  In sum, Mr. Bush's political legacy is based on a lack of honesty, fear-mongering and disregard for human life.  I don't believe any of that is grounded in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I grew up inside the Beltway.  I'm not politically naïve.  I know full well that politicians embellish, stretch the truth and outright lie.  Those are sad realities.  But when you go exploiting the Son of Man to achieve earthly political power, that is where I have to draw a line.  I find that deeply offensive, more than I can even put into words.  Blasphemy is the only word to describe it.

But politicians get away with that only because Christians let them.  Shame on us if we fail to study God's word, to really dig deep for ourselves and try to understand it.  Shame on us if instead we let ourselves be duped by politicians who use the name of Jesus Christ to convince us to campaign for issues that have no grounding in Biblical teaching, but have everything to do with exaggerating plutocratic trends that are destroying our nation.  Shame on anyone who uses Jesus's blessed name to justify cutting the rates on capital gains, eliminating estate taxes on the wealthy or opposing meaningful efforts to protect God's creation.  If you support those political positions, that is fine by me.  But don't you dare use my Savior to justify those positions.  Jesus said nothing that would support coddling the rich at the expense of the poor.  Nothing in his teachings can justify our callous disregard for the harm we do to the beautiful planet our Lord gave us.

To be clear, I'm in no way saying one cannot be a Christian and also support politicians like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush or the policies they've championed.  Both Messrs. Reagan and Bush were Republicans.  I'm certainly not saying you cannot be a Christian and a Republican.  I'm also not saying that the Democratic Party is more in line with the Gospel.  What I am saying, however, is that it is blasphemy to use Christ as the rationale for endorsing politicians or political positions when what they advocate is not supported by the Bible.  The Bible was written at different times several centuries ago, and unfortunately it does not speak to every issue we face in modern America.  We have to do our best in the gray areas.  But call a spade a spade.  Acknowledge the gray areas, don't propagate misinformation by saying the Bible supports things that it does not even address.

In that vein, I've decided that I'm going to get back to what I saw as the original focus of this blog.  Many of the hot button issues that have attracted some modern American Christians to the polls are complex.  I've shied away from them to some extent.  Not because I was afraid of wading into such areas of controversy, but because their complexity merits in-depth study and consideration.  In many areas of life, Christianity does not offer easy, quick answers.  Things are not always as clear cut as some of our brethren assert.  In the past, however, I have not had time to really dig deep to explore some of these issues.  I anticipate I will finally have some time this year, so that is the direction this blog will be going.

Europeans and Bigotry

I wanted to follow up a bit more on the previous post.

I have traveled throughout and even lived for a school year in Europe.  As a student, I have studied its languages, its literature and its art.  Later in my life, I have worked with Europeans in professional settings.  For several decades, I have had close personal friends who are from Europe.  Though I don’t purport to be an expert, I do know something about the cultural attitudes of Europeans.

In my experience, Europeans are not exactly highly evolved on gender issues.  I mention this because Americans often view Europe as highly progressive on social issues, so this is counterintuitive to many of my countrymen and women.  After all, Europe has outlawed the death penalty and has provided universal health care.  European nations have been leaders in providing legal recognition of same sex unions.  And the people of Europe have high levels of literacy and education. But in my experience, we Americans sometimes overestimate how progressive Europeans actually are. 

From an American perspective, I’ve often been shocked—and at times simply horrified--by bigoted things that I’ve heard come out of the mouths of modern Europeans  in casual conversations.  A number of specific examples come to mind, but frankly I don’t feel comfortable repeating them in a public forum.  To an American audience, such comments would be viewed as inflammatory and very hurtful.  They are simply not the sorts of things that are said in polite company in the United States. 

And I’ve been surprised because such comments have typically come from well-educated, young, otherwise progressive Europeans.  I’ve also heard such shocking things come out of the mouths of Hitler-era Germans, but sadly one might expect that more readily.  Such comments are akin to hearing the bigoted things that I’ve heard from my own white relatives who grew up in the Jim Crow South. 

The sorts of bigoted comments of Europeans that I’m referencing have primarily been disparaging of people of color, especially people of African, Asian or Middle Eastern heritage who have migrated to Europe for economic or political reasons.  But I’ve also witnessed a good deal of stereotypical attitudes on gender and a lack of sensitivity on gender equality issues.  In my experience, women are often viewed in sexualized terms by others and even themselves. 

 

1 Corinthians 12:12

Christ is just like the human body—a body is a unit and has many parts; and all the parts of the body are one body, even though there are many.

Discovery Atlas: China Revealed (Women and Families)

There were a few other parts of Discovery Atlas: China Revealed that seem particularly relevant to this blog.    For example, part of the documentary featured the PRC’s war on drugs.  The film focused on the nation’s drug police.  There was a scene where a taxi driver was arrested for dealing drugs, and the narrator noted that he would face the death penalty for such crimes.

The film then focused on the experience of a female drug police officer.  As a woman, she had broken barriers to succeed and excel in her profession.  It was noted how rare and amazing her achievements were in the male-dominated culture of the PRC.  It was also noted that she constantly had to prove herself despite her past achievements.

The film also noted that this female drug police officer was a single woman.  In her interview, she expressed that she couldn’t find Mr. Right, and men did not seem to approve of her professional accomplishments.  In listening to her, I came away with the sense that she was destined to a life of loneliness simply due to her professional success.  That was very sad to me.

However, I was heartbroken by the attitudes of the parents of this female drug police officer.  Apparently, she was their only daughter.  In their interview, they initially described their pride in her accomplishments.  But contradictorily, they also spent a lot of time expressing concern that she had not taken a more traditional path in life.  Her parents wished she had become a full-time wife and mother. 

My heart just broke for the female drug police officer.  She had worked so hard and accomplished so much, but she was still being condemned by her parents.  And how hurtful it must have been to be condemned for not having started a family.  I had the sense that she was already sad about her inability to find a supportive, suitable partner.  I had the sense she did not want to end up alone in the world such that her parents’ condemnation seemed to be rub salt in the wound.

Moreover, I felt very frustrated that the parents were so ungrateful for their daughter’s hard work.  Despite the fact that she comes home late from grueling hours at her job with the drug police, she cooks for her parents and cleans their clothes (by hand because they did not have a washing machine).  She seemed to be supporting them financially and caring for all their basic needs.  They lived in her home.  She was clearly making a lot of sacrifices for them. 

This drug police officer was caring for them and was asking little of them, which seemed odd to me.  They looked to be about 60 years of age and in very good health.  Indeed, I was surprised they didn’t have jobs themselves.  They seemed a little young to have retired.  But even if they had retired, they seemed to be perfectly capable of caring for themselves.  I was stunned that they were not doing more to pitch in around the house.  From my perspective, they ought to have been washing her clothes and having a hot meal on the table for her when she got home from a long day on the job.  The parents’ attitude seemed selfish and not loving.

Colossians 3:21

Fathers, do not aggravate your children, or they will become discouraged.

Americans’ Attitudes Towards Christianity and the Death Penalty

Apropos of Michael O’Connor’s thought-provoking essay on the executions of Russell Brewer and Troy Davis, I wanted to offer a few more generalized observations on the death penalty from a Christian perspective.

Not long ago, I attended a dinner of several lawyers and the topic of capital punishment was discussed at length.  One of the lawyers had spent his career working exclusively on death penalty cases.  It was an interesting evening.  I appreciated hearing different people’s insights on the topic.  They gave me a lot of food for thought.

At one point in the discussion, I shared with my colleagues that I have always been very confused by our country’s attitudes about the death penalty.  Many purport that we are a “Christian nation” and our Christian values are the foundation for our secular laws.  That is a hotly debated view, but even if one accepts it, I do not understand how our support of the death penalty squares with Christian values.  Indeed, I’ve long been perplexed that it is in the region of our country often dubbed the “Bible Belt” where the death penalty is used most extensively.

In my reading of the Bible, Jesus’s overarching message was the value--indeed the absolute preciousness--of each human life.  In his ministry, Jesus went out of his way time and time again to witness to and emphasize God’s love for us his children.  Further, no one was beyond the tremendous love of God.  Not corrupt tax collectors, not Gentiles, not the selfish and lazy Prodigal Son.  Jesus taught that all are equally cherished by their Creator.

To that end, Jesus tried to make us understand that in turn we should share God’s love for his children.  He repeatedly taught us both in word and in deed to love and care for God’s people.  In light of the central message of Christ’s witness and teaching, I do not understand how we Americans could look to Jesus as support for our country’s continued use of the death penalty as a sanction for criminal behavior.   His teachings would seem to dictate a very different approach.

Moreover, in the eighth chapter of the Gospel Book of John, the author describes Jesus’s intervention in a capital case.  A woman was caught in the act of adultery.  The scribes and Pharisees bring her to Jesus.  They challenge him in John 8:5 by saying, “Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?”   Jesus stooped down and mysteriously wrote with his finger on the ground words that are not recorded.  In doing so, Jesus initially acted as though he did not hear their question.  They continued to ask and finally in John 8:7 Jesus responds, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”  The Gospel records that the woman’s accusers felt convicted in their hearts such that they walked away and the death penalty was not carried out.  In John 8:10-11, Jesus and the woman are the only ones remaining, and Jesus tells the woman “Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.”  In this passage in the New Testament, Jesus is depicted as having interrupted the execution of a violator of the law, and refusing to carry out the death penalty himself.

Apart from his teachings, Jesus’s own life experiences seem to suggest the use of capital punishment is potentially dangerous and unwise.  Jesus was himself a victim of his society’s brutal use of the death penalty.  And the circumstances of his execution demonstrate the potential abuses of permitting authorities to punish individuals by taking their lives.  Jesus had committed no crime, but the authorities of the day still found pretext to take his life and execute him as a common criminal.  To me, Jesus’s life story warns of the imprudence of capital punishment.   

Incidentally, the lives of the apostles arguably provide a similar warning.  We do not have a lot of information about how Jesus’s apostles died, but many are thought to have died by human hands.  Several of them (e.g., Peter, Bartholomew, James, Phillip) are believed to have been executed by authorities who were hostile to the message they preached.

Perhaps not unlike the experiences of Jesus and some of his apostles with the death penalty, in more modern times, the punishment has been used in countries to suppress the voices of people with ideas considered “dangerous” to those in power.  In recent memory, the Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China, North Korea, Iran and Iraq have used the death penalty to eliminate political opponents.

In modern times, the death penalty has also been used in various nations disproportionately on minorities within a particular society--inadvertently at times and on purpose at others . 

Finally, we have compelling evidence even in our own country that the death penalty has been used to execute people who were innocent of the crimes for which they condemned.  Sister Helen Prejean’s book The Death of Innocents is but one example of this.  Human systems of justice are not infallible.

At this recent dinner, when I shared my inability to reconcile our nation’s purported Christian values and our widespread popular support of the continued use of the death penalty, one colleague mentioned the biblical teaching of “an eye for an eye” as an explanation.  Interestingly, a non-Christian colleague at the table noted that phrase was from the Old Testament and not a teaching of Jesus himself.  Thus, that Old Testament teaching did not seem to reconcile the apparent conflict between the purported embrace of Christianity and the use of the death penalty.  There were several other Christians at this particular dinner, but no one could explain this apparent contradiction.  We all seemed stumped.  I went home that night feeling somewhat depressed and frankly more perplexed than ever.

When I got home, I looked up Jesus’s teaching on the admonition of an “eye for an eye.”  I’ve pasted it below.  I just do not see how it can be reconciled with the use of the death penalty.  I’m certainly open to others’ opinions, but it seems a fundamental contradiction to me.

Matthew 5:38-48 (New American Standard Bible)

“You have heard that it was said, ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.’ But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.  Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

Guest Blogger Michael P. O'Connor on the Executions of Brewer & Davis

Russell Brewer & Troy Davis: Should Your Christian Conscience be More Troubled by the Execution of the Guilty than of the Innocent?

By Michael P. O’Connor

On Wednesday, September 21, 2011 two men were executed.  One was put to death by the State of Texas and another was put to death in Georgia.  Both had been convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death, but there are not many other similarities to the cases. 

Texas executed Lawrence Russell Brewer, a purported white supremacist, for the grisly hate crime murder of James Byrd, Jr.  Despite the ghastly nature of this crime and the highly publicized trial that followed, the Texas execution generated relatively little publicity and was carried out with minimal protest.  Georgia, on the other hand, executed the celebrated Troy Davis, believed by many around the world to be an innocent man unjustly condemned to die.  His case generated tremendous publicity and his execution was met with vociferous and sustained protest. 

Unlike Davis, few doubt Brewer’s guilt and fewer still found in him a compelling enough figure worth expending energy to save.  (To their everlasting credit, members of his victim’s immediate family were among those few to advocate for the life of Russell Brewer.)  As a lawyer who has worked on many capital cases throughout our country, it did not surprise me at the “sympathy gap” that existed among the general public concerning these two condemned men.  As a Catholic, however, I found myself unable to sleep the night after these executions pondering why a nation that largely claims to adhere to Christian teaching could so readily accept our role in the death of a man who we believe committed a heinous crime. 

Should not our beliefs caution us to be more fearful of taking the life of a guilty man – one who we have reason to believe may not be in a state of grace? 

First, scripture is clear that human beings are inherently poor judges of God’s favor and whether our fellow beings are currently in a state of grace or deserving of everlasting reward.  Luke 14:24 (“For I tell you, none of those men who were invited shall taste my dinner.”); Matthew 20:16 (“The last shall be first and the first shall be last.”)  Jesus warned against judging ourselves as righteous and viewing others as contemptible sinners.  Luke 18:9-14 (the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector).   This extends to those guilty ones society condemns to death.  Luke 23:39-43 (“Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in paradise.”)  So, we must be cautious not to assume that one of the men executed two nights ago was more likely to be in a state of grace and worthy of salvation than the other.  As fallible mortals, this is something we can never know.

We who believe that scripture contains truth, however, can derive certain important

lessons from these texts.  First, Christ came to redeem sinners. “It is not those who are well who need a physician, but those who are sick.  I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.” Luke 5:31-2.   In telling the parable of the lost sheep, Jesus reminded us how heaven views the salvation of one sinner: “I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.”  Luke 15:7.  

Consider these principles in light of the prevailing opinions concerning Russell Brewer and Troy Davis.  Brewer was convicted of one of the most heinous crimes in recent U.S. history.  There is little doubt about his involvement in this crime.  While we could not know whether Brewer had repented and made his peace with God, we can state with some degree of certainty that whoever dragged James Byrd to his death had sinned greatly and was in need of repentance.   If Brewer had not yet come to terms with the nature of his deed and sought forgiveness for his acts, his death at our hands frustrated the very purpose for which Jesus came.  If our intervention in the form of putting this man to death prevented him from repenting, we have deprived heaven of a greater joy than would be received by ninety-nine persons living righteous lives and dying in the good graces of God.

Therefore, the execution of an innocent man (as we suppose Troy Davis to be), while unacceptably cruel and heaping worthy scorn upon our criminal justice system, should be recognized as less troubling theologically and spiritually than is the execution of the guilty.  Troy Davis, like the criminal condemned at Jesus’ side, may already “be with [Jesus] in paradise.”  Luke 23:43.  While we cannot know if this is true of Mr. Brewer, as Christians, shouldn’t we be most concerned about executing the guilty with the inherent risk that we will frustrate Jesus’ central purpose in the salvation of lost souls?

September 23, 2011