Showing posts sorted by relevance for query elijah widow. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query elijah widow. Sort by date Show all posts

Thursday, January 19, 2017

Filling the small hours....

Like the President-to-be, you can envision me hard at work....

I wanted to highlight this bit from Dr. King's speech:

The crowning achievement in hypocrisy must go to those staunch Republicans and Democrats of the Midwest and West who were given land by our government when they came here as immigrants from Europe. They were given education through the land grant colleges. They were provided with agricultural agents to keep them abreast of forming trends, they were granted low interest loans to aid in the mechanization of their farms and now that they have succeeded in becoming successful, they are paid not to farm and these are the same people that now say to black people, whose ancestors were brought to this country in chains and who were emancipated in 1863 without being given land to cultivate or bread to eat; that they must pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. What they truly advocate is Socialism for the rich and Capitalism for the poor.

Because it goes directly against the current grain of the "rugged individual" and the "self-made man" which is part of the mythos of America  I am sick to death of hearing from people in the West who think they settled it all with their own two hands and a Colt revolver.  Without the land grants they were given to move across the Mississippi and head for the California coast, much of that area might still be controlled by Spain.  Without massive government support, the transcontinental railroad would still be a pipe dream.  Without all the things Dr. King mentions, the West might be even less inhabited than it is now.  And so much of California's prosperity is based on federal government spending it isn't even funny.

And, as he says:

They were provided with agricultural agents to keep them abreast of forming trends, they were granted low interest loans to aid in the mechanization of their farms and now that they have succeeded in becoming successful, they are paid not to farm and these are the same people that now say to black people, whose ancestors were brought to this country in chains and who were emancipated in 1863 without being given land to cultivate or bread to eat; that they must pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. 
I watched this show the other night, a laudable effort by Houston Public Media (NPR/PBS) to discuss the race issues of the fourth largest city in the country.  It was excellent, and telling.  The small panel in the visual on the website listened to, and responded to, answers to questions by two other small groups (six each) of white and black Houston residents.  The differences between the groups were telling, but none more so than the discussion of "affirmative action."

As one of the panelists pointed out, President Kennedy coined the phrase rather inadvertently when he issued an executive order that government contractors "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin."   It's the same concept King is getting at there; and the distinction is in something else the panelists mentioned:  Dr. King promoted integration; but his followers, after his untimely death, settled for de-segregation.

The difference haunts our efforts at facing racism to this day.

The white group each affirmed the idea that everyone should be treated equally, but all equally rejected the idea that this equality should be achieved by any action or any redress.  Their attitude was that of the Republicans and Democrats Dr. King addressed:  now that they are successful, people who were finally released from slavery 150 years ago, after 400 years of that peculiar institution dominating this country, should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

The way the ancestors of the current residents of the American West did.

We are profoundly divided on this issue because to face it squarely would mean to take a responsibility we, the white people of America, just don't want to take.  At the extreme this is the attitude of Dylann Roof, who thought his power would be stripped from him by black Americans.  Of course, Dylann Roof didn't have any power, so his impotent but murderous attack was not the response of the people interviewed by Houston Public Media.  More secure in their power than Mr. Roof was in his, they argue not for radical change to protect them, but for the status quo, to ensure them a comfortable end to their material existence.  The difference is profound, but the distinction is a fine one.

In an interesting programming choice, the PBS documentary "The March" followed the broadcast of  "Houston in Black and White."  I also recommend it, if you've never seen it.  The March on Washington was secure and successful only in retrospect.  At one point President Kennedy tried to dissuade Dr. King from the whole operation, on the basis that the FBI was reporting King's organization (and the others involved in the planning of the March) were infiltrated by Communists.  Which sounds like the paranoia of J. Edgar Hoover, until you remember the responses to the "Black Panthers" and consider the reactions to Black Lives Matter.

One of the things many of the participants, in the groups as well as on the panel, agreed on was that we must first put our house (whose house?  Don't worry about the details....) in order before we address the problems we have with others.  It's a comforting notion, this idea that we can set all our affairs straight and THEN address our relationships to others.  But it never works out that way.

In one sense, that argument is like Kierkegaard's swipe at Hegel; Kierkegaard imagined a man who became so abstracted from his own personal existence, so lost in the idealism of Hegelian thought, that he found one day he had died, and never realized it.  It is a comforting ideal to say "Once I am fine/perfect/comfortable, then I can take on my relationship with others," but you can no more abstract yourself from relationships with others than you can abstract yourself from your own existence.  And yes, I see that as the fundamental problem of the stereotypical "independent" Westerner:  a person so independent of others he dissociates from himself, and finds one day he's no longer alive, no longer human.

Auden was right:  we must love one another, or die.

We can't put "our house" in order without putting our world in order.  It is tempting to agree with Candide that we much each tend our own garden, but that only makes us gardeners, it doesn't make us community members.  We must take care of each other, or no one is taken care of; and we must begin with the other, and not with the self.

To put it in concrete terms, the rejoinder to the claim we must set our house in order first, we must take care of ourselves first, is the story of Elijah and the widow:

After a while the stream dried up, for there had been no rain in the land. Then the word of the Lord came to him: “Go now to Zarephath, a village of Sidon, and stay there; I have commanded a widow there to feed you.’ He went off to Zarephath, and when he reached the entrance to the village, he saw a widow gathering sticks. He called to her, ‘Please bring me a little water in a pitcher to drink.’ As she went to fetch it, he called after her, ‘Bring me, please, a piece of bread as well.’ But she answered, “As the Lord your God lives, I have no food baked, only a handful of flour in a jar and a little oil in a flask. I am just gathering two or three sticks to go and cook it for my son and myself before we die.’ ‘Have no fear,’ Elijah said, ‘go and do as you have said. But first make me a small cake from what you have and bring it out to me, and after that make something for your son and yourself. For this is the word of the Lord the God of Israel: The jar of flour will not give out, nor the flask of oil fail, until the Lord sends rain on the land.’ She went and did as Elijah had said, and there was food for him and for her family for a long time. The jar of flour did not give out, nor did the flask of oil, as the word of the Lord foretold through Elijah. 1 Kings 17:7-16 (REB)
Yes, it's the story of a miracle.  Yes, it's a story of faith, if you understand faith as "trust," not as some abstract concept relating an individual to God.  Elijah trusts the word of the Lord, and the widow trusts Elijah.  "But first," Elijah tells her; "but first make me a small cake...and after that make something for your son and yourself."  Had she not, she and her son would not have survived the drought; nor would Elijah.  The sensible thing for her to do was to insist she had nothing to share; because she wouldn't have.  But she didn't do the sensible thing, "and there was food for him and for her family for a long time."  It is a lesson in faith.  It is a lesson in hospitality.  It is a lesson in who you should take care of first.

Which is what Dr. King was talking about.  We set up systems:  systems of law, systems of economics, systems based on geography and social structures, and we say those systems will save us, preserve us, protect us; that if we only take care of the system first (family, friends, neighbors, wherever the boundary lines are drawn), then we can later take care of others.  We put our trust, our faith, in those systems.  Every time those systems fail and we insist they have not failed, they have only been failed.  Our trust, our faith, is truly blind, which is why we lash out at religious believers for their "blind faith."  Every time, we see in the world the reflection of ourselves, and call that the Big Idea the can never Fail.

Of course, if we put the other first, elevated the least and lowest and sent the first to the end of the line, if we tried first to take care of others so that all would be taken care of equally; what then?

Truly the more things change, the more they remain the same.  Unless we change them at the root; at the radix; unless we become radical.

Wednesday, January 26, 2022

Hostipitality

And the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;

2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,

3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:

4 Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree:

5 And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said.

6 And Abraham hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes upon the hearth.

7 And Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetcht a calf tender and good, and gave it unto a young man; and he hasted to dress it.

8 And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.

9 And they said unto him, Where is Sarah thy wife? And he said, Behold, in the tent.

10 And he said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son. And Sarah heard it in the tent door, which was behind him.

11 Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.

12 Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?

13 And the Lord said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old?

14 Is any thing too hard for the Lord? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son.

15 Then Sarah denied, saying, I laughed not; for she was afraid. And he said, Nay; but thou didst laugh.

Genesis 18:1-15, KJV 


After a while the stream dried up, for there had been no rain in the land. Then the word of the Lord came to him: “Go now to Zarephath, a village of Sidon, and stay there; I have commanded a widow there to feed you.’ He went off to Zarephath, and when he reached the entrance to the village, he saw a widow gathering sticks. He called to her, ‘Please bring me a little water in a pitcher to drink.’ As she went to fetch it, he called after her, ‘Bring me, please, a piece of bread as well.’ But she answered, “As the Lord your God lives, I have no food baked, only a handful of flour in a jar and a little oil in a flask. I am just gathering two or three sticks to go and cook it for my son and myself before we die.’ ‘Have no fear,’ Elijah said, ‘go and do as you have said. But first make me a small cake from what you have and bring it out to me, and after that make something for your son and yourself. For this is the word of the Lord the God of Israel: The jar of flour will not give out, nor the flask of oil fail, until the Lord sends rain on the land.’ She went and did as Elijah had said, and there was food for him and for her family for a long time. The jar of flour did not give out, nor did the flask of oil, as the word of the Lord foretold through Elijah. 

1 Kings 17:7-16 (REB)


 Let brotherly love continue.

2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

3 Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them; and them which suffer adversity, as being yourselves also in the body.

Hebrews 13:1-3 (KJV)


4:21 Then he began to say to them, "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing."

4:22 All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his mouth. They said, "Is not this Joseph's son?"

4:23 He said to them, "Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, 'Doctor, cure yourself!' And you will say, 'Do here also in your hometown the things that we have heard you did at Capernaum.'"

4:24 And he said, "Truly I tell you, no prophet is accepted in the prophet's hometown.

4:25 But the truth is, there were many widows in Israel in the time of Elijah, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, and there was a severe famine over all the land;

4:26 yet Elijah was sent to none of them except to a widow at Zarephath in Sidon.

4:27 There were also many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian."

4:28 When they heard this, all in the synagogue were filled with rage.

4:29 They got up, drove him out of the town, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they might hurl him off the cliff.

4:30 But he passed through the midst of them and went on his way.'

Luke 4:21-30


That last is the gospel reading for this Sunday, the fourth in Epiphany.  Coincidence?  Or just always applicable to us?

WHEN the Man of Heaven comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. Then the king will say to those at his right hand, "Come, 0 blessed of my Father, inherit the realm prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me." Then the righteous will answer him, "Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?" And the king will answer them, "Truly, I say to you, as you did to one of the littlest of these my dear people, you did it to me." Then the king will say to those at his left hand, "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and the devil's angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me." Then they also will answer, "Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?" Then he will answer them, "Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the littlest of these, you did it not to me." And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

Matthew 25:31-46


1.9 million people is a lot of GOD.

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

In God We Trust. All others pay cash.

I have my problems with Christian salvation, and so with most theories of soteriology.  Some of my thoughts on this subject are quite technical and almost systematic; some, less so.

Take, for example, the simple statement "Jesus Saves."  What does it mean?  If it's a sign posted by a bank; one thing.  In the picture above, another.  I even saw a picture on Google of Jesus pulling a man out of the water by the man's wrist.  Is that what the statement means?  Is that even a good metaphor for what the statement means, a better visual representation of the "correct meaning" than the picture above?

No, probably not.

Usually we mean something like this:


Which begs the question still: what does this sentence mean?

Usually, salvation from damnation; from an eternity in hell, in the burning flames of Hades, in the sulfurous tides of the land where those who enter must abandon all hope.

What a Chick tract means, in other words.  I've never been a fan of Chick tracts, but then Hitler liked dogs, too, so Chick tracts are not reason enough to set aside the traditional doctrines of Christianity.

Well, not Chick tracts alone; but the whole idea of salvation has, by and large, been a club Christians have used to beat up either other non-Christians, or other Christians they deemed insufficiently "Christian" enough for the holy tribute of salvation.  Soteriology is what led to Calvin's bizarre and ultimately perverse doctrine of the elect, and a soteriology his followers used to turn Christianity inside out.  I am thinking particularly of TULIP (which, no, is not Calvinism; except it is, once the doctrines move far enough away from Calvin's Institutes.  I am not blaming Calvin for the state of Christianity today; but I am blaming soteriology, which too many Christians think is the be-all and end-all of Christianity.).  TULIP is nothing more than a cudgel to be used against to motivate people to act as we would wish them to (and as we are sure God would wish them to).  Indeed, making people behave has become the primary purpose of soteriology.

We use it to make people join "our" church, to make people think as we do, or just to make people be civilized.  The root of the fear that the "death of God" would undermine society (and the modern day attack on Christianity, that morality can only come from a deity) was that, absent a fear of damnation (God is dead), what would keep the great unwashed on the straight and narrow?  That it had never kept the leadership in line was beside the point; but directly to the point of the purpose of soteriology (which is, after all, a human doctrine.  I don't remember Christ espousing one in the gospels.)

So how about the sheer damage proponents of "traditional" Christian soteriology do?  I've yet to meet a person whose theology emphasized individual salvation who didn't use that emphasis to deny comfort and succor to others.  Oh, they make nice noises about helping the destitute, but as far as really doing it, not much happens.  Individual salvation means you are individually responsible for the state of your immortal soul.  And if you are individually responsible for the state of your soul, you are individually responsible for the state of your life.  In this understanding, the community doesn't exist to take you in, it exists to set you straight, to straighten you out, to determine whether or not you are worthy of admission to the company of the Blessed.  Any help is short term and blunted, and meant to get you back to being responsible for yourself again, the way God intended!  Living as the widow who fed Elijah is simply not on:

After a while the stream dried up, for there had been no rain in the land. Then the word of the Lord came to him: “Go now to Zarephath, a village of Sidon, and stay there; I have commanded a widow there to feed you.’ He went off to Zarephath, and when he reached the entrance to the village, he saw a widow gathering sticks. He called to her, ‘Please bring me a little water in a pitcher to drink.’ As she went to fetch it, he called after her, ‘Bring me, please, a piece of bread as well.’ But she answered, “As the Lord your God lives, I have no food baked, only a handful of flour in a jar and a little oil in a flask. I am just gathering two or three sticks to go and cook it for my son and myself before we die.’ ‘Have no fear,’ Elijah said, ‘go and do as you have said. But first make me a small cake from what you have and bring it out to me, and after that make something for your son and yourself. For this is the word of the Lord the God of Israel: The jar of flour will not give out, nor the flask of oil fail, until the Lord sends rain on the land.’ She went and did as Elijah had said, and there was food for him and for her family for a long time. The jar of flour did not give out, nor did the flask of oil, as the word of the Lord foretold through Elijah. 1 Kings 17:7-16 (REB)

There are nuances, of course; variations.  Not everyone who believes in individual salvation as the central doctrine of Christianity agrees with Baroness Thatcher:

They stem not from the social but from the spiritual side of our lives, and personally, I would identify three beliefs in particular:

First, that from the beginning man has been endowed by God with the fundamental right to choose between good and evil. And second, that we were made in God's own image and, therefore, we are expected to use all our own power of thought and judgement in exercising that choice; and further, that if we open our hearts to God, He has promised to work within us. And third, that Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, when faced with His terrible choice and lonely vigil chose to lay down His life that our sins may be forgiven. I remember very well a sermon on an Armistice Sunday when our Preacher said, "No one took away the life of Jesus , He chose to lay it down".
Thatcher carefully distinguishes "spiritual" from "social," and makes it clear throughout that her emphasis is on the individual, that, as she famously said elsewhere, "Society does not exist."  "Man," in that first sentence, is clearly an individual:  only individuals choose good or evil.  And it is up to us, as individuals, "to use all our own (!) power of thought and judgment in exercising that choice."  And it is only after we have done so that we can "open our hearts [not the seat of thought and judgment] to God," who has "promised to work within us."  Because, after all, that's what Jesus did.

Which is one of the weirder theories of the crucifixion I think I've ever heard.  It's supported, to some degree, by John's gospel; but everybody agrees John's Jesus is the least human of the four representations in the canon.

Anyway....

The third is the oddest also because it doesn't connect to the acts of thought and judgement of the individual, or even of God entering your heart and working within you.  What it does connect with, is that even God has to make individual choices.  What it tells me is that even God is all alone.

Which is a very chilling place to put the emphasis (and not at all what the author of John's Gospel meant).  If Thatcher means to use it to make God "one of us," then it's even worse.  But it does explain the complete lack of Christian humility in Thatcher's speech.  Why be humble when you are equal to God?

Follow that reasoning very far, or even take it up at all, and you wind up at Mars Hill Presbyterian Church, which is not a place I want to be:

Mars Hill has not entirely dispensed with megachurch marketing tactics. Its success in one of the most liberal and least-churched cities in America depends on being sensitive to the body-pierced and latte-drinking seekers of Seattle. Ultimately, however, Driscoll's theology means that his congregants' salvation is not in his hands. It's not in their own hands, either — this is the heart of Calvinism. Ultimately, however, Driscoll's theology means that his congregants' salvation is not in his hands. It's not in their own hands, either — this is the heart of Calvinism.

Human beings are totally corrupted by original sin and predestined for heaven or hell, no matter their earthly conduct. We all deserve eternal damnation, but God, in his inscrutable mercy, has granted the grace of salvation to an elect few. While John Calvin's 16th-century doctrines have deep roots in Christian tradition, they strike many modern evangelicals as nonsensical and even un-Christian. If predestination is true, they argue, then there is no point in missions to the unsaved or in leading a godly life. And some babies who die in infancy — if God placed them among the reprobate — go straight to hell with the rest of the damned, to "glorify his name by their own destruction," as Calvin wrote. Since the early 19th century, most evangelicals have preferred a theology that stresses the believer's free decision to accept God's grace. To be born again is a choice God wants you to make; if you so choose, Jesus will be your personal friend.
And we all know personal friends are people just like us.  Why be humble when God is your BFF?  Why be a servant when you pal around with the Logos that created the cosmos?  A little of that goes a long way, and it goes a long way in the wrong direction, for my taste.

But are we totally corrupted?  Do we all deserve eternal damnation?  Is that any better than Jesus being my BFF?  And can I set any of this aside without completely re-writing traditional Christian soteriology?

Even Luther runs afoul of his own reasoning on this.  Luther decided it was God's grace that saved us, and that God's grace is wholly unmerited, because there is nothing we can do to merit it.  Yet we must do something.  We must choose to accept that grace.  Apparently if we don't, we're still damned.  Which means we were damned from the beginning, damned before birth, and only the right choice will save us.  Which means the grace is not unmerited; we only merit it if, like the characters given the decision to choose the chalice in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade," we choose wisely.  Everyone watching that film knows the Nazi will not choose wisely.  He's the bad guy, they never make wise decisions.  He doesn't deserve grace because he's made too many bad choices.  He deserves only damnation.  But to switch back to Luther, we've all made bad choices, we all deserve damnation.  How is it this one choice determines our salvation?  And if it does, how is grace then unmerited?  Are we left only with the simplistic version of Pascal's wager:  it's better that I choose God than not, just to be safe?  What kind of choice is that?  What kind of soteriology is that?

So eventually grace comes to us because we make the right choice or we think the right thought or we say the right words (whether we mean them or not, even God doesn't know).  What is the point of this tail-chasing?  Historically it's been to establish precisely what Jesus specifically preached against:  a hierarchy where the believers, or at the worst extreme the "elect," get to claim privileges for themselves above all others.  And that is not only a perversion of the most basic Christian teachings, it's reprehensible.  Dare I say, it is the fundamental heresy?

If I profess a soteriology now, it is a soteriology of life, not an after-life.  My sympathies are with the nuns and monks who work especially with the poor, the ones who, as Windhorse noted:

... are concerned with trying to find food and clothing and medicine for the least among us, not lecturing them on sin or hypostatic union. Mother Teresa did not try and "save" Hindus or Muslims or Sikhs, just help them. As a result, she has become a powerful and inspiring example of Christian values while, conversely, the likes of salvationists like Jimmy Swaggart and Ted Haggard and Pat Robertson have done immeasurable [harm] to the Christian message.
I have never been so comfortable with Christianity as I have in those moments when I realized I was trying to help someone in the name of Christ, rather than to "save" them from a fate I don't think anyone is born to deserve.

Thursday, January 30, 2025

Don’t Fuck With A Protestant Theologian

What Rory Stewart said:Really, altar boy? You wanna argue scripture with a Protestant?
49“I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50But I have a baptism to undergo, and what constraint I am under until it is completed! 51Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”
Luke 12:49-53

That’s just to fuck with your head a little. Now, let’s get down:
Instead, suddenly a woman whose daughter had an unclean spirit heard about him, and came and fell down at his feet. The woman was a Greek, by race a Phoenician from Syria. And the started asking him to drive the demon out of her daughter. He responded to her like this: "Let the children be fed first, since it isn't good take bread out of children's mouths and throw it to the dogs!" 
But as a rejoinder she says to him, "Sir, even the dogs under the table get to eat scraps (dropped by) children!" 
Then he said to her, "For that retort, be on your way, the demon has come out of your daughter." 
She returned home and found the child lying on the bed and the demon gone. 
Mark 7:25-30 (SV)

Here we go: 

Genesis 18:1-15 
And the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; 
2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, 
3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant: 
4 Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree: 
5 And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said. 
6 And Abraham hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes upon the hearth. 
7 And Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetcht a calf tender and good, and gave it unto a young man; and he hasted to dress it. 
8 And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat. 
9 And they said unto him, Where is Sarah thy wife? And he said, Behold, in the tent. 
10 And he said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son. And Sarah heard it in the tent door, which was behind him. 
11 Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women. 
12 Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also? 
13 And the Lord said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old? 
14 Is any thing too hard for the Lord? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son. 
15 Then Sarah denied, saying, I laughed not; for she was afraid. And he said, Nay; but thou didst laugh.

 1 Kings 17:7-16 (REB)

After a while the stream dried up, for there had been no rain in the land. Then the word of the Lord came to him: “Go now to Zarephath, a village of Sidon, and stay there; I have commanded a widow there to feed you.’ He went off to Zarephath, and when he reached the entrance to the village, he saw a widow gathering sticks. He called to her, ‘Please bring me a little water in a pitcher to drink.’ As she went to fetch it, he called after her, ‘Bring me, please, a piece of bread as well.’ But she answered, “As the Lord your God lives, I have no food baked, only a handful of flour in a jar and a little oil in a flask. I am just gathering two or three sticks to go and cook it for my son and myself before we die.’ ‘Have no fear,’ Elijah said, ‘go and do as you have said. But first make me a small cake from what you have and bring it out to me, and after that make something for your son and yourself. For this is the word of the Lord the God of Israel: The jar of flour will not give out, nor the flask of oil fail, until the Lord sends rain on the land.’ She went and did as Elijah had said, and there was food for him and for her family for a long time. The jar of flour did not give out, nor did the flask of oil, as the word of the Lord foretold through Elijah.   

 Hebrews 13:1-3 (KJV)

Let brotherly love continue. 2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares. 3 Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them; and them which suffer adversity, as being yourselves also in the body.

Luke 4:21-30

21 Then he began to say to them, “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” 22 All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his mouth. They said, “Is this not Joseph’s son?” 23 He said to them, “Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, ‘Doctor, cure yourself!’ And you will say, ‘Do here also in your hometown the things that we have heard you did at Capernaum.’ ” 24 And he said, “Truly I tell you, no prophet is accepted in his hometown. 25 But the truth is, there were many widows in Israel in the time of Elijah, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months and there was a severe famine over all the land, 26 yet Elijah was sent to none of them except to a widow at Zarephath in Sidon. 27 There were also many with a skin disease in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian.” 28 When they heard this, all in the synagogue were filled with rage. 29 They got up, drove him out of the town, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they might hurl him off the cliff. 30 But he passed through the midst of them and went on his way.

 And my well known and perennial favorite:

Matthew 25:31-46 (SV)
"When the Son of Adam comes in his glory, accompanied by all his messengers, then he will occupy his glorious throne. Then all peoples will be assembled before him, and he will separate them into groups, much as a shepherd segregates sheep from goats. He'll place the sheep to his right and the goats to his left. Then the king will say to those at his right, 'Come, you who have the blessing of my Father, inherit the domain prepared for you from the foundations of the world.  You may remember, I was hungry and you gave me something to eat; I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink; I was a foreigner and you showed me hospitality; I was naked and you clothed me;  I was ill and you visited me;  I was in prison and you came to see me.' Then the virtuous will say to him, 'Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and fed you or thirsty and gave you drink? When did we notice that you were a foreigner and extend hospitality to you? Or naked and clothe you? When did we find you ill or in prison and come to visit you? 
And the king will respond to them, 'I swear to you, whatever you did for the most inconspicuous members of my family, you did for me as well.' 
Next, he will say to those on his left, 'You, condemned to the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his messengers, get away from me! You too may remember, I was hungry and you didn't give me amything to eat; I was thirsty and you refused me a drink; I was a foreigner and you failed to extend hospitality to me; naked and you didn't clothe me; ill and in prison and you didn't visit me.' 
Then they will give him a similar reply: 'Lord, when did we notice that you were hungry or thirsty or a foreigner or naked or weak or in prison, and did not attempt to help you?' 
He will then respond: 'I swear to you, whever you didn't do for the most inconcpicuous members of my family, you didn't do for me.' 
The second group will then head for everlasting punishment, but the virtuous for everlasting life.
Stories of hospitality and charity, and to whom same should be extended (answer: everyone and anyone), ending with the final judgment based on those virtues. Stories of what you owe strangers.

So, tell me altar boy who slandered people in your own state because they were NOK and you wanted to be VPOTUS… Tell me: how does your precious ordo amoris rank these stories? Or even explain the parable of the sheep and the goats? Don’t presume to be a theologian because you remember a phrase from Aquinas; presume to speak for Jesus, or think you can tell us the order in which to love.

Because I was pretty sure already, you really don’t know shit.


simplest most direct instance was when Jesus said the most important thing was love God and love your neighbor, and the quibbler asked "Who's my neighbor?" and Jesus told a story about a Samaritan, a heretic who denied the Davidic Kingdom, the Temple, the prophets and the writings. In the context I read it as a direct rebuke to even the question.
Thank you. I actually meant to include that, but got so caught up cutting and pasting and formatting, I forgot it. It is the best example of my point.

And I have no quarrel with Aquinas; I’m just pretty sure he didn’t mean what Vance did.
Also, too, as well:

Friday, October 05, 2007

My Vacation at the Reichenbach Falls

Which makes more sense if you know that one of Dom Crossan's early books on parables was Cliffs of Fall. But even then, it's not much of a pun.

SPIRITUALITY IS PRACTICALITY

Spirituality is practicality. That is where I want to begin. And I want you to understand that as a concrete statement, not as an abstract one, as a nice ideal of what spirituality should be but can only be for saints and monastics and maybe a few rare priests. Spirituality is practicality. In fact, it is the most practical thing of all. And spirituality is never more practical than when it is practiced as hospitality. That is actually my thesis, that hospitality is spirituality in practice. But before we can understand that, we have to get down the simple terms of hospitality:

Hospitality requires a stranger, a host, and a place. The stranger must be a stranger: not a guest, a relative, a friend, an acquaintance. And the host must be in charge of the place, must have authority to give access to the place to the stranger. The host must have responsibility for the place, and must give use that responsibility to give access to it to the stranger. The host and the stranger must be unknown to each other, because hospitality requires, above all, vulnerability.

Doesn’t sound very practical, does it? And yet this is the core of Christian spirituality. And a spirituality that is not practiced is not a spirituality; it is simply a nice idea, a pleasant notion, a comforting concept. “The Spirit blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it,” Jesus says in the Gospel of John; but he doesn’t say the spirit rests someplace. It may rest upon you for a moment, it may inspire you to speak by tongues of flame, as on the day of Pentecost, but it never rests with you, it never stays in you and finds a home and comfort there. The Holy Spirit is always active, always moving, always effecting us when it comes by. The Holy Spirit is activity, is practice, is known by its movement; it is not a comforting idea that gives us peace and tranquility. “The peace of God, it is no peace, but strife sown in the sod,” the old hymn goes. That could be describing hospitality, since hospitality is all about vulnerability, about opening oneself to the stranger, whether the stranger is guest or the stranger is host. And the fact is, the scriptures are rife with stories of hospitality. Take this one, for instance:

There was this rich man whose manager had been accused of squandering his master’s property. He called him in and said, ‘What’s this I hear about you? Let’s have an audit of your management, because your job is being terminated.”
Then the manager said to himself, “What am I going to do? My master is firing me. I’m not strong enough to dig ditches and I’m ashamed to beg. I’ve got it! I know what I’ll do so doors will open for men when I’m removed from management.”
So he called in each of his master’s debtors. He said to the first, “How much do you owe my master?”

He said, “Five hundred gallons of olive oil.”

And he said to him, “Here is your invoice; sit down right now and make it two hundred and fifty.”

Then he said to another, “And how much do you owe?”

He said, “A thousand bushels of wheat.”

He says to him, “Here is your invoice; make it eight hundred.”

The master praised the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly; for the children of this world exhibit better sense in dealing with their own kind than do the children of light.

I tell you, make use of your ill-gotten gain to make friends for yourselves, so that when the bottom falls out they are there to welcome you into eternal dwelling places.—Luke 16:1-9 (SV)
When I say the scriptures are full of stories of hospitality, I don’t mean the scripture stories are only lessons about hospitality. Well, not lessons in the sense of “Go, thou, and do likewise.” This is one of those stories preachers don’t like, because they prefer the “Go, thou, and do likewise” kind of stories; and clearly the lesson of that story is not to be an unjust steward, even though the steward seems to make the best of a bad situation. But it’s a story that, in its ending, is about hospitality; and we start with it because it sets a boundary, an edge, a terminus to our discussion, because it is an example of anti-hospitality. It is also, however, a very practical story. The steward’s reaction is such a clever one, such a practical response to what has happened to him, that even his master is impressed with his cheating. Selflessness, that primary Christian virtue, is too easily misunderstood by the children of this world; it is too often taken as foolishness and weakness. Selfishness is what the world teaches; that is a very practical virtue. Well, practical as the world understands that word.

This parable is also, though, an example of anti-hospitality. We have to consider that sometimes, Jesus tells us what not to do, perhaps because we are so determined to do it, to do what we want and call it “practical,” or call it “God’s will.” So here is the story of anti-hospitality: take care of yourself, make friends for yourself in this world, and you will buy your way into the eternal homes. But that is not hospitality; that is hostelry. You might secure yourself a room by making a payment like the steward makes, but when your credit runs out…well, hospitality you buy only lasts as long as your credit does. And while surely the homes Jesus speaks of are not truly “eternal” ones, the unjust steward’s credit is likely to run out even sooner. If you are going to rely on hospitality you have to rely on the kindness, not the self-interest, of strangers.

“Come for water, all who are thirsty;
Though you have no money, come, buy grain and eat;
Come, buy wine and milk,
Not for money, not for a price.
Why spend your money for what is not food,
Your earnings on what fails to satisfy?
Listen to me and you will fare well,
You will enjoy the fat of the land.
Come to me and listen to my words,
Hear me and you will have life:
I shall make an everlasting covenant with you
To love you faithfully as I have loved David.
I appointed him a witness to peoples,
And you in turn will summon nations you do not know,
And nations that do not know you will hasten to you,
Because the Lord your God, Israel’s Holy One, has made you glorious.—Isaiah 55:1-5 (REB)
Now those are words of hospitality. Those are words of God’s extravagant stewardship, of God’s open-handed generosity. This is the ultimate statement of what Walter Brueggeman calls the “covenantal economy” proclaimed by the law of Moses and the Hebrew Prophets and Jesus Christ himself. This is economy not for the greater good, or the enlightened self-interests of the individual, but for the neighborhood: for those you know and can know. Never forget that the “nation” of Israel meant tribes of related people. It’s a mistake to read “nation” in the Hebrew scriptures as a term congruent with the 19th century European political philosophy of nationalism. When the prophets say “the nations,” they mean the people, the groupings; the thousands and thousands of “neighborhoods” of the world. All strangers, and all welcome to Israel, all welcome in the generous hospitality of the Creator. It is that hospitality which will make Israel glorious.

Still doesn’t sound very practical, does it?

But God’s generosity is the most practical thing in the world. It is the practicality of food that cannot be bought still being offered for sale. It is the practicality of wine and milk and grain that you can buy and eat, even though you have no money, even though your money is no good. Do you appreciate the paradox? It is what you need offered to you in the way you understand, but it is not the way you understand at all. It is absolutely impractical and at the same time the essence of practicality. What is more practical than food and drink and summoning strangers you do not know, strangers who do not know you but who will come to you? What is more practical than the glory of God realized as hospitality for the whole world?

Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for his help, whose hope is in the Lord his God:
Which made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that therein is: w hich keepeth truth forever:
Which executeth judgment for the oppressed: which giveth food to the hungery. The Lord looseth the prisoners:
The Lord openeth the eyes of the blind: the Lord raiseth them that are bowed down: the Lord loveth the righteous:
The Lord preserveth the strangers; he relieveth the fatherless and widow; but the way of the wicked he turneth upside down.
The Lord shall reign forever, even thy God, O Zion, unto all generations. Praise ye the Lord.
The Psalmist understands why we should praise God. The Psalmist understands that, in the end, we are all strangers to God and each other; we are all guests of this omnipotent host. The Psalmist understands where all good things come from and how God reverses the ways of the children of darkness. God raises those who are bowed down: so God reverses the world’s order. God loves the righteous; and in all the world, what does the world hate most except those who do right? But the penultimate stanza is my favorite of those: “The Lord preserveth the strangers; he relieveth the fatherless and widow; but the way of the wicked he turneth upside down.” God is the one who preserves the strangers; and God turns the ways of the wicked upside down.

If that isn’t hospitality, I don’t know what is.

Because the way of the wicked is to demand payment for everything that is given; to demand a system of exchange, an economy, a tit for tat, value given for value received. But who among us can repay even our parents for the gift of life? Who among us can begin to imagine repaying our Creator for the gift of our existence? The Psalmist got that part right, too:

When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;
What is man, that thou are mindful of him? And the son of man, that thou visitest him?
We are strangers before this Creator, and yet we are not treated as strangers at all. What wondrous love is this? We have done nothing, we have paid nothing, we have offered nothing, and yet we have all of this? Truly the way of the wicked God turns upside down, because this economy, this exchange, this cycle of give and get and give again, is undone by the extravagant generosity of God, by the unbelievable offer of food without price and wine and milk purchased without money. No wonder we stand perplexed when Jesus tells us: “make use of your ill-gotten gain to make friends for yourselves, so that when the bottom falls out they are there to welcome you into eternal dwelling places.” God turns the ways of the children of darkness upside down, because God’s way is not purchase and contract, but hospitality! Come, and listen, and nations will come to take what you offer!

It is wholly impractical; and it is completely practical. Listen:

After a while the stream dried up, for there had been no rain in the land. Then the word of the Lord came to him: “Go now to Zarephath, a village of Sidon, and stay there; I have commanded a widow there to feed you.’ He went off to Zarephath, and when he reached the entrance to the village, he saw a widow gathering sticks. He called to her, ‘Please bring me a little water in a pitcher to drink.’ As she went to fetch it, he called after her, ‘Bring me, please, a piece of bread as well.’ But she answered, “As the Lord your God lives, I have no food baked, only a handful of flour in a jar and a little oil in a flask. I am just gathering two or three sticks to go and cook it for my son and myself before we die.’ ‘Have no fear,’ Elijah said, ‘go and do as you have said. But first make me a small cake from what you have and bring it out to me, and after that make something for your son and yourself. For this is the word of the Lord the God of Israel: The jar of flour will not give out, nor the flask of oil fail, until the Lord sends rain on the land.’ She went and did as Elijah had said, and there was food for him and for her family for a long time. The jar of flour did not give out, nor did the flask of oil, as the word of the Lord foretold through Elijah. 1 Kings 17:7-16 (REB)
That is a story of hospitality which is wholly impractical, and yet wholly practical. “Go and do as you have said,” Elijah tells the widow. “But first make me a small cake…and bring it out to me, and after that make something for your son and yourself.” Hospitality is all about giving the stranger priority; it is about giving the stranger access to what is under your control. It is that hospitality, over and over again, which brings life ; because such hospitality is an act of faith. It is the extravagance of the gifts we have already been given which sometimes surprise us. To paraphrase Annie Dillard, God is profligate, but wastes nothing. God gives life to everyone. God causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust alike. We are all guests in God’s creation, we are all given stewardship over the creation, and responsibility for one another. Elijah doesn’t say: feed me first, you’ll get yours later. The widow doesn’t respond: I must think first of my child! They are both strangers; they are both guests. They are both responsible for one another. Had either failed to be impractical, the practical would have overwhelmed them. Having been impractical, having trusted to God’s extravagance, the practical saves them. What are we to say about such things, except to sweep every corner of the house until we find the lost coin, and then wake all the neighbors and tell them to join us in a celebration!

Or again, is there any woman with ten silver coins, who if she loses one, wouldn’t light a lamp and sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it? When she finds it, she invites her friends and neighbors over and says ‘Celebrate with me, because I have found the silver coin I had lost.’ Luke 15:8-9 (SV)
Is this hospitality? Of course it is! Is it practical? Of course it is! God is profligate, but wastes nothing! Hospitality shares everything, and expects everyone to share. It may be this woman is as profligate as the widow, and uses the coin she had lost to pay for a celebration for finding it. Is that too extreme an interpretation? Then consider the parable that Luke pairs with it:

Is there any one of you who owns a hundred sheep and one of them gets lost, who wouldn’t leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one that got lost until he finds it? And when he finds it, he lifts it upon his shoulders, happy. Once he gets home, he invites his friends and neighbors over, and says to them, ‘Celebrate with me, because I have found my lost sheep.’ Luke 15:4-6 (SV)
Luke is a bit vague, there. Does he mean the shepherd left the other 99 in the wilderness until he came back with the one sheep? Or does he mean he left them there and went home with the one sheep for the celebration? Either way, it is profligacy of a kind we can only label impractical. Where there are many and one, we always know the answer is to consider first the needs of the many; we always know the one must be sacrificed to keep the many whole. How much oil did that woman use, searching for that lost coin? What time did she call up her neighbors to celebrate something they knew nothing about? How many sheep did the shepherd endanger in searching for the one that was lost? Anyone first hearing Jesus’ words, hearing them without the centuries of interpretation we have layered down upon them, would hear that opening phrase: “Is there any one of you…?,” then hear the story, and think: if there is any one of us who would do that, he would be mad! But God turns the ways of the world upside down!
Listen. Listen to one more story, and you will see. It’s the one Luke gives us just after those two. But I’ve read you enough Scriptures tonight, and you know this story so well already. I’ll give you the shorter, non-canonical version:

A younger son requested and received his inheritance, went abroad, and wasted it all. Destitute in the midst of famine, he envied the swill of the swine he tended.

The younger son
I will return home where servants eat their fill
I will say to my father
I have sinned against you and God
I am not worthy to be your son
I will be your hired servant

The father saw him even before he reached the house, ran out, embraced, and kissed him.

The younger son
“I have sinned against you and God
I am not worthy to be your son”

The father

“Bring robes, and shoes, and a ring
Prepare a great feast
My lost son is found, my dead son is back.”

The elder son returned at evening form working in the fields, heard the sounds of music, and asked a servant what was happening.

The servant

“Your brother is back and your father feasts him”

He was angry, refused to enter the banquet hall, and complained when his father came out to speak with him

The elder son

“I, who have always obeyed you, have never received a feast
He, who has disgraced you, receives one now”

The father

“You are with me always and mine is yours forever
But now is the time for feasting
Your lost brother is found, your dead brother is back” (John Dominic Crossan, The Essential Jesus)

Is this a story of hospitality? Absolutely! The ending makes that clear. But the beginning of the story brings us back to the unjust steward, when he was not so shrewd. The younger son thinks he knows how to buy his way into the eternal homes, and he will do it by walking over his father’s corpse. You cannot, after all, demand your inheritance of a living person; you can only obtain an inheritance of the dead, after they are through using all the property they might ever have owned. So the demand of the younger son is the most distressing one possible: he tells his father: “You are dead to me. Now give me my money, so I can go away.” It is an act of the most brutal anti-hospitality, more breathtaking in its cruelty and vice than even the actions of the unjust steward. Youth is sometimes harsher than age, simply because it cannot imagine the consequences of its selfishness. But the father is truly and fully hospitable, and gives the boy what he asks. He gives him full control of the property, and lets him take that property with him. Well, we know what he does with it; but how the father responds is even more unexpected.
Not because he welcomes his son back, but because he does it with the elder son’s property. The father may still be the patriarch, but he is no longer the owner of what was once his. He has divided it among his sons. He has made himself dead, in complete vulnerability and acquiescence to the demands of his child, who acts as if he is a stranger to his own father and his own brother. The elder son honors his father and gives him a home, but the elder son is in possession of all that is there. So when the father gives away to the prodigal what actually belongs to the steadfast son, the father is not acting as God in the story: he is acting as God would desire. All that we have, comes from God. We are all like guests in God’s creation. When we share that creation in hospitality even with those who are our enemies (what is an enemy, after all, except someone who wishes you dead?), we are acting as God wants us to act. We are acting as God has already acted. The elder son is confused by this. Who wouldn’t be? The extravagance of God’s hospitality is seemingly impractical, yet it is the most practical thing of all. The practicality the world teaches only seems practical to us if we think the world is all there is. The unjust steward is being practical to buy his friends so they will take care of him; but his purchase is only as good as the value he gives, and when the value runs out, so do his friendships. The prodigal son is being practical to beg forgiveness of his father, but his father is extravagant, is wild, is mad, and welcomes him back with love. And what is love, except hospitality? And what is love, except impractical?

And yet it is the most practical thing of all. Because it, too, comes from God. And where would we be without it?

Spirituality is practicality. Practicality is hospitality. Hospitality is what is offered to the stranger. Who could ever doubt it? Who could ever doubt it is the workings of God’s love in this good, good world?

Amen.

Wednesday, October 17, 2018

The Paradox of Ethics


Real life so seldom makes the point a great thinker was making in the abstract:

“He said that he was a good Catholic male and that he couldn’t in good conscience give me this medication because it’s used for abortions, and he could not prescribe that,” she explained to the Detroit Free Press. “When I divulged to him that the fetus was no longer viable, and that … I needed to progress the situation further, he said, ‘Well, that’s your word and I don’t believe you,’ and he refused to fill it.”

This is a fine example of the "ethical paradox of group loyalty."  The pharmacist is maintaining his identity in his group by denying the person outside of his group access to drugs he alone has the power to dispense.  To quote my previous approach to this topic:

At the individual level [Emerson and Smith note], selfishness is usually considered negative, but at the group level, it is considered moral and just. Indeed, at the group level, it is not called selfishness, but morality, service, sacrifice, or loyalty. Although we are selfish if we always look out for our own individual needs first it is considered wrong and immoral if we do not consider the needs of our family first, ahead of other families. We house our families first, and only if we can spare extra do we help house other families. To do otherwise is considered immoral or, at a minimum, a sad case of misplaced priorities.

The story of Elijah and the widow notwithstanding.

The pharmacist doesn't see himself as selfish, but rather as protecting the needs of his group.  And the story of Elijah and the widow is instructive here.  Asked to make some food for the prophet by the prophet, the widow protests that she only has enough meal and oil for one more meal for she and her son.  But serving the prophet first, she feeds him, herself, and her son for the duration of the drought which has made food so scarce.  Had she not done so, the story clearly implies, she and her son would have starved.  The pharmacist, unlike the widow, thinks of his own interests (his identity in his idea of what is right) first.  Which, frankly, is not even marginally Christian, in the final analysis (the first of all will be last and servant of all; hard to do that when you insist it's your way or the highway).  Ironically, what the pharmacist imagines is an ethical relation between himself and the customer he denies medication to, is actually political:

For this reason, relations between groups are always mainly political rather than ethical or moral. As Niebuhr says, "They will always be determined by the proportion of power which each group possesses at least as much as by any rational and moral appraisal of the comparative needs and claims of each group."

The pharmacist has power over the woman, and he wields it to his satisfaction and, he thinks, to his ethical credit.  The paradox is, in behaving ethically as he understands it, he actually behaves selfishly, which is to say:  unethically.

This is the paradox of Reinhold Niebuhr's Moral Man and Immoral Society in a nutshell.  And the problem with allowing pharmacists to decide who to dispense drugs to, and for what reasons.

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Dragging myself back in....



I really thought this was over, until Jon Stewart convinced me otherwise. So, maybe not:

In fact, birth control use is nearly universal in the United States, even among Catholic women. One recent study shows that 98 percent of sexually experienced Catholic women will have used birth control at some point in their lives. Nearly 60 percent of women use birth control pills for something other than, or in addition to, contraception. For example for women at risk for ovarian cancer, taking birth control pills for five years reduces their risk of getting cancer by 50%. Should women have to explain to employers they need coverage for serious illnesses, not birth control, in order to obtain the medicine their doctor prescribe.
I take an aspirin a day, because of my family history of heart disease. Fortunately aspirin is not a prescription drug, so I don't have a problem with my health insurance on it. I do take two drugs that are prescription, for minor chronic conditions. I don't know why any employer would care why I take them, or that I take them.

I said below that this was an issue of power, not of ethics. Even to call it an issue of morality, is to call it an issue of power. All moral concerns always come down to the either/or that Kierkegaard associated with the ethical sphere of existence. That is, in the ethical sphere, choices must be made: you can no longer choose only for yourself and choose from among a range of opportunities (the aesthetic sphere, a life devoted to personal satisfactions); you must choose what is right: you must make the either/or. And that is a question of power: if you accept my ethical system, you must follow it as I see fit, especially if I have authority over you (priest; bishop, employer). If you do not accept it, perhaps I don't hire you.

Maybe Southern Baptist employers should complain that they can't fire employees in a community with liquor stores. Consuming liquor is, after all, a sin; and paying people is enabling them to sin, so....

So the either/or means you must make a choice, and you must choose wisely, as your choice reflects on me. It also means you must do with your choices what I wish you to do. Otherwise you have violated the either/or, and you remain in the aesthetic sphere; but there's no going back, once you accept the ethical sphere, you must accept it to the end. So who gets to decide what you can do, and what you cannot do, and on what basis is the decision made?

Is it acceptable for birth control pills to be covered by insurance, if I the employer don't have to pay for that? Why? Is it any different than if my employee uses my money that she earned, to buy the pills? Ah, but then it is no longer my money? Why? If I can refuse to pay for insurance for my employee, can't I refuse to pay my employee if she spends the money on things I disapprove of? Why not? When does my culpability end? And is insurance any less earned than wages? What employer pays an employee who never works? What employer provides insurance to an employee who never works? If the insurance policy belongs to the employer, why doesn't the money?

But we don't control our employees like that, you say. No, but the argument here is that we should. Or at least, that the state should allow us to if we wished it.

But when Notre Dame is the single largest employer in South Bend, Indiana, with Saint Joseph Regional Medical Center not far behind, how could we say, “Sorry, you should move if you want to have affordable access to these health services.” It is discordant with my Catholic and my American values that a receptionist at the local hospital making around $26,000 a year should have to shell out nearly $600 for birth control or cede control to her employer over when to start a family, when she is already paying in to her health care plan. The new agreement would take this difficult question off the table by allowing the women and men working at these religious affiliated organizations to receive the equal and affordable access through their insurers directly without engaging their employers.
If the people of South Bend, Indiana don't like it, they don't have to work for Notre Dame or St. Joseph Medical. That's fair, right? Just like it's fair if they don't want to work for the Southern Baptist who fires people found to be shopping in a liquor store. According to Mark Rienzi (the lawyer for two plaintiffs suing to have this rule overturned), the people of South Bend, Indiana should just suck on it:

Lastly, the suggestion that these schools or institutions are imposing their views or coercing people just makes no sense. There's no law that requires you to go work for a religious institution. There's no law that requires you to go to a Catholic school. If you go to a school run by monks and the monks sign your paycheck or the monks provide your education, you're probably not all that surprised that the monks have certain religious principles they want to run their school by.
In other words, screw the Civil Rights Act, you want a job with an employer, you live by that employer's dictates.

Right? And how far is that argument from saying you don't have to sleep in that motel, or dine in that restaurant? Is this really any different from the argument Anthony Picarello, general counsel for the US Conference of Bishops?

That means removing the provision from the health care law altogether, he said, not simply changing it for Catholic employers and their insurers. He cited the problem that would create for "good Catholic business people who can't in good conscience cooperate with this."

"If I quit this job and opened a Taco Bell, I'd be covered by the mandate," Picarello said.
I can't see any daylight between them. If I declare racism a matter of conscience, do I win?

And I don't, let us note, want to control the employees because they are part of my group, because they have agreed to the terms of membership of my order. I want to control them because the issue involves my money, and my money carries my agency with it. If I render it to Caesar, is it still mine? Do I give myself to Caesar in my coins? Then what do I give to God? Does my money given to God also display my power? What lesson, then, is there in the widow's mite?

The ethical consideration is for the individual. The Desert Fathers understood that. They went to the desert to avoid the entanglements of who was good and who was better, because they realized it was a false hierarchy. Jesus taught his disciples that the first among them would be last, and the last first, and the least among them were the greatest. It is an order that absolutely denies power, that absolutely rests on the devolution of power and the rejection of judgment. It is a situation where you are united only in your servanthood, not in your ability to wield authority against the rulers:

MS. NOONAN: That's what the church thinks. Can I just note, by the way...

MR. GREGORY: Yeah.

MS. NOONAN: ...as Catholics it was so great for three weeks that we all got along. We were all in agreement.

MR. DIONNE: Yeah.

MS. NOONAN: I mean, this is a church that...

MR. GREGORY: Yeah, exactly.

MR. DIONNE: President Obama united Catholics.

MS. NOONAN: Yeah.
If the world is too much with you in the hospital or the university, perhaps its time for those places to close. A hospital run by a group which objects to blood transfusions wouldn't be much of a hospital. An employer who insisted no one who worked for them should be able to use employer-provided insurance to get blood transfusions would not win much support inside the Beltway. The objection might be that such a belief is too errant and outside the mainstream to be supported by the government at large, even tacitly. The real argument would be: who cares that the Seventh Day Adventists think? What power do they have?

Agency is always a question of power. What is the power of my money in the world? What are the power of my beliefs? What is the strength of my faith? And how much control do those things give me, over you? I have power over the beggar on the street. I can relieve his suffering, or prolong it, or increase his invisibility. But if I give him money, will he buy liquor with it? Is that my concern? What if my money buys a hamburger, and the next handout buys the liquor? Am I still culpable? When do I let go of what is mine, and let it become yours?

After a while the stream dried up, for there had been no rain in the land. Then the word of the Lord came to him: “Go now to Zarephath, a village of Sidon, and stay there; I have commanded a widow there to feed you.’ He went off to Zarephath, and when he reached the entrance to the village, he saw a widow gathering sticks. He called to her, ‘Please bring me a little water in a pitcher to drink.’ As she went to fetch it, he called after her, ‘Bring me, please, a piece of bread as well.’ But she answered, “As the Lord your God lives, I have no food baked, only a handful of flour in a jar and a little oil in a flask. I am just gathering two or three sticks to go and cook it for my son and myself before we die.’ ‘Have no fear,’ Elijah said, ‘go and do as you have said. But first make me a small cake from what you have and bring it out to me, and after that make something for your son and yourself. For this is the word of the Lord the God of Israel: The jar of flour will not give out, nor the flask of oil fail, until the Lord sends rain on the land.’ She went and did as Elijah had said, and there was food for him and for her family for a long time. The jar of flour did not give out, nor did the flask of oil, as the word of the Lord foretold through Elijah. 1 Kings 17:7-16 (REB)
What little the widow had, was hers. When she shared it with Elijah, when she let go of it and let it become his as well, three people survived a terrible drought. But that's just a story, it's not a guideline for how to live:

“Come for water, all who are thirsty;
Though you have no money, come, buy grain and eat;
Come, buy wine and milk,
Not for money, not for a price.
Why spend your money for what is not food,
Your earnings on what fails to satisfy?
Listen to me and you will fare well,
You will enjoy the fat of the land.
Come to me and listen to my words,
Hear me and you will have life:
I shall make an everlasting covenant with you
To love you faithfully as I have loved David.
I appointed him a witness to peoples,
And you in turn will summon nations you do not know,
And nations that do not know you will hasten to you,
Because the Lord your God, Israel’s Holy One, has made you glorious.—Isaiah 55:1-5 (REB)
And that, of course, is simply crazy. How can you maintain order if you give everything important away?

Funny thing about Kierkegaard and that "either/or." Kierkegaard scholars once thought he meant to subdivide human existence into three discernible and distinctive spheres: the aesthetic, the ethical, and the religious. He meant no such thing, however. That is the work of the pseudonyms, the works meant to undermine Hegelianism by mocking it. The "either/or" is not a condition of existence, it is an imposition on the individual by society; it is a method of control. It is a bind we put ourselves in, in order to both deny and to avoid our self-fulfillment, to prevent ourselves from fully becoming ourselves. It is, in Othello's phrase, as false as water. For Kierkegaard, self-actualization (as we call it know) was possible only in full devotion to the rigorous life of discipleship to Christ. It could not come from society, it could only come from God, the Creator, the source of life. Either/or is not a step along the way to that Platonic fulfillment, it is a step away from it. Either/or might, in fact, please Plato or Socrates; but for Kierkegaard it was a false trail, if only because the either/or is all about morality, and morality is not about God, but about playing God for others. It is, yes, a radically Protestant point of view. But then, Kierkegaard was almost more Lutheran than Luther. And yet, there is an eternal golden braid that connects Kierkegaard to Luther to one of the great Fathers of Catholicism, St. Augustine.

There is always a way to stitch these things together that brings light instead of heat, or just a spark that leaves behind a little more darkness.

ADDENDUM: although some of the people concerned about this topic seem to be a little unhinged.

Monday, November 18, 2013

"Send them all my salary...."

It's all been said before/It's all been written in a book...

The vision of the Magnificat was not that the wealthy and powerful made society and civilization possible for everyone else.  It was that God made those things possible for all, and in God's justice the wealthy and powerful who had kept that for themselves would lose their privileges:

My soul extols the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has shown consideration for the lowly stature of his slave. As a consequence, from now on every generation will congratulate me; the Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is his name, and his mercy will come to generation after generation of those who fear him. He has shown the strength of his arm, he has put the arrogant to rout, along with their private schemes; he has pulled the mighty down from their thrones, and exalted the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty. He has come to the aid of his servant Israel, remembering his mercy, as he spoke to our ancestors, to Abraham and to his descendants forever. (Luke 1:46-56, SV)

The vision of scripture is not that wealth makes it possible to be generous, but God's blessing

After you come into the land which the Lord your God is giving you to occupy as your holding and settle in it, you are to take some of the firstfruits of all the produce of the soil, which you harvest from the land the Lord your God is giving you, and, having put them in a basket, go to the place which the Lord your God will choose as a dwelling for his name. When you come to the priest, whoever he is at the time, say to him, "I acknowledge this day to the Lord your God that I have entered the land which the Lord swore to our forefathers to give us." The priest will receive the basket from your hand and set it down before the altar of the Lord your God. Then you must solemnly recite before the Lord your God: "My father was a homeless Aramean who went down to Egypt and lived there with a small band of people, but there it became a great, powerful and large nation....Now I have brought here the firstfruits of the soil which you, Lord, have given me."  You are then to set the basket before the Lord your God and bow down in worship before him.  You are to rejoice, you and the Levites and the aliens living among you, in all the good things which the Lord your God has bestowed on you and your household. (Deuteronomy 26:1-5a, 10-11, REB)
A blessing that is known only when you act on faith, which is to say:  trust.
 After a while the stream dried up, for there had been no rain in the land. Then the word of the Lord came to him: “Go now to Zarephath, a village of Sidon, and stay there; I have commanded a widow there to feed you.’ He went off to Zarephath, and when he reached the entrance to the village, he saw a widow gathering sticks. He called to her, ‘Please bring me a little water in a pitcher to drink.’ As she went to fetch it, he called after her, ‘Bring me, please, a piece of bread as well.’ But she answered, “As the Lord your God lives, I have no food baked, only a handful of flour in a jar and a little oil in a flask. I am just gathering two or three sticks to go and cook it for my son and myself before we die.’ ‘Have no fear,’ Elijah said, ‘go and do as you have said. But first make me a small cake from what you have and bring it out to me, and after that make something for your son and yourself. For this is the word of the Lord the God of Israel: The jar of flour will not give out, nor the flask of oil fail, until the Lord sends rain on the land.’ She went and did as Elijah had said, and there was food for him and for her family for a long time. The jar of flour did not give out, nor did the flask of oil, as the word of the Lord foretold through Elijah. 1 Kings 17:7-16 (REB)

How many stories of rich people do you want from the Gospels?  They never come out well there:

There was a rich man whose fields produced a bumper crop.  "What do I do now?" he asked himself, "since I don't have any place to store my crops. I know!  I'll tear down my barns and build larger ones, so I can store all my grain and my goods.  Then I'll say to myself, "You have plenty put away for years to come.  Take it easy, eat, drink, enjoy yourself."  But God said to him, "You fool!  This very night your life will be demanded back from you.  All this stuff you've collected--whose will it be now?"  That's the way it is for those who save up for themselves, but aren't rich where God is concerned.

He said to his disciples, "That's why I tell you:  don't fret about life-what you're going to eat--or bout your body--what you're going to wear.  Remember, there is more to living than food and clothing.  Think about the crows:  they don't plant or harvest, they don't have storerooms or barns.  Yet God feeds them.  You're worth a lot more than the birds!" (Luke 12: 16b-24, SV)
There was this rich man who wore clothing fit for a king and who dined lavishly every day.  This poor man, named Lazarus, languished at his gate, all covered with sores.  He longed to eat what fell from the rich man's table.  Dogs even used to come and lick his sores.  It so happened that the poor man died and was carried by the heavenly messengers to be with Abraham.  The rich man died too, and was buried.

From Hades, where he was being tortured, he looked up and saw Abraham a long way off and Lazarus with him.  He called out, "Father Abraham, have pity on me!  Send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water to cool my tongue, for I am in torment in these flames."

But Abraham said, "My child, remember that you had good fortune in your lifetime, while Lazraus had it bad.  Now he is being comforted here, and you are in torment.  And besides all this, a great chasm has been set between us and you, so that even those who want to cross over from here to you cannot, and no one can cross over from that side to ours."

But he said, "Father, I beg you then, send him to my father's house--after all, I have five brothers--so that he can warn them not to wind up in this place of torture."

But Abraham says, "They have Moses and the prophets; why don't they listen to them?"

"But they won't do that, father Abraham," he said.  "However, if someone appears to them from the dead, they'll have a change of heart."

Abraham said to him, "If they don't listen to Moses and the prophets, they won't be convinced even if someone were to rise from the dead." (Luke 16:19-31, SV)

Even the Beatitudes are not necessarily so beatific:

Damn you rich!
You already have your consolation!

Damn you who are well-fed now!
You will know hunger.

Damn you who laugh now!
You will learn to weep and grieve.

Damn you when everyone speaks well of you!  Recall that their ancestors treated the phony prophets the same way.  (Luke 6:24-26, SV)
And to put the point in stark monetary terms:

The Walton family heirs, whose fortune relies entirely on predation — of labor, of the environment, of government, of small business — controls more wealth than the poorest 40 million Americans. Imagine what we could do with that fortune if they left. For all the credit Bill Gates gets, it may be worth wondering, as Peter Singer did, if he has given enough:
Gates may have given away nearly $30 billion, but that still leaves him sitting at the top of the Forbes list of the richest Americans, with $53 billion. His 66,000-square-foot high-tech lakeside estate near Seattle is reportedly worth more than $100 million. Property taxes are about $1 million. Among his possessions is the Leicester Codex, the only handwritten book by Leonardo da Vinci still in private hands, for which he paid $30.8 million in 1994. Has Bill Gates done enough? More pointedly, you might ask: if he really believes that all lives have equal value, what is he doing living in such an expensive house and owning a Leonardo Codex? Are there no more lives that could be saved by living more modestly and adding the money thus saved to the amount he has already given?
If Gates donated all $53 billion to foreign humanitarian aid, it would be double what the U.S. government gives yearly ($23 billion in 2013). Imagine the good we could do with the fortunes of the rich, who have only amassed the wealth because of the infrastructure developed by society. Innovators regularly rely on government and academic funding for projects that corporations don’t think will be profitable (according to Singer, “less than 10 percent of the world’s health research budget is spent on combating conditions that account for 90 percent of the global burden of disease”). The arts are largely supported by public funding, not private donations. And many businesses are less self-sufficient than they imagine, requiring bailouts and competition between states to support them. Many corporations, like Walmart, dump poor employees on to government largess rather than pay them enough to feed themselves. And who builds the roads and takes out the garbage?
 Damn you rich, indeed!

How much to give is one question; but how much to accumulate is another.  I'm bemused by the rich man in the parable, who is going to pull down his barns and build new, larger ones, just for this bumper year.  The extravagance hidden in that story underlines the point:  too much is too much.  As Dylan said, "Too much of nothin'/makes a man feel ill at ease."

[Texas Gov. Rick] Perry’s refusal is catastrophic health policy. For patients, it means that seeking medical care will still require risking bankruptcy, and may lead nowhere. For doctors, the message was not only that our patients’ lives don’t matter, but also that medicine—our old profession, so full of people who genuinely want to help others—will continue to be part of the economic machine that entrenches poverty. When the poor seek our help, they often wind up with crippling debt.
"The economic machinery that entrenches poverty."  That machinery does not come from God, and is not blessed by God.  Sean McElwee puts it in terms of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, with its idea of "going Galt."  But he doesn't worry about industrialists leaving society:

 I would fear for the world if the empathetic, the intelligent, the compassionate, the fearless and the creative left us. We don’t celebrate these virtues unless they somehow lead to monetary gain, but often they don’t....When a reporter saw Mother Teresa helping a disfigured leper, he said to her, “I wouldn’t do that for a million dollars.” Mother Theresa said, “Neither would I.”
We cannot express our greatest good in monetary terms.  We cannot define what we can do in terms of what we can earn.  We cannot measure out life with coins and paper bills.

I wrote a paper on that painting, above, for a Pastoral Care class in seminary.  It must have been in the St. Louis Museum of Art collection, or I'd never have seen it.  Is the value of that painting in what the artist earned for selling it?  Is it in what the museum paid to acquire it?  I paid nothing to see it; the St. Louis Museum is open to the public.    Did everyone get their money's worth out of that painting?  Is that even a reasonable question?

Yet we tacitly ask it of the poor, in places like Texas and Louisiana (many of the patients who came to UTMB came from Louisiana, not just from Texas).  Are they worth the money we have to spend on them?  Rachel Pearson notes that the motto of UTMB went from  “Here for the Health of Texas” to “Working together to work wonders.”  Wonders for those who can afford them.  Do I exaggerate?  "When UTMB refuses to treat them, it falls to us to tell them that they will die of diseases that are, in fact, treatable."

That we are not even aware of this, is the root of our shame.