Preparing for the Pope

American Catholics are gearing up for the visit by Pope Benedict XVI in April. To help members of the church in the D.C area prepare, the Archdiocese of Washington sponsored lectures on the issues raised in the two encyclicals written by the Pope since he was installed. The first, entitled Deus Caritas Est, was issued on December 25, 2005; the second is Spe Salvi and was published in 2007.

According to a Washington Post article, Archbishop Timothy Broglio led the first lecture on February 28 and addressed a "rapt" audience of over 600. The material in the encyclicals is pretty weighty. A cursory reading is not sufficient to plumb the depths of meaning. So, according to the article, the Archbishop raised questions.

ON LOVE (the first encyclical): "It is asking what is the nature of the love between man and God, and how is it related to other forms of love, say between people or between a person and their career or calling? Can a person love God? Is this a language conundrum, or more of a conceptual one? And when it comes to love of neighbor, what type of love motivates a Christian to do good, to do charity? Can it be a secular love - a basic urge to do good - or must it always be a Christ-motivated love?"

ON HOPE (the second encyclical): "Can contemporary people really hope? And is hope in the future the same thing as hoping for eternal life? What, he said, IS life? And is Christian hope selfish, since it asks people to look to their own salvation?"

Whether one is Catholic or not, and whether one plans to see the Pope or not, these questions are worthy of reflection. Based on what we human beings know about love, can we really love God? Do we truly show love toward others? Can someone, who is not a Christian, act charitably toward another? What defines the hope we have? Is the hope of believers narrowly defined as the hope of heaven after death and nothing more?

For those of you who are Catholic, who have been Catholic, or those who never have been Catholic, how do you understand 'the love of God and the love for God'? What gives you hope for your future?

Bumper Sticker Truth?

The first time I saw it was early one morning as I was leaving the Fitness Center to head to the office. It was proudly perched on a pick-up truck with a Piedmont College parking sticker on it. The bumper sticker read:
Except for Slavery, Fascism, Nazism, and Communism
War never solved anything

While I cannot begin to plumb the mind of the person who placed the bumper sticker on this vehicle, I feel it is making several points. First, it seems that this person is saying that sometimes nations must use armed force and put its citizens in harm's way to combat great evils and injustices. It suggests that sometimes great evils call for extreme solutions, even war. The second point seems to be that many great evils cannot be resolved except by the use of force. When the world was facing the evils of Nazi Germany or the enslavement of Africans in 19th century America, the sticker suggests, the only option available to end the evil was warfare. Third, the message of the sticker seems to affirm the principle of a 'just war,' a war undertaken by legitimate authorities, in a proportional way, to deal with evil, even though it does not differentiate between just and unjust wars. It certainly implies that wars to combat such evils as those listed are good. Fourth, it seems, according to the sticker, that the world will never again be oppressed by these evils - slavery, fascism, nazism, and communism -because they have been eliminated - "solved" - by the willingness of just societies to engage in wars.

I did not think too much about the bumper sticker when I first saw it, but I saw it again this week. That got me thinking.

I agree that the Civil War effectively eliminated the system of de jure slavery as practiced in the mid-19th century South, but did the war eliminate slavery? Nope. Not even close. According to a BBC report from 2007, as found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/slavery/modern/modern_1.shtml, there are more slaves in the world now than ever before, even though slavery is illegal in all countries. According to a March 25, 2008 Talk Of The Nation program featuring Douglas Blackmon, author of Slavery By Another Name and a Salon article from Thursday, March 27, 2008 featuring the book, A Crisis So Monstous: Face To Face With Modern Slavery by E. Benjamin Skinner, modern day slavery results in worse treatment for the enslaved than the 19th century Southern version.

So, did war eliminate slavery? No. Then, does the fact that slavery continues, and is worse now, affect the way we should view the morality and effectiveness of the Civil War; should it? Should we - can we - then use the case of slavery as a justification for wars?

The same is true for the other evils listed. Fascism, Nazism, and Communism still exist. Some forms have been eliminated, think Hitler and Mussolini, but the ideology remains and continues to affect people.

Now, I realize that it is impossible to present a nuanced opinion on any topic in the small space available on a bumper sticker. But, I feel this instance goes beyond an inability to present a nuanced argument in a limited space to choosing to present a "fully in error" position.

I am not going to rip that bumper sticker off the truck, if I see it again. I would wish, though, that, in light of the 5 years our armed forces have been in Iraq, our nation could engage in a real dialogue about when and how to enter into armed conflict and when and how to disengage.

Moon still shines.

Forgotten in the current controversies swirling around the Reverends Jeremiah Wright, John Hagee, and Rod Parsley is the Reverend Sun Myung Moon. You remember the Reverend Moon, don't you? Founder of the Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity, (whose followers are popularly, but not respectfully, known as "Moonies"), publisher of the Washington Times, owner of many fishing fleets and arms manufacturers, and very, very wealthy man, Moon has been an active, but behind the scenes player in politics - primarily conservative politics.

Moon's original purpose was to correct the errors of Christianity. He was called by God to complete the mission that Jesus should have completed but failed to do so. As such, he has been a controversial figure in the world of religions for many decades. Moon would host seminars in exotic locations led by world-renowned scholars and invite students and ministers to the event. According to critics, he sought legitimacy in this way.

I will have to confess that, in the 1980's, I received an invitation to a Unification seminar in Washington D.C. I did not accept. I have often regretted not going and having someone pay for my way to D.C.

Moon has made many controversial statements in his speeches and sermons. For example, he has stated that America has become the kingdom of Satan. He believes that people who oppose his movement will die.

There is a lot more that can be said about the Reverend Moon, but only other theologically minded folks would be interested. (As if anyone is interested in any of this at all.) But, I started thinking, how close to a particular campaign does one have to be to be an issue? Obviously, Reverend Moon has not made any widely reported recent speeches, but he still holds some views that are at odds with the typical American. Should any candidate who receives money from him be interrogated to the extent that Barack Obama is about Reverend Wright? Or, should reporters, and the American people, ignore the connection?

What do you think? Should Moon be allowed to shine without interference?

Looking Back to Easter

Arguably, Easter is the single most significant day for the Christian Church. Also arguably, the story of Easter - that of the resurrection from the dead of Jesus of Nazareth - is the single most disputed story by critics of the church.

For example, John Shelby Spong, the former bishop, has written: "I do not believe that the deceased body of Jesus was resuscitated physically on the third day and was restored to the life of this world as, at least, the later gospels assert, but I do believe that in him and through him people found a way into that which is eternal and so they portrayed him as breaking through and transcending the limits of death."

And from the atheist revolution blogspot, "How narcissistic must one be to imagine an all-powerful god who cares for them? This whole business of souls, resurrection, and heaven is so obviously about wish-fulfillment and self-delusion that it should be mocked. And what of salvation, redemption, and forgiveness? Surely these notions are little more than a rationalization for flawed morality. These believers maintain beliefs which make them feel good without regard to whether such beliefs have any basis in reality."

To put these positions in perspective, here is something from Tom Wright (N. T. Wright), who is the current Bishop of Durham in England. Wright has written one of the latest heavyweight books on the the whole notion of resurrection. In an interview with BeliefNet, Wright said, "The resurrection does that. You cannot fit the resurrection of Jesus into pre-existent worldviews, Jewish, Christian, pagan, whatever. You need to develop the genuine Christian worldview, which says, “Put this in the middle, and you’ll see everything else clearly.” You can’t prove it by saying, “Two plus two equals four. Here are five arguments, therefore you have to believe the resurrection.” That’s inviting people to put the resurrection into the worldview they’ve already got. Instead, the resurrection needs to challenge the worldview they’ve already got and say, “It meshes with that but it challenges it, and you’d be much, much better to have a bigger worldview that would include it.” "

Which of these speaks to your understanding of Easter? How do approach the story of the resurrection?

Investigating Religion

Personal Note: When I started this endeavor last year, I wondered whether I would find enough material to post on a regular basis. I briefly contemplated making this a world-wide electronic diary, but I am too private a person to share all aspects of my life in that way. Instead, I chose to focus on things religious because of the power of religion in the lives of people and in the affairs of the world. I have been amazed by how many stories and reports dealing with religion are written.
***********************************
As an example, in The Economist is an article about a multi-year multi-million dollar research project into the reasons why religion exists. The article, entitled Where Angels No Longer Fear To Tread, can be found at http://www.economist.com/science/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=10875666.

What is the research intended to discover? According to the article: "The experiments it will sponsor are designed to look at the mental mechanisms needed to represent an omniscient deity, whether (and how) belief in such a 'surveillance-camera' God might improve reproductive success to an individual's Darwinian advantage, and whether religion enhances a person's reputation—for instance, do people think that those who believe in God are more trustworthy than those who do not? The researchers will also seek to establish whether different religions foster different levels of co-operation, for what reasons, and whether such co-operation brings collective benefits, both to the religious community and to those outside it."

I am not at all surprised that someone has funded such research. The modern tendency is to try to find the origins and explanations for all human responses. I would suspect that there will be some results, but that there will also be a decided limitation in the research. How can PET scans or ethical tests explain all there is to the religious endeavor?

A likely analogy is the research into love. The feeling of "falling in love" has been "proven" to be caused by the production of various neuro-chemicals, such as serotonin, which is related to feelings of intense pleasure, like that of a drug high, in the brains of the couple. The research, though, is a little shaky in determining whether the "feeling of love" came as a result of the brain chemicals or produced them. Further, this kind of research does not explain how and why couples stay married for 30, 40, or 50 years if the initial attraction is only due to brain chemicals with a short-lived effect.

It will be interesting to see what this research study will produce. I cannot wait to read the on-going reports from the research teams. I really will be eager to read how various groups - from the stridently religious to the stridently atheistic - react to it all. Stay tuned, folks.

The human being is a fascinating creature.