Resources: ABC Religion and Ethics Portal

ABC's Religion and Ethics Portal is a terrific place to go for insightful theological and political resources.  Opinion pieces, Feature articles, and interviews come from some of the most premier thinkers and provocateurs theorizing today.  Currently there are some really interesting articles, so it would behoove you to check it out:

-John Milbank gives a much needed lesson about the importance of real apologetics. 

-Scott Stephens (who manages the site) has a wonderful reflection about how we "over-imagine" evil and "under-imagine" the good.  He does this while reflecting on the film "The Exorcist" and other exorcism films...that alone is worth the price of admission....which is um, free!

-Alison Milbank reports on "Why the Parish Still Matters."  This is medicine for those sick of church-marketing campaigns!

-Rowan Williams reflects on what a truly Islamic state would look like. 

-David Malouf waxes poetic about happiness.

And there is so much more.  Again, check this site out, because Stephens does a nice job rotating new articles in frequently...and they come from interesting thinkers: Williams, Zizek, Milbank, Hauerwas, Cavanaugh, McGrath, Bretherton, etc.

Rowan Williams on being creatures and the self-giving God

Rowan Williams, The Archbishop of Canterbury

 I love reading the theology of Rowan Williams.  He is a keen thinker, able to bypass over-simplistic labeling and pigeonholing (he also has amazing eye-brows). His book On Christian Theology (Challenges in Contemporary Theology) has a wonderful essay called "On Being Creatures," an often overlooked topic, to be sure.  To live the good life, one must remember what life is: creation!  And we are, as a result, creatures.  Understanding what that means makes all the difference for whether or not we can actually live the good life.  As I read Williams' chapter on creatures today, I was inspired (by all of it...) by this bit in particular:

"...self love presupposes self-giving.  I can't love myself without being a loved object, which means being, in some measure, given into another's hands, another's life.  To say that God is without need is to say that God's identity does not wait upon being an object for what is not God.  God, it seems, 'needs' only God.  Yet there is a world, there is what is not God, something for which God is.  As creatures, existing because of the utterance of God, we know that God desires to be God for what is not God -- desires pleasure or flourishing of what is not God.  This desire is groundless, in the sense that nothing other than God causes it, and that it cannot be a device to assist God in being God, but it is not arbitrary, because there is no extraneous or random element with God's being God.  What God utters (as suggested earlier) is God: the summons to the world to be, and to find its fruition in being the presence of God, sets 'outside' god the kind of life that is God's.  So if God's act of creation gratuitously establishes God as the one who is supremely there for the world, it seems we must say that God is already one whose being is a 'being for,' whose joy is eternally in the joy of another; and since God, as we have said, does not 'wait upon' becoming an object to another, we are led to think of God's own self as eternal identity in otherness, a self-affirming in giving away.  'Love in God does not result but originates. . . because God is God, the absolutely original, the absolutely originating, an eternal process of self-affirming in self love.'  (Rowan Williams, On Christian Theology, 73-24.  His last quote is taken from Sebastian Moore's  Inner Loneliness (Inner Loneliness, Paper, p.108)

 It's from this robust doctrine of creation, Williams is able to develop a properly trinitarian doctrine of God.  God is (one substance) three persons who are in a dynamic relation of self-giving.

Desmond Tutu on what to do in troubled times!

Desmond Tutu, a worthy winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, speaking on "Hope in Troubled Times":

His message, as usual, makes me smile!

People have been asking me lately, "what are we to do with the apparent problems all around us?"  This question has been raised in light of the conflict in Libya, the crisis in Japan, our worldwide ecological degradation, and  poverty.  To those questions, and others, I offer Tutu's wisdom! 

I especially like his point about the ocean.  It is made up of individual drops of water.  If individuals respond with hope, love, and grace to brokenness in the world, then real change can happen.  We too often, get bogged down with the size of problems; and then we expect governments and large corporations to do all the good work of change...Tutu's message: you (as a person) do what is good, you make a change!  Do what you can!

Grace and Peace

How should we respond to the incident in Japan?

As you all know by now, the people of Japan are suffering. 

As the news of the earthquake hit our cable stations my family was hosting 6 Japanese men who were on vacation here in America.  They came to see America and more importantly to visit my brother.  My brother lived in Japan and played baseball with these men for a year, so their bond and affection for one another runs very deep.  I had the chance to spend time with these men and was supremely blessed by their company. (my family has always hosted Japanese exchange students, so we have many friends there).

So when I first heard the news from Japan I was shocked, saddened, and afraid.  The "feeling" of compassion grew inside of me.  I was prompted to pray, send money, and open my home to any of my new Japanese friends (if they want to come back to get away from the disaster...they are still welcome).  My feelings are quite natural, I think, but I wonder about those who do not have such an intimate connection to the Japanese; how are they to feel?  How are they to respond?

I am afraid that globalism has changed the way we view disaster.  On one hand the world is a bit smaller for contemporary societies, because we have use of the internet, global markets, air planes, and cheap long distance phone plans.  These things mean that we have greater access to the rest of our world!  On the other hand it is a bit larger, because we can now commodify news of tragedy from all around the world at scary high speeds.  That is to say, we are no longer isolated to the fate of our small local community.  I am afraid that modern media allows us to be disconnected spectators of all sorts of tragedy. 

And again I am challenged with what we are supposed to do!  How are we supposed to feel?

These questions are important for me, because I am attempting to be a Christian.  As much as I can tell, Christians are to be compassionate people; people who help alleviate the suffering of others.  But what can I do for those half way around the world?  What about the other innumerable tragedies in other places, I mean, do I pick and choose who to show compassion to? 

I am going to try to offer a few answers.  I am not sure if these answers are correct, and I welcome your thoughts on the matter.  Her it goes.

1.) In times of crisis, I can always send money.  Sometimes money is the only thing one can do given the distance between you and the tragedy.  However, money should never be the ultimate form of compassion that we offer.  Being represented only by money devalues us and the recipients as persons.  We must offer ourselves, when we can, as gifts to one another.  Compassionate offering of oneself as a gift often entails a cold cup of water, a shared meal, a shoulder to cry on, and crying with those in pain.

2.) Never should we become de-sensitized to the suffering of others.  Becoming sensitized is often the outcome of "consuming" tragedies from a distance.  This is dangerous, not to mention de-humanizing. 

3.) Never should we elevate the tragedy of one people over another.  But, one may have more affinities with one tragedy (like I do with Japan) because of personal experience or proximity.  I think, in some ways, proximity is key.  We must impact the communities we are near or are part of, because we are already there to make a difference.  We, in short, have a better opportunity to help those we are close to.

4.) In any tragedy we must be compassionate.  I must remind you that compassion is not a "feeling," but an action or way of life.  Can we enter into ones tragedy, by thinking deeply about it?  I think so, and when we do, we no longer speculate on the financial repercussions of that particular tragedy; instead we think on the pain of lost life, lasting impact on place and culture, and remember the sanctity of all life.  I think we must allow the tragedy to impact our imagination as we offer prayers of hope and support to/for suffering people.  This is not to say, that the tragedy should paralyze us from our daily living, rather we should take some time to stop and reflect on the most important things.

Responding to tragedy without being paralyzed by it: 
I remember being in a funeral procession in a small town.  As we drove down the road, people would stop and pull over for us to pass by.  They waited patiently just like we are all taught to do in our sophomore drivers-ed classes.  But it was so foreign to me, because in the city people will do anything to pass by just so they "do not get stuck waiting" for the 5 minute procession to pass.  The next thing I saw was even more unexpected.  Out of my window, I could see a man mowing his lawn.  As he noticed the funeral hearse, he got off of his riding lawn mower and faced the long line of cars.  Then, he put his head down solemnly. What was he doing?  He could have prayed or he could have just "stopped" in a moment of reverence.  Whatever it was, I know that he was offering his condolences and respecting the loss of life.  It was powerful.  It was a small gift of compassion that he offered us, the people who were hurting.  The moment was graceful, humanizing, and I was brought to tears.  As we passed, the man got back on his lawnmower and finished his daily chores.  Maybe this is how we who are far away from tragedy are to behave.  

Friends, please pray for these people!  Please pray for all who suffer. I am offering prayer on behalf of my Japanese brothers and sisters, no matter what their beliefs are, because I have a duty to offer the very best/deepest parts of me.  And if I have the opportunity, I will offer more...my friends who read this, you can come and stay with my family...may God bless you! 

Live to Eat or Eat to Live?

 My brother-in-law recently had a conversation with someone and it sparked an important question for him: "what is our proper relationship to food?"  "That is a great question," I responded, adding that, "I think I'll blog about it," so here it goes!

Actually, his question was inspired by two prominent ways of seeing food.  One asks do we "live to eat?" and the other asks do we "eat to live?"  The former position is the one often taken up by "foodies," neo-epicureans (though they do not truly support the real views of Epicurus) and people in various versions of the slow food movement.   That latter position is often found among those in the diet and fitness industry.  So what, my brother-in-law asked me is (MY OPINION) the proper way to view food!?  I am thrilled that he asked me for two reasons:

1.) I love to share my opinions!
2.) He and my sister are Chef's and have a cool foodie blog called Garden Fresh Chefs.  Check it out.

To answer this question, I will begin by rejecting my two choices: "eat to live" and "live to eat."  For me, they both miss the point by committing the fallacy of the "law of the excluded middle."  Instead, I offer this viewpoint, "I live to live."  I know, it does not sound as poetic as the other two options, but I am afraid it is a far better motto to live by.

We must, first, affirm that the world is created.  That is to say that it is a divine gift.  Everyone, stop and think for a moment...do things NEED to exist at all?  Why should this world be at all, let alone be beautiful, good or true?  The world is not necessary and yet it does exist.  This means that everything is pregnant with meaning; all life is a gift.  The radical "givenness" of life demands that I begin with gratitude in all my relationships including my relationship to food.

Each time I pause in gratitude before I enjoy a meal, I acknowledge three things:

1.) That something had to die for me to eat.
2.) That the world (or life) is a gift created by God in freedom and not of necessity.
3.) That I rely on this food to live.  I am a very contingent being.

My acknowledgment of these three things is accomplished in a prayer to the giver of the good gift.  Immediately I am connected more closely to food that I am eating and thus, I am connected a bit closer to the ultimate source of life.

I do not simply eat to live, because food is good.  It is something to delight in.  It is a gift.  Because of all this, there must be more joy and gratitude when we eat; indeed, God has given people an abundance of food and kinds of food to be enjoyed (it is a shame that we horde it and destroy it the way we do).  If we eat only to live we devalue food as a tool for: delight, community, celebration, joy, and creativity. 

Also, I do not live to eat.  I fear this view would make me a slave to food, because it seems to make it into an idol.  No, I live to live.  I live to participate in the glory of all life, by this, I mean that I do not elevate food to heights that it should not attain or diminish it to mere triviality.  To live for food is to diminish human relationships, proper bodily health, ignore the poor, and miss the goodness of other parts of creation.

Simply put, both views are far too narrow.  When people stop in gratitude and really think about what food is, where it comes from, what it takes to make it, the kind of care put into preparing it, and the limits of it, they will not eat too much or deny themselves the joy of eating it.  Instead, they will recognize its true place in our lives as:

1.) A gift
2.) A delight
3.) A pointer to our reliance upon non-human world
4.) A community builder
5.) A cause for celebration
6.) A radical reminder of our contingence 

Death Penalty in Illinois: My Cautious Confession

Illinois Governor Pat Quinn

I am from Illinois.  And again, we are in the news because of our politics.  As many of you know, our Governor signed legislation to get rid of the death penalty here in Illinois.  Emotions are high, and opinions abound.  It is notable, in our shallow and media saturated society, that I have been hearing more about this news than the antics of Charlie Sheen...if only for a day!

So, what should we think about this?  How should we feel?

To these questions, I offer my confession:

As a Christian: I struggle with knowing the "correct" stance on such a divisive issue.  Sure, you could proof text from the Old Testament to prove that the death penalty is a faithful thing to do.  You can also proof text from the New Testament to show how grace, mercy, and forgiveness are better ways of approaching the evil deeds of people. (To separate the OT and NT as two different stories would be to miss the meta-narrative of scripture, however.)

Then there are the folks who talk about how many innocent people have been found on death-row.  They argue that we should abandon the practice so that we do not add more wrongful death.  In response, of course, are the people who suggest that with the "new DNA" stuff we can almost always be certain.  As important as these points are, they do not touch upon the real important questions that I must ask as a Christian (and as a responsible citizen, I might add).

The Overlooked Issue: The real issue we must deal with, here, is our theories of justice and punishment.  We must develop a theory of justice in our world.  Frankly, our sense of justice is shallow, pale, and driven by emotion.  I dare say that most ordinary citizens do not have a consistent theory or practice of justice.  What is justice in the face of evil; what is evil?  What would the world look like if we all got "what we deserve?"  These questions and subsequent answers must be discussed openly and frequently.

More to the point however, is the issue of punishment!  Why do we punish?  It seems that the death penalty is first and foremost about retribution and secondly about deterrence.  But what is an appropriate Christian view of punishment?  I confess that I do not have a quick or confident answer on the topic.  My sense is, however, that a Christian view of punishment must be more about REHABILITATION, because Christians are to be a people of redemption.  If our end is to rehabilitate, then the death penalty does not fit in well.  I say this, though, with fear and trembling, because I do not want to diminish the evil (and therefore pain) that some death row inmates have caused others.  Evil acts are evil, but how did Christ treat our evil deeds?  Are Christians to return evil with more evil?  How far do we go?  My confession is that we do everything we can to restore the brokenness of people: victims and perpetrators.  We must promote the full participation in being, in all cases. Remember!  No one is completely good (fully participating in being), and no one is completely evil (privation from being). 

As a Citizen: The point is really the same.  We must ask to what "end" do we punish people, and what is our understanding of justice!  What are we trying to accomplish, and are we accomplishing it?  These are conversations that must be had in a civil and faithful manner.  As I mentioned in a previous post, I do not think that Twitter and Facebook are proper places for responsible dialogue, so we must commit to hearing one another and being patient with opposing view points.  

My Concluding Remarks/Feelings About This Legislation:
I am more comfortable, morally, with abolishing the death penalty than upholding it!  But, I do not have much hope in our penal system to rehabilitate anyone.  I think we need robust conversations and work on this front too.  Just what does it mean to rehabilitate someone, and what is the most effective way of doing it?  I hear some of my "left-leaning" friends, crying for more legislation and programs.  I can also hear some of my "right-leaning" friends, crying for less government and the need for building stronger families. 

I am not sure that either side of the aisle holds the answer at this point!  Where do we go from here?  Maybe we need a refreshed reading of Augustine's The City of God to help Christians understand our role as it pertains to the dealings with the "City of Man."  And if you are not a Christian, maybe you will agree with me that we need to invest more in training people in the humanities (ethics, philosophy, theology, literature, religious studies), so people have, at minimum, a vocabulary and experience to dialogue about such things. 

Becoming friends with time: Hauerwasian insights on disability, time, and presence

Learning to be "present" with someone who is suffering is to make a friend out of time.  Hauerwas' reflection, here, is challenging (and very moving) because it challenges our standard notions of time and efficiency. 

We often think of time as an arrow that "goes somewhere," and so we imagine that our lives are quickly running out.  Because of this, we want to be as efficient as possible; at least we want to be efficient at doing what we want to do (whether what we do is truly efficient or good is another question altogether).  For me, thinking of time as a friend is a good reflection as we begin this season of Lent.  Lent is the great reminder to us that time does not work like an arrow at all.  This season calls the Church to look to the past (backward) to the death, burial and resurrection, while looking to the future (forward) to Christ's second coming.  In addition to this, we are called to have an eye toward Heaven (for guidance) and one directed toward the world (as it is the place we inhabit).  We affirm that what Christ accomplished so long ago, is not complete or finished...it has eternal significance...a "once for all" type of significance.

Perhaps we can imagine every moment as an eternal moment, that is to say, every living moment resounds within eternity.  What we do each moment matters -- each embrace, every patient act with a disabled person, all of our meals -- everything matters.  So, here is to becoming a friend of time, a toast to redeeming time. 

Office Hours with Norman Wirzba on a Theology of Eating

Indecent Spectators: A World of Charlie Sheen and Celebrity Rehab

Facebook, Yahoo News (all internet news sites), Twitter, and even NPR are all buzzing with the news of the bizarre antics of Charlie Sheen.  On my morning drive, I flipped through the radio stations trying to get away from all the jokes and parodies of Sheen's behavior.  It was tough.  Finally, I switched the dial to a local station and heard a spot on the morning show called "Celebrity News," so I frustratedly reached to change the channel again.  But suddenly, the D.J. spoke of something else, something other than the misdeeds of Charlie Sheen.  I was naively hopeful for something good.  She, instead, spoke of "Celebrity Rehab" with Dr. Drew.  The D.J. and her co-host were excited about this season's "great cast."  They were excited to hear about the struggles of these famous icons.  Hearing all the details, my heart sank!  I felt sorry for us. 

Are we this bored?  Is our entertainment really all about watching the spectacle of ill-fated celebrities?  Does their sorrow bring us joy?  Can we say that these spectacles add to our lives in some meaningful way?  It seems that we have, as Kierkegaard noticed in the 19th century, become passive spectators of life.  When he wrote, though, he was talking about exhibitions at a theme park.  As I write, I am talking about the bad deeds and self-destruction of others.  It seems that we have become more passive (Albert Borgmann argued that real reality T.V. would be a show where the people did nothing more than watch T.V.) and delighted by the sorrow and brokenness of others.  

I could go on and on listing the recent celebrity gossip, and you could as well.  But we also know that people are interested in the spectacles of every-day people too.  I struggle with this!  I know that this is not a Christian behavior.  It is certainly not in line with a Christian moral theology to delight in the mess of other people's lives, or to be so idle as to know all the gossip.  But I do not think it could be seen as morally permissible by any major religion or system of ethics!  

What would it mean for our communities if we took words like this seriously:

 ²⁸ Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. ²⁹ They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, ³⁰ slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; ³¹ they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. ³² Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. - Romans 1:28-32

Dialogue: Rob Bell, Universalism and Twitter

Big news!  Pastor Rob Bell is making headlines!  I hope you caught my sarcasm there.  Bell has been, for some time, a popular and effective (to the degree that one can tell such things) Christian minister.  His popularity stems from his Nooma videos, a series of theological and spiritual vignettes which are thoughtful and well produced.  He is also the author of several popular level books on Christianity and popular culture. 

His work is usually a bit provocative, and he can, at times, be considered a bit of an iconoclast (one firmly placed within evangelical orthodoxy).  So what's all the hype about this time?  I understand that in his new book, Bell promotes a version of theological universalism.  For a good article on Bell's thought as well as the thought of his detractors... click here!

Frankly, I am not interested in this debate.  I would rather meditate on scripture and the Church Fathers as well as a few modern theologians than engage a debate between Bell and Piper et al.  So why am I even writing this post?  When I read the CNN piece I was bothered by the use of TWITTER as a means of comment and dialogue with Bell on this issue.  I mean it is, after all, a complicated issue.  

Our world is a world of easy publishing and fast paced social media; is this the best place to dialogue concerning serious theological issues?  I am afraid that social media (and even book publishing) offers us less than adequate forums for dialogue.  I mean, can you even dialogue or have a meaningful remark in 140 characters?  And aren't book publishers really in this to make a profit?  It seems that theological dialogue is a bit impoverished because of the following reasons: modern forms of communication (or lack there of), speaking apart from rather than within a tradition (so we buck all authority), the desire for more options (capitalism has infiltrated faith), and the desire to have quick and easy answers. 

Oddly, I am more concerned with the way people have interacted with Bell on Twitter than I am about that fact that he is now a supposed universalist.  Um....but as my friend Clint Dickson reminds me, I am asking this question on a blog...can we have meaningful dialogue on a blog? 

Too many questions, too little time.  I guess, for now, I will avoid twitter as a place for prescriptive dialogue.