|
Someone who genuinely desires deeper insight and increased knowledge regarding the issues posed for religion in America by the “isms’ of sexism and racism must begin by thinking locally, focusing upon the unique situation of a particular congregation in a single religious tradition, in one local community in one region of the nation.
The Question: How should Barack Obama have responded to inflammatory remarks made by his former pastor, Dr. Jeremiah Wright? Are you responsible for what your spiritual leader says from the pulpit?
I am a 75-year-old, white, male, a proud veteran of the Marine Corps., a retired Episcopal clergyman, and I speak as one who loves this country. Oh how I wish the congregation my wife and I attend had a minister like Dr. Wright. For the past 14 years I have been a sermon listener rather than a sermon preacher. Only once in those 14 years have I heard a sermon that was clear enough and strong enough that real disagreement was even possible. I got so excited I made the mistake of expressing my vociferous disagreement at the door of the church rather than waiting for a more opportune occasion.
The Question: E-mail: Blessing or Curse?
I had a friend, now deceased, who refused to engage in telephone conversation. He believed that meaningful human interaction required, at its best, face-to-face communication or, at the very least, lengthy written letters and manuscripts. I frequently wish I could hear him hold forth on the merits and demerits of E-mail.
Last month, I related to a close friend the narrative of a weekend gathering of an extremely thoughtful, challenging small group of people. She commented that she could not have enjoyed such an event. “I would have been frightened of exposing myself by making a misstep or appearing ill-informed.”
Barack Obama’s speech in June of 2006 was the keynote address of a conference sponsored by Sojourners and Call to Renewal on the theme of Building a Covenant for a New America. Senator Obama’s message to this gathering of largely progressive evangelicals was an exposition on the theme of the connection between religion and politics, importantly including the Senator’s reflection on some realities he believes need to be acknowledged by all who seek to bring their religious beliefs to bear upon the public issues of the day.
The Archbishop of Canterbury is a political appointee, a prominent civic personage in English life. This anomaly of an established church means, that despite his lack of actual governmental power, the position of the Archbishop of Canterbury carries the same weight of political baggage as that of any high level political appointee in the American system. When the Archbishop says or does something really inept or stupid and the action has possible widespread implications for the nation, media frenzy erupts.
Many years ago, as a Midshipman in the Navy, I was taught the rules of conversation appropriate to the gentility of the Wardroom on a naval vessel. The Wardroom is the dining and lounge area for commissioned officers on a Navy ship. The primary rule I remember was the stricture that it is never appropriate to speak about religion, sex, or politics while in the Wardroom. Since these seemed to me to be the three most interesting subjects in life, I found this rule both amusing and absurd.
For the last few weeks this web site has had questions bearing directly on religion, sex, and politics. I have been very interested in the questions as well as the responses and have regretted that important family matters prevented my entry into these discussions.
Mitt Romney’s “Faith in America” speech strikes me as a well crafted statement, designed to position his candidacy as a moderate conservative leader with personal integrity and character.
Over three decades ago, a friend visiting from Sweden taught me a valuable lesson on the deeper dimensions of politics, human history, and national identity.
As a part of his visit to the USA, I spent a day showing him major points of interest in Washington D.C. We ascended the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on a beautiful morning, not crowded by the usual swarms of tourists. In the calm and beauty of the setting, we each began to read silently the words of Lincoln’s second inaugural address engraved upon the wall: “With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in __.”
As I read Lincoln’s words I found myself seized by their power in a completely unexpected intensity. I looked over at my Swedish friend and could immediately see that he was even more transfixed by the moment. We stood there and talked of the terrible period in history in which Lincoln spoke; of the preceding years of savage conflict claiming over half a million lives, tearing this nation asunder; and of the transcending, enduring power of Lincoln’s words of mutual forgiveness and steadfast love.
Several of the regular contributors to this site are far more qualified than I to comment on the similarity or dissimilarity of the core themes in the messages of the world’s great religions. I can say that my own experience and study suggest that no matter the degree of similarity in message there are other differences which have enormous and far reaching influence on the way the message of the major faiths is understood and lived out.
One such difference is the political and cultural context in which the message is proclaimed. Within the Anglican Communion many African Christian leaders keep telling Episcopalians in the USA, that their African view of the Christian faith is strongly shaped by their colonial history and by the present reality of sometimes violent relationships with the Muslim majorities in their countries. I have seen and heard similar reactions in urban congregations embedded in turbulent neighborhoods, experiencing rapid change in the majority groups resident therein. The Scripture lessons read each Sunday are probably the same as those read in the settled, comfortable, churches on the other side of the city. Surprisingly, even the sermons and educational programs may be very similar. But, for people in the congregation, the filters for listening and the experiences for framing and interpreting the message are quite different.
This week’s question asks if the reader, including me, believes in life after death. The question implies that, after weighing and balancing one’s own experience and knowledge, a decision, a choice, can be made on the question of whether there is, or is not, life after death. Which answer is true for you, the questioner asks.
The question reminds me of a story Stanley Hauerwas tells from his days of teaching a marriage course at the University of Notre Dame. Hauerwas promised his students that he was going to provide them with one absolute truth about marriage. This was an absolute that they could write down and always depend on when the going got rough in their marriage. The reason I love this story is that I have been married to my wife, Win, for over 50 years and I believe that what Hauerwas asked his students to write down is absolutely true. Hauerwas told the young men and women in his class to write down: “You always marry the wrong person.”
The intense urge of most human beings for most of history to search for ways to satisfy their religious hopes and aspirations is not going to disappear or diminish in importance. Human spirit yearns for an experience of wholeness and meaning that transcends the inherent constraints of the bodily journey from life to death. If Hitchens means that this persistent quest has resulted in powerful religious institutions, religious groups, and religious practices and beliefs that have significantly contributed to the violence, intolerance, bigotry, prejudice, and ignorance of human society, then he is absolutely correct. As a member of the Christian community, I believe that an honest reading of our history largely confirms Hitchen’s accusation.
What Islam Really Says About Violence, Rights and Other Religions
Gomaa, Fadlallah, Mubarak, Khan, Siddiqi, Ellison, others | On Faith
Comments (6)