Thoughts on Libya

I heard Dennis Kucinich call for the impeachment of the President for authorizing US participation in the military operation in Libya, while John McCain -- President Obama's opponent in the 2008 elections is calling for a more robust engagement (I'm assuming that's boots on the ground).  That's quite a wide divergence of opinion.  My friends and colleagues are of various minds on this issue as well.  I would guess that as usual I will fall somewhere in between.

Like many of the World's people I have been watching closely the events unfolding in a region stretching from Tunisia to Iran.  We are seeing popular uprisings, people taking their lives into their own hands, refusing to simply follow the dictates of the powers that be.  I've found it interesting that many here in America are dismissive of these aspirations, suggesting that Arabs and Muslims aren't capable of democracy -- but were we ready for it in 1776?  Some will say that we're already involved in two other wars, why enter a third?   Personally, I wouldn't call this entering a war.  We're participating in an action protecting people seeking to determine their own future.  Yes, that might seem like splitting hairs, but I think the hairs need splitting at this point. 

Whether you agree with the actions taken by Western Governments as authorized by the UN and called for by the Arab League, I would hope that you would sympathize and even empathize with the people of Libya, who have lived under the iron fist of a megalomaniac for decades.  Libya has lots of money, but it has gone to the few and not the many.  We are seeing this unfold in Yemen and Bahrain as well.  The times are changing and we must get ready for what comes next.  It may be messy, but that is the way of revolutionary moments.  It was true for this country, and the concerns that led to revolution in America were not nearly as dire as those experienced in these countries today. 

Do I have a word from the Lord on this?  No, I just have my own gut sense that we are at a tipping point in history and it would be good if we all got on the right side of history!

The Adjustment Bureau, Rick Warren, and Process Theology (Bruce Epperly)

Out this past weekend was the latest Matt Damon movie -- The Adjustment Bureau.  I've yet to see it, but Bruce Epperly, a regular contributor to this blog did see it and offers his thoughts from a theological perspective on the movie's message on the fate of humanity, comparing it to Rick Warren's rather deterministic Purpose Driven Life and the more open vision of Process Theology.  I think you'll find this essay intriguing and thought provoking. 

****************************

The Adjustment Bureau, Rick Warren,

and Process Theology

Bruce G. Epperly

The Adjustment Bureau raises issues of God’s plan, destiny, choice, and chance. Rising political star David Norris is destined, yes destined, to become the President of the United States, until a chance encounter with dancer, Elise Sellas. This apparently chance encounter leads to an intricate struggle between the angelic case workers assigned to keep him on the Chairman’s (aka God) pre-established plan and the love struck Norris, who believes that he can choose his own destiny.

The Chairman’s plan takes a page right out of Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven Life. According to the movie, God chooses the important events of our lives, steering us toward the course God has determined that will be best for us and the planet. We think we are free, when are really actors performing the script God has already written for us. The death of Norris’ parents and his brother is not accidental, but the working out of the Chairman’s plan to give Norris the hunger for political greatness, thus fulfilling his father’s dream.

Rick Warren’s image of human destiny takes a similar path in making the following affirmations about the relationship between God’s plan and human decision-making.

• God plans all the important events (genetics, gender, talents, family of origin) in our lives without our input.
• Every experience, including traumatic events, such as cancer, abuse, the death of a child, or tsunami, is “father filtered,” or planned by God for our growth.  
• In every event God is testing our fidelity to God’s sovereign decision-making. 
• God “smiles” when we follow directions and do as “he” says. 
• God wants us to “color inside the lines.” Coloring “outside the lines” leads to meaninglessness in this life and alienation from God (hell) in the next. Those who seek to thwart God’s plan will be punished.

Warren’s belief in divine destiny led one of my friends to describe his book as the “puppet driven life.” Both Warren and The Adjustment Bureau’s image of God’s plan assert that when it comes to the most important things, freedom and choice are an illusion. Happiness and fulfillment come from following the pre-established plan.

Now the Adjustment Bureau takes two slight diversions from Warren’s spiritual determinism. Within the Chairman’s plan, chance events occur. Norris meets Sellas and the pre-established plan for his life is jeopardized. Second, the movie suggests that God can scrap certain plans in favor of others, and open the doors to choice in rare circumstances. Although neither Norris nor Sellas is aware of it, the Chairman’s plan had once included them falling in love. That plan, however, was scrapped for greater things for each of them. Nevertheless, the energy of the Chairman’s negation unexpectedly draws them together.

For both theologians and lay people alike, divine choice and human freedom have often been pitted against one another. Either everything reflects divine decision-making or we are entirely free. Perhaps, there is another alternative that joins divine vision and decision-making, human freedom, environmental and genetic conditioning, and chance. This is the multi-faceted approach of process theology.

From the perspective of process theology, every event emerges from the intricate and dynamic interplay of God’s vision, environmental influences, genetics, and creaturely choice. In the dynamic interplay of life, accidents happen – cells reproduce in ways that lead to cancer, bridges collapse, and brakes fail. In this same interplay, human choices can lead to cancer, abuse, faulty construction, and genocide. God has not willed these events, but must, like us, live with these events, seeking to make the most out of difficult situations.

Process theology asserts that God is intimately involved in our lives, providing possibilities, inspirations, and intuitions; working through the interdependence of life to promote synchronous encounters; inviting us to use our limited freedom to create a just and beautiful world; and giving us strength and creativity to respond to personal and communal calamities. God is not in absolute control, nor do we create our own realities.

Still, God is constantly innovating, working within the world as it is to bring forth the right balance of order and novelty. Within the limitations of the many factors of life, humans are also constantly innovating, using our limited freedom moment by moment to choose our pathways. While creaturely freedom may be quite limited, given the influence of the past, environment, genetics, politics, economics, and divine influence, human choices made moment by moment can lead to life-changing expressions of creativity and beauty. Sadly, they can also lead to pain and suffering.

Life is a dynamic interplay of call and response in which God calls and we respond, and God calls again, adjusting God’s vision to our choices rather than forcing us to follow a pre-ordained script. Still, from the perspective of process theology, God provides many possibilities and opens the door to many vocations, or personal destinies. There is God’s vision for a particular moment in time but this vision is part of many broader visions, embodied over a lifetime. Moreover, process theology asserts that God’s vision is neither coercive nor competitive. God creates the context for maximal expressions of freedom and creativity, congruent with the well-being of the global and local communities. Freedom is limited, but it is real.

Like a good parent, God hopes we make the right decisions for ourselves and others. But, God also welcomes surprises. Contrary to Rick Warren and the Chairman’s initial plan, innovation leads to greater and more energetic revelations of God’s presence in our lives. After God has given us the most creative visions to integrate with our freedom and the impact of the environment, like a good parent, who has supplied crayons and paper for our recreation, God whispers in our unconscious, “Surprise me. Bring something new into the world. Do something beautiful and unexpected.”

The Adjustment Bureau provides much food for theological reflection. It invites us to ponder the intricacies of freedom and destiny and God’s role in determining who we are and what we do. It suggests that we may not be puppets of fate after all, and that our calling is to take risks for love, beauty, and healing. These risks rewarded with greater opportunities for freedom and creativity in partnership with the source of all freedom, creativity, and possibility.

Bruce Epperly is a theologian, spiritual guide, healing companion, retreat leader and lecturer, and author of nineteen books, including Holy Adventure: 41 Days of Audacious Living; Process Theology: A Guide for the Perplexed (May 2011); and Tending to the Holy: The Practice of the Presence of God in Ministry. He may be reached at bruceepperly@gmail.com.

God of Liberty -- Review

GOD OF LIBERTY: A Religious History of the American Revolution.  By Thomas S. Kidd.  New York:  Basic Books, 2010. 298 pages.

It seems as if the debate over whether the Founders of the American Republic were secular Deists or Evangelical Christians will never end. Both sides marshal “evidence” to support their contentions, but reality might be much more complex than the partisans would have us believe, with early Americans ranging from strict separationists to advocates of state establishment. Thomas Paine, who had been an important publicist for the Revolution, wrote strongly worded denunciations of Christianity, while Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams defended the primacy of traditional Christian piety and practice. In God of Liberty, historian Thomas Kidd helps us sort out the complexities so that we can enter the contemporary debate on firmer ground.

A professor at Baptist-sponsored Baylor University, Kidd is sympathetic to the religious voices present at the time, as the blurbs by leading Evangelical historians Mark Noll, Harry Stout, and George Marsden, affirm. Like these esteemed historians, Kidd believes that religion played an important role in the nation’s founding, but they also are in agreement that there were a variety of voices and concerns present in the founding era, and therefore it is important to get the story right.

Kidd covers a period that stretches from the French and Indian War to the early decades of the 19th century, a period in which the last established faiths were disestablished. Standing at the center of this presentation is Kidd’s contention that Enlightenment Rationalists such as Thomas Jefferson and evangelicals such as John Leland believed that every citizen is entitled to religious liberty. The two parties may have had differing reasons for their espousal of religious liberty, but their shared belief that that a government established religion inappropriately impinged on one’s freedom of conscience proved to be foundational to the American experiment.

It was a common belief that religion played an essential role in defining the moral foundation of society. John Adams and George Washington, neither of whom was especially orthodox, believed that religion played an essential role in preserving moral virtue and respect for authority. We sometimes think of the Enlightenment providing a rather optimistic view of humanity, but the Founders were not sure that their fellow citizens were ready for self-government, so they took steps to keep a balance of power between the Federal branches of government and between states and the Federal government. There was the belief that no one entity should be given too much power. It is in light of this fear of human avarice that we need to hear the debate over disestablishment. Advocates of establishment, such as Samuel Adams (Congregationalist) and Patrick Henry (Episcopalian), believed that disestablishment would lead to societal disintegration, and therefore fought to uphold the status quo. Jefferson and Leland on the other hand believed that religion played a central role in upholding the moral foundations of society, but they believed that religious establishments were by nature coercive and ultimately corrupted both religion and government.

The First Amendment, therefore, emerged as a means by which the twin concerns for promoting virtue and liberty could be sustained. Kidd suggests that this Amendment was a “triumph for both the dissenting evangelicals and the Enlightenment Rationalists.” He goes on to say that these “two socially and theologically disparate groups each did its part to prevent America’s national government from practicing religious persecution or giving preference to one religious group at the expense of others” (p. 225). Interestingly, the chief opponents of the Constitution and the First Amendment were people who feared that the new system might “prove hostile to the interests of Christianity” (p. 226).

The history of the nation’s founding demonstrates that even if religion wasn’t the driving force of the revolutionary era, religion still played an extremely important role in the developments of the era. Some of the decisions were pragmatic in nature, so that disestablishment may have occurred at the federal level, but it took considerable time before the states were completely disestablished. In addition to acknowledging the pragmatism of many of the Founders, we must also acknowledge the presence of anti-Catholicism in this era. Another factor that we often miss in our debates is that disestablishment occurred in the South before it occurred in New England. This was due in part to the tenuous hold of Anglicanism on this region. Congregationalism faced fewer rivals in New England and so the process took longer, but even there the movement toward disestablishment couldn’t be halted.

Although defenders of establishment feared that disestablishment would prove hostile to Christianity, in the end they discovered that it encouraged religious practice and even reinforced public virtue. There seemed to be a common belief that a divine hand was involved in the nation’s founding, even if not everyone agreed as to the full identity of the God who ruled providentially over the land. Unfortunately, providentialism had a dark side, because “if God is on your side, then how can you be wrong?” (p. 251).

Although providentialism -- including it's dark-side -- marked American self-understanding, there was, according to Kidd, another key driver in the American self-understanding.  He believes this idea was even more powerful in the development of American ideals than providentialism, but it too was rooted in the nexus of faith and freedom.  This idea is "equality by creation."  This belief first undermined the ideas of aristocracy and hierarchy, opening up new vistas for everyone, but it also proved to be damaging to institutions such as slavery. 

With a century of political philosophy crystallized in the Declaration of Independence's soaring claim of human equality, revolutionary Americans came to the conviction that because God created everyone, all persons were fundamentally equal before him.  This belief immediately threw the legitimacy of slavery into a state of profound moral doubt. (p. 252).

Change didn't happen overnight, and it would take a war to rid the nation of slavery, the seeds of its destruction were planted in this belief that equality is rooted in creation.  Of course, this discovery led some, including Jefferson to ponder whether or not Africans were of the same created order.  Still in the end the seed was planted.

Although many political progressives would like to hang on to the idea that the Founders were, with a few exceptions, secularists and at most Deists, this book can help those of us who believe in the importance of recognizing the value of religious pluralism engage in a more nuanced and effective conversation about the role of religion in the public square. Perhaps the most helpful aspect of the discussion is Kidd’s reminder that the religious freedoms we have today come to us because of an unlikely partnership between Enlightenment rationalists like Jefferson and dissenting evangelicals such as John Leland. Understanding this partnership may help change the tone of the debate, and it’s for this very reason that this is an important book for Progressives to read.

A slightly expanded version of review posted at The Progressive Christian

 



Secular Revolutions, Religious Landscapes

I've found it rather ironic that the same people who complain about the "naked public square" in the US, are among the ones calling for the revolutions in the Middle East to be "secular."  As Shatha Almutawa writes in the Thursday edition of Sightings, while religion hasn't been driving the revolutions, religion -- especially Islam -- has been infused into the revolutions.  Many of the protests have taken place after Friday prayers.  Imams and religious teachers have sought to empower the people to claim their freedoms and rights -- even countering claims by the oligarchs that freedom leads to chaos by pointing out that stability and freedom go together fairly well in the West.   President Bush wasn't wrong about the possibilities of democracy in the Middle East.  He was wrong in his belief that we could impose it from outside through military means.  It has to be homegrown, and the seeds of homegrown democracy are being sown.  Almutawa has written an insightful piece that deserves careful attention and conversation!  

***********************

Sightings 2/24/2011

Secular Revolutions, Religious Landscapes

-- Shatha Almutawa

While the Middle East uprisings have not revolved around religion, faith has not been absent from Arab scenes of protest in the last two months. God and scripture are invoked by revolutionaries and those who oppose them for the simple reason that Arab dialects and ways of life are infused with religion.

To an outside observer the revolts of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Bahrain might appear to be entirely secular, but Arabic Twitter and Facebook feeds are brimming with prayers, some formulaic and some informal, asking God to aid protesters and remove oppressors. Qur’anic verses and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad are shared on Facebook walls. One blogger titled his post: “A saying of the prophet about President Qaddafi.” In the quoted hadith Prophet Muhammed warns of a time when trivial men will speak for the people.

After Libyan president Moammar Al-Qaddafi ordered brutal attacks on demonstrators, leaving thousands dead and even more wounded, Yusuf Al-Qaradawi urged the Libyan army to kill Qaddafi. “I say to my brothers and sons who are soldiers and officers in the Libyan Army to disobey when (the government) gives orders to kill the people using warplanes,” the prominent Sunni scholar said, according to UPI. Soldiers have already defected in large numbers, and the pro-democracy army has taken hold of many Libyan cities.

In every part of the Arab world religious spaces such as mosques and churches have been stages for demonstrators as well as opposition. In the United Arab Emirates an activist was arrested after giving a speech at a mosque in solidarity with the Egyptian revolution. In his speech he invited worshippers to join him in performing a prayer for the Egyptian protesters.

In Egypt marches began at mosques after Friday prayers, and inside them imams gave speeches in favor of or opposition to the uprising. Egyptians are donating blood at mosques near the Libyan border. In Bahrain pro-democracy and pro-government protesters demonstrated outside Manama’s Al-Fateh Mosque as well as at Pearl Roundabout.

Even though religion is not the driving force behind the revolutions, religious leaders continue to defend protest in speeches that are disseminated via YouTube. Dr. Tareq Al-Suwaidan, a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Kuwait, gave a speech in which he urged Arabs to continue demanding freedom, human rights and an end to corruption. He challenged the governments’ claim that revolutions will lead to instability and insecurity, and that new freedoms would lead to chaos. “The west is living with these rights in stability and security, and they are making progress,” he said. “Our religion calls for these rights. Our religion guaranteed them to us.”

Al-Suwaidan’s tone is one of disbelief at dictators’ illogical statements and the contradictions in their claims. But his ridicule of government leaders is tame in comparison to the jokes made by Arabs all over the world following Al-Qaddafi’s speech. The jokes, too, involve religion. “Al-Qaddafi’s demands are simple—only that the people should say: There is no God but Al-Qaddafi,” Nael Shahwan tweeted in Arabic. Mohammad Awaad wrote, “Qaddafi ‘the god’ is a natural result of a media that has become accustomed to not saying no to a president, as if he is never wrong.” He continued, “I believe we have 22 gods”—one for each Arab country.

The opposition, too, is armed with religious rhetoric, but mosque, Qur’an, and hadith have been central in the Arab world’s struggle for freedom and democracy. Religious leaders as well as lay people have found that the language of religion is also the language of revolution. After all religion is very often the spirit of Arab life, and the inspiration for most of its endeavors—jokes and revolutions included.

Shatha Almutawa is the editor of Sightings and a PhD candidate at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

----------

In this month's Religion and Culture Web Forum, Jessica DeCou offers a comic interpretation of the theology of Karl Barth, bringing his work into a surprising and fruitful dialogue with the comedy of Craig Ferguson. Both men, she contends, “employ similar forms of humor in their efforts to unmask the absurdity and irrationality of our submission to arbitrary human powers.” The humor of Barth and Ferguson alike stresses human limitation against illusory deification. DeCou argues for understanding both the humor and the famous combativeness of Barth's theology as part of this single project, carried out against modern Neo-Protestant theology. The Religion and Culture Web Forum is at: http://divinity.uchicago.edu/martycenter/publications/webforum/

Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

Parents and Playgrounds (Bruce Epperly)

Bruce Epperly returns for the second installment of his series on process theology and parenting, by looking at the way parents are present with children at the playground.  He raises the ever present question of how we balance safety and risk, so that children can soar.  There is a connection here between our own parenting skills and the way in which we envision God being present to and with us as parent.  I invite your reflections in response to Bruce's very provocative and helpful essay.

***********************************

Parents and Playgrounds

Bruce G. Epperly

When our son was small, the father of his best friend and I took the boys to the school playground every evening to ride their Hot Wheels three wheelers and play on the Jungle Gyms. My adult companion and I often engaged in animated conversations about literature and philosophy, but I always kept an eye on the boys. My task was to stay out of the way of their games and even some of their conflicts, to them let tumble and fall, but always be on the alert for real danger and run to the rescue if need be! The proof of my balance of distance and safekeeping is that both boys are still alive, married, and great friends.

Watching my infant grandson reminds me that good parenting involves intimacy and distance, order and chaos, safety and appropriate risk, immediacy and waiting an extra moment to intervene or respond to a cry. We parents feel our children’s pain, but good parenting involves appropriate distance so that children can learn self-reliance, patience, and problem-solving. Just recently my own son and his wife – and the grandparents, to a lesser extent – experienced this balance of intimacy and distance as they made the transition from their child sleeping in a co-bed in their room to him going to sleep in his own room. We all had to resist going in for a few moments to allow him to learn to soothe himself to sleep. (Of course, we did not leave him alone with his tears for too long!) This was tough since every cry broke our hearts.

Process theology sees life as a dynamic balance of order and novelty, and safety and risk. Disorder and pain are inevitable in a world in which there are many agents, each with her or his agenda. Not even God can control the outcome of every situation. As a matter of fact, the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead, the parent of modern process thought, says that God’s vision, God’s action in any given situation, is the “best for that impasse.” Good parenting involves that right blend of order and predictability and innovation and surprise. In the evolving parent-child relationship, parents optimally encourage creativity and freedom appropriate to the child’s age. This isn’t always easy for either parent or child.

I recall the experience of encouraging our son to walk to school. Although most of the time, I drove him the circuitous route to his elementary school, I decided at one point that he should walk part way. We lived on a busy street so I always crossed the street with him. At the right time, we decided to experiment with walking to school. Over the course of a week, I gradually extended the circle of his freedom and agency – the first day, he just walked 50 feet by himself; the second day, 100 feet; the third day, the length of a football field. By the end of the week, he could walk the block and a half to school. Now, throughout this time, I always remained at the top of the hill watching him all the way to the school yard, always ready to sprint down the hill if I saw the slightest hint of danger. My son and I coined a phrase “I’ll watch you home” to describe any occasion where he was “on his own,” but I was there to provide the safety net, reassurance, or a virtual playground within which he could feel secure.

Parenting, like divinity, is about playgrounds and balancing safety, innovation, and risk. We hear a lot about “helicopter parents,” who even try to shape their children’s lives and insure their success in college. Such hyper-vigilance eventually makes a prison out of a playground, and prevents children from soaring on their own. Now, I belong to the “careful parents” and “careful grandparents” union! I am an intimate parent who still is involved at times as a coach and mentor, occasionally, an alternative voice in my own son’s life. (Of course, now that he is an adult, he gives me plenty of advice, too! And, he began to advise me on my clothes and public behavior nearly twenty years ago!) But, I realize that he is the ultimate decision maker now. I need to let go of being too good an advisor. My influence is in his bones and conscience, in his values and aspirations. My words are consultative, whether they relate to work or parenting, and given with a dash of humility since he now knows things and has expertise in some areas beyond my own. He is developing his own parenting style and his own way of navigating adult relationships; something we are always learning.

From a process perspective, there are many good ways of parenting, and good parenting is always situational and grounded in the relationship of the child’s experience and the parent’s gifts. Still, in the spirit of an evolving universe, good parenting – imitating the divine – is about expanding freedom and creativity and encouraging imagination and its embodiment in daily life. It is about nurturing a child’s own experience and uniqueness, mirroring God’s own movements in her or his life. It is about the intimacy of care and mentoring, and privacy of self-creation and growth. Imagine “all the places you’ll go.”

Today’s Spiritual Practice: Take some time to be still resting in the safety of the Universe. After breathing in a sense of peace, visualize your child or grandchild (or the child you are expecting). Imagine them as healthy, whole, and safe. Now, visualize them as growing in ability, resourcefulness, and courage. See them expand their circle of freedom. Imagine ways that you can encourage their freedom and creativity, while preserving their safety.

Today’s Affirmation: I nurture the right balance of safety and freedom in my child’s life.

Bruce Epperly is a theologian, spiritual guide, healing companion, retreat leader and lecturer, and author of nineteen books, including Holy Adventure: 41 Days of Audacious Living; God’s Touch: Faith, Wholeness, and the Healing Miracles of Jesus; Reiki Healing Touch and the Way of Jesus; and Tending to the Holy: The Practice of the Presence of God in Ministry. He may be reached for questions and engagements at bruceepperly@gmail.com.

Revolution 2.0 -- Egypt gains a chance for freedom!

Today something truly important has occurred.  A non-violent revolution pushed a dictator (one of our dictators) from power.  The joy being expressed in Tahrir Square in Cairo reminds me of the night the Berlin Wall fell in 1989.  I remember watching that event unfold on live TV.   The world that I had known from birth -- I was 31 at the time -- had begun to crumble.  With the fall of the Berlin Wall a series of changes in the world began -- the old Soviet Empire itself began to crumble.  I understand that the process of democratization continues, but it had a beginning.

Well today is a day as historic as that day in 1989.  With the resignation of Hosni Mubarak, who seemed intent on dragging this out as long as possible, hoping in one way or another to come out on top, a new day has dawned for the Egyptian people.  Egypt is the largest and most important nation in the Arab world.  It is predominantly Muslim, but it has a significant (10% or so) Christian minority.  What happens in Egypt will have repercussions elsewhere, which is why the Saudi's were pushing back, even promising to make up and shortfall if American pulled it's support.   The cat is out of the bag.

The title Revolution 2.0 comes from a statement made by Wael Ghonim, the Google executive, whose Facebook page gave the platform upon which this revolution was launched.  He gave full credit to Facebook because it gave the people a way of going around state media and organize themselves.  Ghonim has been very forceful in saying that he's not the hero and has no interest in being the leader of the revolution.  But he makes an important case for the importance of social media.  It is going to be more and more difficult for autocratic governments to control the flow of information.  Yes, social media, including blogs, can be used for evil as well as good, but again the cat is out of the bag.  The technology is here to stay and will continue to evolve.   It needn't be feared but needs to be reflected.

Now, one further comment.  It is interesting that yesterday we were surprised by Mubarak's failure to resign, as rumor was suggesting.  It would seem to be that Mubarak was hoping to do one of two things -- either cow his opponents into going home by his intransigent words or provoke a violent response -- so he could order a crackdown (the Army seemingly unwilling to intervene as long as the protests remained non-violent).  When the people stayed in the square but remained non-violent, the regime knew the game was up and Mubarak gave way to the Military, who now have the job of maintaining enough stability for a new system to emerge that would represent the full aspirations of the Egyptian people.  

Another word from Wael Ghonim needs to be heard.  The reason why this revolution has succeeded to this point and why there is hope for something really wonderful to come is that the fear that had pervaded the national psyche had been broken.  The people he said had decided it better to die for a good cause than to live for nothing.  When fear no longer holds, then the forces of oppression can no longer control the situation.

Today Egypt has taken the first step to become a truly free people.  Let us pray for their future and stand with the people as they make a new life for themselves.   

Egypt -- Will Freedom Ring?

I've been watching the events unfolding in Egypt with a great deal of concern and hope.  Egypt has been a stalwart US ally and "friend of Israel."  This reality has led American American governments to turn a blind eye from the autocratic nature of this regime.  We've stood by allowing Hosni Mubarak to rule without many questions because of the fear of Islamist takeover.  Unfortunately, our willingness to abide secular autocrats has only further alienated the Arab populace and given Islamists the high ground. 

After the people of Tunis rose up and pushed out the dictatorial regime there, the populace in Egypt has risen up.  Mubarak has, so far, refused to give up power, though he has fired his cabinet.  Of course, this fools no one.  The problem isn't with the cabinet, but with the one who appoints the cabinet.  Mubarak also is 82 and wanting to pass on power to his son -- but the people and perhaps even the Army isn't happy with this idea.  And so the nation has revolted.  The Army has been called out, but there is a sense that the military is weighing its options. 

So what will happen?  The US seems sidelined -- supporting democracy but fearful of chaos in Egypt.  Israel has placed its bets on Mubarak and so is hoping for autocratic rule to continue.  Other Arab countries are also looking at what is happening in Egypt with great concern, because like Egypt these are states ruled by autocratic rulers who allow little freedom to the people.  And, like Egypt the vast majority of their own populace is under the age of 30, and restive.  Islamists have, in the past, exploited this restiveness, for they alone have carried the moral authority to oppose these leaders.  What is interesting in Tunis and in Egypt is that by and large this is not an Islamist driven revolt.  But, if there is a crackdown, it is likely that it will be the Islamists who are able to exploit it.

My hope is that Mubarak steps down and democratic steps are taken.  Egypt is a fairly modern country, that has some diversity -- Predominantly Muslim, but with a significant Christian (Coptic) minority.  I don't know where this will go, but I remain hopeful that freedom will ring for this nation.  Let us not support autocracy out of fear of Islamist take over.  Such fears only feed resentments toward the west.  If we stand for freedom, let us also support it in real ways that honor the aspirations of the Arab people for a better life.  What was it that Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence -- the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

Someday at Christmas -- Stevie Wonder

As we sing our carols and songs of Christmas, here's one by Stevie Wonder from way back in the 1970s that dreams about a time when people will be free and the wars will cease -- at Christmas.  Good message from long ago!

Set Free to Serve -- A Sermon

This sermon was preached on Thursday, September 16, 2010, at Northwestern Christian Church in Detroit, as part of a three day revival.  The CWCC choir joined me in sharing a message of freedom and service with this congregation pastored by my friend and colleague, the Rev. Eugene James.

*****************************************************

Set Free to Serve

John 8:31-36

Two years ago I went to a pastor’s conference in Chicago, and before I left, someone, I think it was John Lacey, told me that I needed to connect with the Rev. Eugene James while I was there. With that in mind, I had my eye out for this pastor from Detroit, and on that very first day, as I took the elevator to my room, I found myself standing right next to a man named Eugene James. From that moment on, Eugene and I have built a strong friendship and a strong partnership in ministry. We’ve done a lot of talking and a lot of dreaming about joint ventures in mission, and while we’ve done more talking than doing, I know that good things are on the horizon. I am also pleased to affirm Eugene’s calling, along with that of Maggie Mills, to serve as co-regional ministers of the Michigan Region during this important time of transition, because I have great trust in their wisdom and spiritual discernment. So, having said all of this by way of introduction, I want to say how pleased I am to have received an invitation to bring my choir and share a message at this week’s revival.

The theme for the revival is simple and straightforward. If you’re a follower of Jesus, then you have been set free so that you might serve. Over the past several weeks I’ve been taking to heart this theme, and pondering what it is I should share this evening. What is it that God would have us hear from John’s gospel about the message of freedom that comes from Jesus? And what are the implications that can be drawn from this powerful statement:

“You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.”

Yes, if you know the truth, which means if you’re willing to follow the teachings of Jesus, then you will be set free. For as Jesus says to his critics: “If the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.” We come here tonight to hear a word about freedom and service, two words that don’t seem to fit very well together in our society, and yet in Christ, they belong together, even as a hand fits in a glove. But, we must ask two questions: From what am I being set free and where will this freedom to serve lead?

1. The Starting Point

The Disciples tradition, out of which both our congregations emerge, isn’t big on confession of sin. We’re a pretty optimistic people and so we don’t spend a lot of time focusing on sin, especially original sin. But, experience tells us that there’s a dark side to life. There is evil in the land, and we dare not ignore its presence. But, not only is evil present in the land, but all of us at one time or another get caught up in its web. Whether we like to admit it – and it seems as if the people Jesus was talking to didn’t want to admit it – we all have experienced bondage to sin and need to be set free so that we can experience the blessings of God’s presence in our lives. We need to be set free from this web so that we can truly love God and love our neighbors.

If we’re going to be set free, however, we’ll need to know what it is we need to be set free from. Paul pointed out that the Law is there to shine a light on those areas of our lives that are contrary to God’s vision for our lives. Although we can summarize the commandments of God in two very succinct statements – love God and love your neighbor – we need more details. That’s what the Ten Commandments and the other laws do for us – they help us understand how we can love God and love our neighbors.

Sin, to give a simple definition, involves our failure to love God with our entire being and our failure to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. If we’re to be set free from this bondage, this slavery to sin, then we first have to acknowledge that we have a problem – something that Jesus’ audience couldn’t acknowledge. But, as we know from the many Twelve Step programs, you have to acknowledge that you have a problem, before you can get help.

So, what is it that we should confess? What is it that we need to acknowledge before we can be set free by the grace and mercy of Jesus? Could it be a false idol, such as a nicer and fancier vehicle, a bigger house, or fame and fortune? Could it be the kind of self-doubt that keeps us from recognizing that we’re created in the image of God, and therefore makes it impossible to embrace our gifts and callings from God? Could it be anger, jealousy, or unfaithfulness? Could it be the stereotypes, prejudices, and suspicions that separate us from one another?

I must say that I’m deeply disturbed by the growing polarization in our society. I’m concerned about politicians, pundits, and so-called religious leaders who seek to gain power by dividing us from one another. Paul may have said that in Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male and female, (Gal. 3:28), but even the church has failed to live out this promise. Therefore, if we’re to be set free then we must first recognize our condition so that God can begin to transform us into the people we’re meant to be. And then as God changes our hearts and minds, we can better reflect the glory that is God in and through our own lives. Then we can sing with complete honesty that old song: “They will know we are Christians by our love.”

2. Set Free for a Purpose

If we start with the premise that each of us needs to be set free from something, then the next question has to do with the nature and meaning of this freedom. We may all desire to experience freedom, but I doubt if we all define the word in the same way.

As I stand here tonight in this pulpit, I’m quite conscious of the fact that I’m a white pastor of a predominantly white congregation, who has brought an all-white choir, to share a message of freedom in a predominantly black church. I’m a historian by training, so I know the history of our nation. I know about the long struggle for freedom and civil rights that has marked the African American story in this nation. I know the story, but I’ve not experienced it. Therefore, if I’m going to address this theme with integrity, then I must make this confession. Although I can speak to the issues and I can sing the spirituals with gusto, I know that my experience and that of my ancestors is different from the African-American experience. But, even if I can’t completely understand the full meaning of freedom as it is understood in the African-American community, I take refuge in the knowledge that in Christ we are indeed one, and that in him we can experience true freedom.

By making our confession, we’re ready to hear the good news. God has provided us with a road to freedom, a road that leads out of the land of slavery into the land of promise. And the one who will be our guide along this journey is Jesus. Just as Moses guided the people of Israel out of Egypt and toward the promised land, Jesus shall do the same for us. And even though Moses died before he could cross the river, leaving the rest of the journey in the hands of Joshua, the Gospel story tells us that Joshua’s namesake, the one we call Jesus of Nazareth, not only leads us out of slavery but he also leads us across the river.

In the story of Good Friday, we hear the bad news that the Romans had cut short his journey. When they laid him in the tomb, Jesus’ followers thought that it was over, that they’d never get to cross to the other side. But the message of Easter tells us that God has turned aside the attempts of those who would keep the world in bondage. By raising Jesus from the dead, God provided a way for us to cross to the other side of the river so that we might experience true freedom.

The message seems clear; if we will embrace Jesus as our Lord and embrace his teachings, which call for us to love God with our entire being and to love our neighbors as we love ourselves, then we will experience true freedom. But freedom isn’t an end in itself. With freedom comes responsibility, which is a message that many of us neglect to hear and embrace.

This is the point that Paul was making when he responded to those who claimed that “all things are lawful.” “All things may be lawful, Paul says, but not all things are beneficial. True freedom isn’t the opportunity to do whatever we want, whenever we want. True freedom means seeking to do that which builds up the entire body. As Paul told the Corinthians, seek that which builds up. “Do not seek your own advantage, but that of the other” (1 Cor. 10:23-243). In difficult times, like this, it’s easy to put our own wants and desires first, and take advantage of our liberties at the expense of others, but the word that we hear from the scriptures is this: Take hold of your freedom, but do so in a way that is responsible, so that the body might be built up.

3. Gifted For Service

When we hear the word freedom in our cultural context, we often hear it in very individualistic ways. This is especially true right now, in this political season. Everybody is looking out for themselves. They want what they think they’re entitled to get, and if that means getting what they want at the expense of others, then so be it! Unfortunately, what is true in the political realm, is often true in the church. Too often we define the church in terms of our individual wants and desires. In the New Testament, however, the church is defined in terms of community. The church is a body, whose members may be different from each other, and yet in Christ and through the Holy Spirit of God, they are made one.

To get a sense of what we’re called to be and do, as people who have been set free by Jesus, we need to look at the fourth chapter of Ephesians. In Ephesians 4 we hear a word to the church about God’s gifts to the church, gifts that are intended to be used for the up building of the body of Christ, so that we might come “to the unity of the faith, to maturity, the measure of the full stature of Christ.” As we continue reading, we hear a reminder that we’re no longer children, who are tossed to and fro by doctrines, trickery, and deceit. Now there’s nothing wrong with being a child, if you’re a child, but if you’re an adult, then childish behavior and attitudes aren’t appropriate. So, if we’re to be truly free, then we must move toward maturity in our faith.

So that we can hear this message clearly, I’d like to read from the fourth chapter of Ephesians (verses 4:1-16).

I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, 2with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, 3making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all.

7 But each of us was given grace according to the measure of Christ’s gift. 8Therefore it is said, ‘When he ascended on high he made captivity itself a captive; he gave gifts to his people.’

9(When it says, ‘He ascended’, what does it mean but that he had also descended* into the lower parts of the earth? 10He who descended is the same one who ascended far above all the heavens, so that he might fill all things.) 11The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ. 14We must no longer be children, tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine, by people’s trickery, by their craftiness in deceitful scheming. 15But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16from whom the whole body, joined and knitted together by every ligament with which it is equipped, as each part is working properly, promotes the body’s growth in building itself up in love.

As you reflect these words of scripture, consider the words that begin the chapter:

Therefore, as a prisoner for the Lord, I encourage you to live as people worthy of the call you received from God.

Although he’s writing this letter from prison, he knows that in Christ he is free, and that he has been set free to build up the body of Christ. In hearing this call to freedom, he encourages us to make use of our freedom by conducting ourselves “with all humility, gentleness, and patience.” We’re being called to affirm the oneness of the body of Christ in the way we live our lives.

Having been set free, God has given us gifts for service. In this letter five gifts are mentioned – Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers. Each of these gifts are expressions of leadership in the church, but there are other lists, such as the ones in 1 Corinthians 12 and Romans 12 that broaden the spectrum. Each of these gifts is given to us so that we might be equipped for service to the body of Christ. God gives this gifts so that we can bear witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ – the very gospel that has set us free so that we might serve.

As we move toward a time of decision, I want to pose these questions: Are you ready to be set free? Are you willing to embrace the call to walk according to the way of Jesus? And if you’re ready to be set free, are you ready to take on the responsibilities of a life worthy of this calling? And if you’re willing to take on these responsibilities, are you ready to serve according to the gifts that God has poured upon the church, so that it might be built up? Are you ready to be set free to serve?

 

Preached September 16, 2010

at Northwestern Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)

Detroit, MI

 

Reflections on Freedom

It is the day oafter the 4th of July.  For many the parades and fireworks are over -- we'll be taking in the fireworks show in the small town of Clawson -- but it isn't too late to think about freedom.  There is a lot of talk about freedom these days, with people clamoring for the right to do what they want (well sort of, many don't want you to do what you want), but with freedom comes responsibiity.  As I noted in my sermon yesterday from Galatians 5, true freedom is not a natural right, it is a gift of God.  True freedom isn't the "right" to do what I want, but rather is the opportunity to serve one's neighbor in love.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a theologian who has inspired many, but who did not grow up in a democratic context (the Weimar Republic as a short-lived experiment that gave way to totalitarianism).  He spent time in America so he had some sense of the matter, but saw freedom less in Enlightenment terms, and more in more of a theological one.   Turning to the recently released edition of his Letters and Papers from Prison, I came across this poem entitled "Stations on the Way to Freedom."  It appears he wrote this in the summer of 1944, but the date is not certain.  I want to share the poem because I think it offers a counterweight to the way we usually conceive of freedom. 

Stations on the Way to Freedom

Discipline

If you set out to seek freedom, then you must learn above all things
discipline your soul and your senses, lest your desires
and then your limbs perchance should lead you no hither, and yon.
Chaste be your spirit and body, subject to yourself completely,
in obedience seeking the goal that is set for your spirit.
Only through discipline does one learn the secret of freedom.
  

Action

Not always doing and daring what's random, but seeking the right thin,
Hover not over the possible, but boldly reach for the real.
Not in escaping to hthought, in action alone is found freedom.
Dare to quite anxious faltern and enter the storm of events,
then true freedom will come and ebrace your spirit, rejoicing.

Suffering

Wondrous transformation.  Your hands, strong and active, are fetterd.
Powerless, alone, you see that an end is put to your action.
Yet now you breathe a sigh of relief and lay what is righteous
calmly and fearlesslly into a mightier hand, contented.
Just for one blissful moment you could feel the sweet touch of freedom,
Then you gave it to God, that God might perfect it in glory.

Death

Come now, hightest of feasts on the way to freedom eternal,
Death, lay down your ponderous chains and earthen enclosures
walls that deceive our souls and fetter our mortal bodies,
that we might at last behold what here we are hindered from seeing.
Freedom, long have we sought you through discipline, action and suffering.
Dying, now we discern in the countenance of God your own face.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in Letters and Papers from Prison, DBW 8 (Fortress, 2010), pp. 513-514)

I invite you to ponder this poem, consider what it says to us today, the day after we let loose of our patriotic fervor in celebration of a freedom we claim as a natural right.  How does the Jeffersoninian version of freedom compare with Bonhoeffer's theological vision?

True Freedom -- A Sermon

Galatians 5:1, 13-25

Today is the Fourth of July, a day that Americans set aside to celebrate the nation’s independence from British rule. Over the next few days, there will be parades, fireworks, picnics, and more, but, as much as we enjoy celebrating the freedoms we have as Americans, we come to this place and time with a broader sense of freedom and loyalties.

I’m returning to the text I used last year for the Fourth of July weekend, because, like last year, I’d like to address the issue of freedom. This text from Galatians is foundational if we’re to understand what it means to truly be free – not as Americans, but as followers of Christ. The question before is simple: What is the nature of true freedom?

The question maybe simple, but each answer to that question carries with it certain implications. Paul’s definition and its implications differ those of Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson believed that freedom was a natural right, which was self-evident. Paul believed that true freedom is revealed by God, and Paul understood that one could be free even if the political context was repressive. Today the nation celebrates political freedoms that were won on the battlefield, but interestingly enough when this nation declared its independence from Britain, asserting that it was self-evident that “all men” are created equal and had the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” it defined “all men” fairly narrowly. It didn’t apply to African-American slaves, Native Americans, and in many ways didn’t apply to women, even white women.

Now, when it comes to love of country, I consider myself as much a patriot as the next person. But, to love one’s country doesn’t mean turning a blind eye to its history and to its errors. It doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t criticize our country, especially when we see something that is, in our minds, unjust or immoral. Yes, I love my country, but it’s not a blind loyalty. But, whatever it is that we celebrate today as a nation, for Christians it must come must not supersede our love of God and love for neighbors, including those who live far beyond national boundaries.

1. The Nature of Our Freedoms

As we consider the question of the nature of freedom, it might be worth considering the variety of freedoms that are possible. Shortly before the United States entered World War II, President Franklin Roosevelt defined four primary freedoms, which he believed should be guaranteed to every human being.

• 
  
  Freedom of speech and expression
• 
  
  Freedom of Worship
• 
  
  Freedom from Want
• 
  
  Freedom from Fear

At the time President Roosevelt defined these basic human freedoms, much of the world was at war. Although the United States had yet to join the battle, Roosevelt understood that freedom was in the balance. By 1941, the Axis Powers seemed unstoppable, and yet Roosevelt spoke with great optimism about a future in which freedom would win out over tyranny. He declared:

That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called "new order" of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.

He believed that the dictators of his day would be turned back; and he was correct. The Axis Powers were defeated, but at a great cost in human life. Unfortunately, freedom is a rather fragile gift to humanity, and it didn’t take long before new dictators emerged. Yes, we often dream of freedom, but it remains something difficult to achieve and to maintain.

As much as we rejoice in the freedoms that we have attained in this country, it’s important for us as Christians to understand that true freedom doesn’t depend upon our place of residence. The early Christians, the people who received Paul’s word about freedom, lived under imperial Roman rule. If you’re a good historian, you’ll know that Roman rule was a mixed blessing. The Monte Python film we discussed last week reminds us, that not everyone living within the borders of the Empire loved the Romans. Yes, the Romans did bring aqueducts, roads, sanitation, education, safety, and order, many of the things that people enjoy, but there was a trade off. They lost their freedom to determine their own future.

Our freedom, however, doesn’t derive from the political order or even natural law – what Jefferson called “Nature’s God.” Our freedom is a gift of Christ, which we can enjoy no matter the circumstances. Paul writes that we should stand firm in this freedom and never again submit to any “yoke of slavery” (Gal. 5:1). Of the four freedoms that President Roosevelt outlined, the one that is most related to what Paul has in mind here, is the “freedom from fear.” Roosevelt, however, had in mind a reduction in armaments, but Paul’s understanding was even more basic. He told the Galatian church not to let others enslave them with opinions, anger, or rules, especially when these opinions and rules stand contrary to the Gospel.

2. Freedom to Serve

When Paul tells the Galatian Christians to not submit to “the yoke of slavery,” he had in mind the question of circumcision, which had divided that church. What is interesting is that Paul proclaimed a message of freedom, but then placed some boundaries on its exercise. Even though we are free in Christ, this doesn’t give us the right to indulge that freedom. Instead, we should become “slaves to one another” through love. Don’t let humanly devised rules and regulations keep you from experiencing God’s healing presence. Remember that it’s not the circumcision of the flesh that saves us, but rather the transformation of the heart. Or, as Jesus noted, it’s not what goes into the mouth that defiles you, it’s what comes out of it (Matt. 15:11). Because you’re now free in Christ, you can choose to serve your neighbor. You could do otherwise, but if you’re truly free, you’ll serve and love your neighbor as yourself. True freedom may not come from the state, but if we act out of God’s freedom, then our freely chosen acts of service to humanity and to the entire created order will have definite political consequences. That is because, by becoming a slave to our neighbor, we put their needs before our own.

3. The Fruit of Freedom

Despite this freedom, which comes to us as a gift of God, there’s a reason why we have laws. We seem inclined to indulge ourselves, rather than serve our neighbors. Paul tells us what freedom gone to seed looks like, and it’s not pretty. Freedom gone bad produces such things as idolatry, anger, strife, jealousy, and dissension. He tells his readers that people who indulge themselves in this way will not inherit the Kingdom of God. That sounds harsh, but Paul wanted this church to understand the seriousness of this issue.

But, when freedom is rooted in the Spirit of God, we will bear fruit, and against this, there is no law. The fruit of the Spirit consists of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, gentleness, faithfulness, and self-control. If we will focus on these fruit of the Spirit’s movement in our lives, then we will see our lives transformed, and we will then be free to go out into the world, taking with us the message of God’s liberty.

4. Freedom and Responsibility

From this list of fruit, I’d like to pause and focus on self control. Freedom without self-control leads to anarchy, and if our freedom isn’t tempered by self-control there will be much grief.

You might find it a bit ironic, but without freedom there can be no responsibility, and yet the more freedom we have, the more responsibility we must take on. As Paul says elsewhere: “All things are lawful, but not all things are beneficial” (1 Cor. 6:12). If self-indulgence is our goal, we won’t stop to consider how our choices affect others. When that happens our freedom – whether as individuals or as nations -- becomes destructive.

Yes, it’s a good thing to celebrate the freedoms that we as Americans enjoy, but more importantly, it’s imperative that we remember that to be truly free is to serve our neighbors in love, and that goes way beyond being an American.

Preached by:
Dr. Robert D. Cornwall
Pastor, Central Woodward Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Troy, MI
Sixth Sunday of Pentecost
July 4, 2010

Four Freedoms -- FDR (Jan. 6, 1941)

In January of 1941, prior to US entry into WWII, Franklin Roosevelt stood before Congress and spoke of Four Freedoms -- Speech, Worship, From Want and From Fear.  I found this clip of just that introductory section, which names the four and offers hope that they will be experienced fully not in the far future, but in the near future.  Of course, this has not yet been achieved, but it's worth contemplating his vision, including the fourth, which involved reducing armaments so as to keep neighbor from invading neighbor.

Thus, as we begin our Independence Day weekend, here is the YouTube version:

Abundance and Choice -- Sightings

Does having more options and more choices make you happier?  That is the question posed by Martin Marty on this "Easter Monday," a day I understand many clergy take off.  Alas, the office is closed but I've got an evening meeting.  But back to our choices.  We live in an age of increasing options, but does this make us happier?  Studies suggest that maybe that's not so true.  I'll let you decide if this is true or not, as you read Marty's essay and offer your own response to the question.

****************************************************

Sightings 4/5/10

Abundance and Choice

-- Martin E. Marty

“Easter Monday,” Christian clergy call today. Rabbis probably have an analogous term for their well-earned day or week or fortnight off following holiday holiday ceremonies. After too much heavy, even sometimes traumatic, religion news, let’s use this Sightings for lighter, let’s hope nuanced, “news.” The topic: Choice in Religion. It takes off from Evan Goldstein’s long article “To Choose or Not to Choose” in the Chronicle of Higher Education, which I commend to you, because it deals with unfinished business on the “choice” front.

Goldstein portrays Sikh-nurtured, Columbia psychology professor Sheena Iyengar, who, incidentally, is blind, but who has seen something that many overlooked and may still question. Her thesis: While we cherish choice in supermarkets, commodities in general, and even in religious and spiritual life, an abundance of options does not necessarily yield happiness. “In 1949 a typical American supermarket carried 3,750 items. Today that number is close to 45,000.” Yet Americans are grumpy. Illustrations of her thesis are abundant in Goldstein’s article, so I had to “choose” which to lift. I passed over many more, unhappily, to get to the religious point, which is relevant here.

Every survey I have seen suggests that choice is an enormous factor in American religious life today. Sometimes I ask audiences mentally to recreate great grandmother’s world. My four would have gone through life in a Swiss or a German village never meeting someone who was not of their faith. Today choice seems limitless. Citizens can choose to be Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Methodists, or Druids. Does choosing make them happy? Here Goldstein cites the debaters over happiness, led by psychologist Martin Seligman, whose controversial findings and proposals also prompt more discussion.

Is there escaping “choice” in a free society’s free market of free religion? Not really. Next weekend I am speaking at the Presidential Forum at Indiana’s Bethany Seminary, where “the social movement of Brethren, Friends, and Mennonites” assesses its present and projects its futures. To anyone at a little distance, these groups seem homogeneous and settled. But the “Anabaptist” yearbook of their “tribes” – their word – lists thirteen different Amish, twenty-four Brethren, four Hutterite, and fifty-seven Mennonite groups, whose adherents, numbering from 15,000 to 127,000 in America, are aware of their differences from each other (and, I hope, of their commonalities). Add various Society of Friends (Quaker) groups and you get the idea. Choice among these can be alluring and even fateful; some arch-disciplined groups formally “shun” deviant members while other Anabaptists are impressively welcoming (I will be hosted by the latter sort at Bethany).

Fusing Seligman’s view of optimism and happiness with her theories about abundance, Iyengar interviewed six hundred citizens. Her findings confirmed Seligman’s shocker: “Reform Jews and Unitarians are depressed and pessimistic; Orthodox Jews and Calvinists are bright-eyed, bushy-tailed, and hopeful. The finding was quite uncongenial to everything I believed.” Indeed, a few years ago conservative evangelicals advertised findings which revealed that they were more satisfied with their marital sex lives than were liberals. Are pick-and-choose “spiritual” or liberal religious people so busy choosing that they don’t get to have pleasure in their choices? I will not draw conclusions or try to spell out meanings and strategies if Professors Seligman and Iyengar’s theses are right. Instead, I will take my own post-Easter “week-off” and end it enjoying my friends the Anabaptists.

Reference:

Evan R. Goldstein, “To Choose or Not to Choose,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, 3 April 2010. http://chronicle.com/article/The-Choice-Driven-Life-of/64587/.

Martin E. Marty's biography, current projects, publications, and contact information can be found at http://www.illuminos.com/.

----------

In this month’s edition of the Religion and Culture Web Forum, Laura Lindenberger Wellen considers how illustrations in various editions of Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin (1852) have contributed to a sense of that novel's place as what one scholar calls "the Summa Theologica of nineteenth-century America's religion of domesticity." Specifically she focuses on Miguel Covarrubias, who immigrated from Mexico during the 1920s and was active during the rich artistic and political era known as the Harlem Renaissance. Wellen argues that Covarrubias's visual representations in Uncle Tom's Cabin, which rely on a sensibility at play in Harlem of the 1930s, in effect "reanimate the religious and political tensions which made Stowe's text such a popular and controversial text in the 1850s." With invited responses forthcoming from John Howell (University of Chicago Divinity School), Amy Mooney (Columbia College Chicago), and Jo-Ann Morgan (Western Illinois University). http://divinity.uchicago.edu/martycenter/publications/webforum/index.shtml

----------

Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.