Thinking Aesthetically

Yes, Yes…. I know it has been a while. And though I am not back by popular demand (ha,ha), I am bursting with thoughts and questions that I feel I should blog about as a means to clarify my own thinking and to ask some questions and see what answers pop up.

Currently I am thinking about the role that images, art, music, play in creating culture and the Christian (esp. Lutheran) necessity to both participate in and maintain a distance from wider culture. And I am not just thinking about a secular/religious split, but more about what it means to take being a Christian seriously in a manner that allows us to both enjoy beautiful things in the world while seeing them as what they are: not expressions of ultimate truth nor true models of how we are to live (as only Christ is such a model).

Basically, if you are thinking that I am hinting at the idea of “aesthetics” then you are on the right track. Thinking about aesthetics led me to do a Ph.D, and I am increasingly realizing that this dimension of our life together is what still is of interest to me.

Today, I just re-looked at “Art in Action,” a classic of aesthetics. Written by Nicholas Wolterstorff, it thoughtfully strives to think about a Christian aesthetic rooted in the Calvinist tradition. Aesthetic here functions as a noun, as it in rule or tool to think about the role, function and use of art.

                                                                                                           

His overarching aim is to critique the post-Kantian idea that art is about contemplation, rather than a wide variety of other uses (economic, moral, religious, etc). Art is universal and is used by people worldwide as an element of a variety of actions, actions that both say something (as in a claim) and effect something (as in informing a viewer). Any understanding of art must be placed within this performance of meaning in order to understand the phenomena of art.

From his Calvinist perspective, he places art as action within a broad theological frame. Specifically, God as creator and redeemer has given humans a vocation: to be responsible (to the degree that sinful humanity can be) to master, order and create a culture and world that befits humanity and God. With responsibility as the push, the pull is the end of human existence: shalom, peace, joy and delight. God as the active redeemer in history calls us to be active agents working for God’s redemption, and art is a part of this bending towards peace.

Art is a material act, meaning it takes creation and masters/orders/recreates it. An artist is thus responsible for aesthetically creating an expressive and fitting piece of art that serves its intended end. In particular, art projects a world, one that calls us attention to the reality of the actual world (at best). Art has an instrumental quality: its success is how well it uses aesthetic dimensions to reveal something. Though abstract, I think what he is saying can be understood as follows: if a painter wants to express sorrow, the aesthetic dimensions (color, tone, form, content, unity, completeness, coherence, etc.) must fit the sorrowful content. And though he thinks aesthetics includes subjective taste, he thinks that these underlying principles of expression/fittingness/mastery are universal. So good art then leads us to experience our world anew.

Theologically, aesthetic action is then a component of God’s redemptive action in the world. As our end is for peace/shalom, art that delights, for instance, is a reflection of this divine work. Further, art goes beyond “high” or “fine art” to include human action broadly understood. Examples he includes are the city and liturgy.

So where does this lead us? We are then free to see how art in action covers a whole range of human activities. And by being free as such, we can participate fully in artistic action and thus God’s redemptive work. The Christian aesthetic that he develops requires that each of us see art as part of our vocation of divinely inscribed responsibility, a recognition that art is part of a wider striving for human wholeness and integrity, and that it is always a limited

activity as only God in Christ is the ultimate truth.

This Christian aesthetic also includes a critique of aesthetics within the Lutheran tradition (which he calls “Protestantism” and really is a critique of Paul Tillich). Tillich views art as expressing a universal inner religious impulse: art asks about “ultimate reality” or an “ultimate concern”. Wolterstorrf is critical of this view as he thinks that the claim that humans have an inner religious impulse is not “irresistible” meaning not a stable enough ground to base an aesthetic. Rather, a theology of humanity’s divinely given vocation/end can best lead to a Christian aesthetic.

Though I basically agree with his aesthetic norms, it is this critique of the Protestant inner impulse that has me ruminating. Couldn’t I also claim that his theological/vocational basis for aesthetics is a matter of faith and thus relativizes his aesthetics more so than this inner impulse idea? Isn’t this view of God more resistible than the idea that humans do have an inner impulse to ask meaning and limit questions? Also, what about “scandalous art,” say of Serrano’s Piss Christ or Cox’s Yo Mama’s Last Supper? Are these elements of vocational responsibility?

Basically, I think the biggest issue that I am wondering about is the practical dimension to his aesthetic (and aesthetics/rules/axioms in general). My church has TV monitors in the sanctuary. They were put up without much congregational input, which led to some later conflicts. It isn’t clear to me how his aesthetic would help us determine whether or not to put up the TV monitors, as they certainly do impact the aesthetics of church and worship.

I guess I am thinking about such really practical aesthetic issues and the difficulty of determining general yet specific enough norms to guide us as we make decisions as communities of faith. Shouldn’t that be the point of aesthetics? How do you see it?

The photo is the Lambertseter Kierke Altar Piece by Tor Lindrupsen (1997).

Faith and Freedom

Yes, I know I haven't blogged in a spell. No real reason other than... life, parenthood, work stuff, bad TV. In any case, we just got back from Holden Village. While there, I taught a week-long series on Christianity and Citizenship. Basically, we asked, thought about, reflected on how our calling as Christians should frame how we think about being a citizen, that our duties to love others and God should prophetically critique our understanding of a constitution, political symbols and taxes. It was a good week, and has me thinking about
better integrating such concerns into my broader agenda.

Yes, I'm not being very specific. And rather than blogging something dense, I thought I'd share the Vesper's Talk I gave during the week. The readings included Galatians 5:13-15, Psalm 49 and "God Bless the USA" by Lee Greenwood.

We are called to freedom, brothers and sisters. Yet we are in bondage to sin and cannot free ourselves.

This is our tensive identity as Christians. And in a country that values the rhetoric of individual freedom more highly than ending poverty and homelessness, injustice and inequality, our calling yet as Christians is to live out this Christian freedom.

And it starts with a simple phrase: I am in bondage to sin and I cannot free myself.

I am in bondage to ideas: that my neighbor’s lives are better and happier than mine; that a larger screen television and a faster computer will make my life more comfortable. I am in bondage to the idea that my needs and rights matter more than the least off in society. I am held hostage by the ideal that political freedom is true freedom, rather than a form of bondage to the tyranny of individualism, to placing individual rights over the common good.

I am in bondage to sin and I cannot free myself.

I am in bondage to my culture, a culture that has partially made me who I am. I am not free to create my own identity. It is a culture that expects God to Bless America, rather than asking America to bless God. It is a culture that is willing to spend over $4 Trillion dollars for regime change and tax cuts for the wealthy, rather than universal health care; that sees social value determined by the size of one’s budget and having the wealth to shape political discourse. It is a culture that values us most highly as consumers rather than lovers, wealth-creators rather than healers, cogs in a machine of economic efficiency rather than images of God. It is a culture that can ask us to die for it, that expects pride in country rather than humbleness before God.

I am in bondage to sin and I cannot free myself.

I am in bondage to my desires. I want things: new golf clubs, a Viking Range, an expensive college education for my daughter, cheap T-shirts. I want security, whether vocational, financial, physical or emotional.  I want things, I want happiness, physical fulfillment and sensual satiation. I want more….

I am in bondage to sin and I cannot free myself.

I am in bondage to my body. If I don’t get eight hours of sleep a night, I get cranky; I get a headache when I miss my morning coffee. My back is hunched and I get neck and back pain. My eyesight is going, and though I don’t want to admit it (especially to my wife), my hearing isn’t what it used to be. One day my body will perish; I will be no more.

What are you in bondage to? For you are called to freedom, brothers and sisters.

Our freedom comes through faith to participate in the free gift that is Jesus the Christ. His self-giving freedom is not a political freedom, nor the idea that I can do what I want because that is what I want. It is not freedom from hurt, from insecurity, from worry and anxiety; but freedom to relate most lovingly to those around you. It is the freedom for a promiscuity of love, not in the erotic sense, but rather as a form of love that sees my freedom to fulfill my calling interwoven with the freedom of all to fulfill their callings. It is the freedom to see and act that when my neighbor is hungry, I am hungry; when my neighbor is homeless, I am homeless; when my neighbor lacks a quality education, I lack an education. For you are called to freedom, brothers and sisters, freedom to serve, to act and to love.

We are in bondage to sin and cannot free ourselves. Thanks be to God.

 

Let Us Rejoice by Reflecting and Repenting

Hmmm. So much to think about when it comes to the death of Osama Bin Laden. Obviously, he is someone who set in motion a great deal of hatred, death and destruction. The events of 9/11 were horrific and tragic. Osama's role in creating and leading Al Qaeda to use violence and death to strive to get the West and the U.S. to stop interfering in the Middle East as well as supporting corrupt, authoritarian regimes (i.e. Saudi Arabia) in order to ensure our access to oil was horrific and ghastly. No one should question whether he should be held accountable for such acts, all as part of the attempt to find some justice for the events of the past ten years.

But there are important dimensions of his death that we as Christians must reflect upon more deeply. For one, the scenes of people dancing in front of the White House, the chanting of "USA, USA" at the Phillies/Mets game once the news got out, the use of "rejoice" repeatedly in discussing people's reaction to the death really seems to miss the reality that he too was a human being, loved by God, living, under law and promise, judgment and grace, (as we Lutherans understand it). Such rejoicing turns us into the crowds in Gaza and Palestine who cheered after 9/11. To rejoice over his death is to ignore that no one is completely evil, completely devoid of being a child of God; Osama was a cruel, angry, wicked man and murderer, but if we really believe that all people are created by God in God's image, then Osama never loses this status. Rather then "rejoicing" as in gleefully finding pleasure in his death, instead we really should reflect and repent about why Osama was such a murderer.

What do I mean here?  First, God doesn't rejoice in death. A Pastor friend of mine used Ezekiel 33:11 to make this point: "The Lord God says, 'I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from their ways and live.'" Osama's death is a death of life; what is tragic is Osama's turning away from the fulfillment and good that God offers. (Obviously, as a Muslim, Osama has a different understanding of such things; but my point is our response to his death as Christians.) And this turning away is its own tragedy, one that clearly had a great deal of horrific and violent consequences, but one that has been repeated in human history (Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, etc).

To further this point, Augustine said that there was no evil, or at least evil is a thing or material reality. Instead, evil is the act of turning away from the good, which is God. It is like walking away from the light until you have no sense of up/down and right/wrong. Evil is darkness, emptiness, a turning away rather than any substance or make-up within one's nature. And I think this idea, that Osama is a child of God, but one who turned away from good/God should give us pause, both to reflect about why such turning happens and repent about our complicity in some aspects of this turning away.

We should reflect and repent on how the society we live in played a part in shaping the society and Islamic theology that helped Osama become Osama. Just like historians look at the Treaty of Versailles as part of shaping Hitler's worldview, how did the society we participate in (including oil dependence, creating the "Middle East" and supporting the corrupt, repressive Saud family) shape his worldview? The very term "Middle East" implies a standpoint, as it is middle and east of some place and historically that place is the West, including the US. We are the center; the Middle East is on the margins.

These questions demand a lot of us, and there are no clear, simple links. But such reflection should help us to realize that we too fall short of truly being children of God, truly striving to enact neighbor love and helping others flourish. We see the Middle East as a means to secure a reliable source of oil at any cost; if we truly cared about human rights and freedom, we would have embargoed Saudi Arabia (where Osama is from) years ago just because of how they treat women.

Again, I am not suggesting that Osama didn't deserve justice for the heinous acts of 9/11; but even so, we should take no pleasure in any death for neither does our God.

 

The Biible and Net Neutrality

Yes, the title might seem like a non sequitur. As far as I know, the Bible is rather ambiguous about the internet and lacks any prophetic utterances about whether Craigslist, Facebook or Amazon are "Christian sites." The deeper issue, broadly understood as the use, critique and affirmation of technology within Christian life, is a real issue though, especially considering how common internet "fellowship" (e.g. Facebook) is becoming. So I don't mean to trivialize it, but suggest instead that we need to mine the resources of the Bible and the Christian tradition in order to think about how to use such technology. But I can suggest one example of how not to use the Bible in relationship to the internet.

Before delving into the substance of my argument, a quick definition to make sure that we are all on the same page: Net Neutrality. Huh? Well, as far as I understand it (so correct me if I am wrong), this idea is about legally obligating internet providers to ensure that all content is equal in terms of the right to use the internet. Example: if you imagine the internet as a highway, and this blog is a moped and Amazon is a semi-truck, Qwest, my internet provider, has to ensure that there is equal regard for both my moped and the semi-truck. Well, Congress, specifically several Republicans, are debating with the FCC over who has the right to regulate the internet and this net neutrality regulation, which the FCC has approved as a regulative principle. The issue is that internet providers--like Verizon--want to make more money off the internet. In their view, if the highway is filled with semi-trucks that have to pay lots of money to use the net, rather than mopeds that don't, then Verizon can make more money. So they want to end net neutrality because they want more paying trucks on the highway. Make sense?

So what does this have to do with the Bible? Well, a leading conservative Christian, Dave Barton, makes the claim that the Bible is opposed to net neutrality because it isn't just as it promotes the radical redistribution of income, and is thus a form of the wickedness that is socialism. In his radio show on Tuesday, he said:  "But we talk about it today because it is a principle of free market. That’s a Biblical principle, that’s a historical principle, we have all these quotes from Ben Franklin, and Jefferson and Washington and others on free market and how important that is to maintain. That is part of the reason we have prosperity. This is what the Pilgrims brought in, the Puritans brought in, this is free market mentality. Net Neutrality sounds really good, but it is socialism on the Internet." (Ironically, this puts him in opposition to the National Religious Broadcasters and the Christian Coalition.)

In order to muddy his water a bit, I'll just use the Bible (Acts 4:31-36, NRSV): 31 When they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God with boldness. 32 Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. 33 With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. 34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. 35 They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.

Hmmm, the Bible is a free market guide that exposes the wickedness of socialism? Maybe it doesn't affirm the non-theistic, Marxist form of Socialism based on value being derived from making a product, but these passages (i.e. no private ownership) certainly affirm a sense that all property is social property, rather than individual property (which is also counter John Locke's use of Genesis).

I'd be glad to hear more from Mr. Barton about a biblical affirmation of the free market in order to better have a debate about the Bible and economics. Do you think he'd be up for it? I would.... We need it to ensure that Christianity and capitalism are not synonymous, but that Jesus' call to feed the hungry and bring news to the poor centers our ethical lives and moves us all towards the full life that God calls us to each day.

For more on Mr. Barton: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/barton-bible-opposes-net-neutrality

Imagining our Neighbor

Much of the political wrangling this past week has been over competing budget proposals, one by the GOP (led by Paul Ryan) and one proposed by Obama. I'm not going to summarize them too much, as you can find details all over the internet, though the GOP cuts the budget deficit by $4.4 trillion over 10 years by cutting taxes and programs (inc. Medicare) while the Obama plan cuts it by $4 trillion over 12 years (by cutting some funding but also increasing taxes on the most affluent). Having competing visions over the role of government and the common good (hopefully) will make the political debate over which vision is better substantive and interesting.

I'd like to think about both in relationship to the idea of imagination. For some of my research as an ethicist, I've been looking at and thinking about the role that the imagination plays in ethical deliberation and action. Being a Protestant, my tradition is somewhat ambivalent about the imagination's fantastical ability to think about nearly anything (ex. Calvin thinks it creates idols, Luther was more concerned about the heart). Folks like Kant and Hegel described how the imagination was active in producing new, creative and free ideas and possibilities for human action. I am looking at the imagination as helping us think both about what each of us should be (i.e. to "imagine" oneself as striving to enact Christ-like love) but also as a means to become empathetic (i.e. to "imagine" what it is like to be in another's shoes). 

Obviously, such imaginative activity is difficult, but if following Christ means to love the neighbor as oneself, it requires us to strive to "imagine" the life that our neighbor lives in order to properly love them. It is to imagine their needs in order to help them find fulfillment. Such an imaginative act requires, to the best that we can, properly seeing the needs of our neighbors: hunger, poverty, lack of opportunities, poor education, hopelessness. 

Yes, our neighbors include the affluent, but to imagine the needs of the affluent is to largely see the lack of an ethical imagination; in other words, it is about an ignorance towards the depths of human misery related to material and social conditions. For example, in October, Limbaugh spouted "There is no equality" because "some people are just born to be slaves" whole others are "self-starters'" meaning that the poor are poor because they choose to be poor. Rush, like many with wealth, has a need to truly see poverty, hunger, hopelessness, to see how many work hard (rather than choose to be lazy) yet struggle. So the imaginative act requires us to see everyone as a neighbor.

There is a danger here too--that we imagine such needs without truly knowing the neighbor. Maybe part of the difficulty of this imaginative act is that we live next to people like us (ex. the poor live in poor neighborhoods, the rich in rich communities), meaning we lack diverse communities that help us see the true depth and diversity of human need. But with this reality,  the Christian imaginative act requires us to find, engage, work with our neighbors throughout the world, in Haiti and in the Hamptons.

So if we think about both budget proposals, which one is more imaginative in this Christian ethical sense? Which one better adheres to this imagining of the needs of the neighbor? Granted, neither of the options are "perfect," but which one better sees the true material, social and imaginative needs of the neighbor, both poor and wealthy? 

On the one hand, the Ryan plan's imaginative vision states: "More important, it is based on a fundamentally different vision from the one now prevailing in Washington. It focuses government on its proper role; it restrains government spending, and thus limits the size of government itself; it rejuvenates the vibrant market economy that made America the envy of the world; and it restores an American character rooted in individual initiative, entrepreneurship, and opportunity – qualities that make each American’s pursuit of personal destiny a net contribution to the Nation’s common good as well." 

Might the GOP's imaginative vision be about the unique, individual responsibility of each person to create one's own destiny? In the process, by cutting programs (inc. Medicare) and taxes on the affluent to get government out of the way, it is less about imagining the diverse needs of the other and the sociological elements (education, health care, infrastructure) that affect one's destiny, and more about seeing one's own needs (esp. if you are the affluent) first and foremost. You are the true neighbor, and your imagination is to envision your 'personal destiny.'

On the other hand, Obama's plan states: “But there's always been another thread running through our history -– a belief that we're all connected, and that there are some things we can only do together, as a nation. We believe, in the words of our first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, that through government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves. Part of this American belief that we're all connected also expresses itself in a conviction that each one of us deserves some basic measure of security and dignity. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, hard times or bad luck, a crippling illness or a layoff may strike any one of us. "There but for the grace of God go I," we say to ourselves." 

Here the imaginative activity is directed at seeing the common needs of all humans, and every one is a neighbor, affected by the shape of our wider community.

Shouldn't we strive to use our imagination in a Christian sense? Aren't we all neighbors?

Limbaugh's comments are here: http://www.projectthevalues.net/mmtv/201010080031

To Clone or Not To Clone

There was an article in today's Minneapolis StarTribune entitled "Stakes are High in New Debate Over
Cloning." Basically, the GOP in Minnesota is proposing a bill that would ban "human cloning." I put the phrase in quotes because, like many of the terms and concepts that we use (dignity, freedom, right), there is no one clear, univocal idea behind it. The article describes how the law is unclear if human cloning means a complete human person or merely cloning a human cell. If it is the latter, certain types of research, such as stem-cell and therapeutic cloning, both of which can use cells from embryos in the attempt to figure our how to "fix" cells in a patient, might be restricted then as well.

The article's main thrust is largely economic, as it basically looks at what might happen to bio-tech research and engineering in Minnesota if the law passes. Ultimately, the slant largely asks a reader to think about the employment and economic development issues at stake. I am always disappointed that the deeper questions, such as what makes a human human and what are the values behind research into cloning, don't really play a part in such a conversation. So much of our political rhetoric is economically framed. Sometimes I think the new priests are economists, with ideas such as efficiency, confidence and productivity being the true doctrines that frame our culture.

I may be biting off more than I can chew, but:

I want to step back a bit and try and think through the cloning issue within a different frame, one that thinks about value as being grounded in the Christian God. The issue of human cloning at one level is an easy issue. God creates life, meaning the idea or attempt at cloning a complete human is irresponsible, ignoring the created and dependent nature of humans as a whole, spiritual and physical, and unique creature.

The hard part comes when faced with the nitty-gritty about cells, rather than a whole organism. It is thinking about the good that such cloning after years of research, may do to a diabetic or a sufferer from Parkinson's disease. Is it "right" to use stem cells from aborted or discarded embryos for such a greater good? This question is a hard one, no matter what one's moral commitments. On the one hand, being Christian includes a command that one love the neighbor as oneself. But who is the neighbor? Is it the diabetic in front of you? The embryo? Clearly, at some level, both are. On the other hand, this command asks not about consequences. To love the neighbor does not ask you to rationally calculate whether some option will bring about the greatest good in the world (a main tenet of Utilitarianism). Instead, it demands action, it demands that you address the needs of the person that you see as best you can, not knowing or focusing on anticipated outcomes in the process.

One key element in my own thinking about this issue has to do with the potential for and the actuality of life. There is a long tradition in the West, prominent in Aristotle's thought, that makes this distinction. Consequently, to think about cloning also asks about who has the highest actuality of life? This question relates well to Jesus' statement in John's Gospel (10:10) that he has come to bring the fullness of life. In short, connecting actuality of life with fullness suggests that God has called us to gracefully work to help everyone attain a fullness of life. So a further dilemma becomes thinking about what fullness is and how it relates to the potential and actuality of life.

So how might we tie the love of neighbor with fullness of life with potential and actuality?  I suggest that such a line of reasoning is best centered on linking fullness with actuality for what is actual is concrete, it is who we see in our daily life, it is our neighbor. For example, if a loved one suffers from a debilitating disease, we see them lacking the actual fullness of life. We see them suffer. And if human creativity can help partially bring about God's gift of fullness through such research, then we play a part in linking fullness with the actuality of life. And as such, a discarded embryo, say one that was aborted because it had a major genetic defect, had a potential for life that was lacking. To use it as a means to bring about fullness and actuality is to transform this lack of potential into an expression of loving the neighbor.

And notice what I am not trying to defend abortion in this post, which is maybe a little disingenuous but abortion deserves its own post, but instead how we prioritize our love by thinking about potential and actuality of life and how we can use some of the building blocks that are largely potential life to help those with the actuality of life.

Obviously, one concern on the part of Pro-Lifers is that such research might encourage the destruction of embryos. It is to see such use as objectifying life, using it as a means to an end, whereas all life is in itself an end. This argument is compelling in many ways. But it also ignores the fact that unfortunately, tragically, all life does not have the same potential for fullness and actuality. I still remember the day when our doctor asked us whether we wanted to have our fetus genetically tested. Knowing what types of genetic cracks and rips is then supposed to help a parent think about the potential for life of the fetus. With this testing, which raises a whole other can of ethical worms, we were asked to think about the type of life that our child would be genetically pre-disposed to, knowing that there are many horrific, terrible diseases that can kill a baby. So as a result, there will be terminated pregnancies, there will be embryos that will be discarded, that lack much potential for life. And yes, this view raises many more issues (such as possibility of cures for the disorder or ignoring the giftedness of all life), but life is tragic, not all life is genetically created equal. And yes, we must be careful with this view, making sure throughout that we respect life, both its potential and its actuality, while admitting this tragic dimension.

And in the end, because we live in a politically liberal society (and thus not a theocracy) that values the freedom of religion, we can never compel someone to become religious. We can never force someone to accept a particular value system. Women have a right thus to decide what to do with their bodies, hopefully a choice that they will make in consultation with families, friends and conscience. And we as Christians must love and support them, drawing on God's grace no matter our opinion about whether such an act is right or wrong to show them God's love. Abortion is and has always been (e.g. St. John's Wort) a part of the world we live in and to believe that outlawing abortion will end abortion is a chimera, just as much as world peace. Instead, we need to best think about how God calls us to fullness of life, to think about how to love our actual neighbor.

Here's the link: http://www.startribune.com/politics/local/118887039.html

Super-Rich.... and Less Than Happy

Amidst all of the rancor between the various constituencies in this country, the chaotic, scary, sad mess in Japan, and the continuing confusion in the Middle East, today's post is about the ethical complications of an article I read in The Atlantic, one that raises questions about wealth, desire, love, hopes, goals and the good life. Entitled "Secret Fears of the Super Rich," it describes a sociological research center at Boston College that sent questionnaires to people with over $25 Million dollars asking them about their fears, hopes, worries and goals. As I have clear populist leanings, and can't imagine what $25 Million dollars looks like, nonetheless what to spend it on, I was somewhat reluctant in reading it. And I was rather shocked to find that it got me thinking about some underlying cultural assumptions about wealth and value.

Using the responses from around 165 households, the article describes how such wealthy folk are generally more dissatisfied than satisfied overall. Why?
--Idle Hands make Idle Minds: They worry about work, not because they need to, but because work is one of the major measures and instillers of value. And because they don't have to work, they struggle with a sense of societal purpose and meaning.
--Keep Up With the Joneses: They don't consider themselves financially secure. Because of the circles many of them run in, there is always someone with more wealth that sets a higher bar for financial security.
--The Grass is always Greener: They worry about social acceptance. Their fear is that if others knew that they were wealthy, they will be a social pariah. 
--Worry Warts: They worry about their children, especially about making sure that their kids use any wealth responsibly. Many aren't sure how to transfer wealth to later generations without turning them into wealthy brats or cause them to become resentful by setting goals they have to achieve (college, job, etc.) before the money is doled out.
--Give the Shirt Off Your Back: Many of them are happiest when they give their money away through a foundation.

Lots of cliches about money, eh? So what's my point in all of this blather about an experience that most of us can't even comprehend? Well, in a world that largely suggests success has to do with financial security, having "things" and social status, the info from such a study is a good reminder that being wealthy is not the route to happiness. Establishing wealth and material security as one's highest goal is rather misguided, and the inner workings and worries of the human soul seems to recognize that our true calling is not for wealth or the world, but for something else. One can never have enough money, or things, as there is always something "new and improved" or "updated." There is always more that we "need."

As a Christian, I try/struggle/desire to use the resources of this tradition, and in particular Christ and God, as the means to make sense of my true aim: to love God and the neighbor. So as much as I worry about money and financial security (and I do a lot), it is helpful to have reminders that one can never have enough wealth to truly find peace. Peace comes not from things we buy, but from our relationships, from our experiences, from those around us, from the intangibles. And the peace God reveals to us, albeit imperfectly, at least gives us a sense that one's heart gets involved in what one desires, meaning we should desire what can't be objectified, simplified, purchased or improved.

And as much as I don't like to admit it, Donald Trump and Rush Limbaugh are my neighbor, even if I think that they are misguidedly striving for a life that ultimately is less fulfilling, satisfying and holy than the life that is directed towards God. I certainly am not trying to excuse or justify such behavior or lifestyles, but to suggest that God is our ground and end, making us responsible for others, allowing us to see that things aren't our true end.

Augustine was right thousands of years ago when he made a distinction between using things in the world to enjoy God or merely enjoying things in the world. Even the awareness by the Super-Rich that they felt most connected and satisfied in giving money away suggests that money isn't something that can be enjoyed, but is best used for something greater, to help others, to shape a community, to form relationships. If only those who have could find the means to look behind their insecurity to see that it isn't through money that security is found.

Maybe it is really all about "Your Money or Your Life"....

From: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/04/secret-fears-of-the-super-rich/8419

New Humanism as Retro Theology?

Earlier this week, David Brooks wrote a column in the NY Times arguing that it is time to rethink our contemporary conception of human nature. (Here's the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/opinion/08brooks.html?src=me&ref=homepage). He thinks that we, with the "we" being the US I suppose, are overly reliant on a rational account of human nature, one that separates thinking from the emotions. I'd sum it up using Plato: Plato believed that knowing the good leads to doing the good. Our emotions need to be ignored, given over to knowledge, as truth has the power to move the rational part of our soul towards enacting truth. For Brooks, this assumption shapes our view about education, the role of the media, the power of advertisements and institutions like Consumer Reports. They give us rational facts that we rationally comprehend and use to make informed choices in the world. Well, Brooks rightly is criticizing this rational approach, saying it led to Wall Street debacle and a number of foreign policy messes.

He aims to use the research of a variety of social and hard sciences to suggest a much deeper link between thinking and the emotions that will help reform our conception of human nature. For this goal, I am thankful, as I do think that we are too overly reliant on trusting people like economists and policy gurus to rationally explain why we should follow a certain course of action. From Tea Party folk to Union Leaders, the trust in human thinking to address contemporary problems (budget deficits, collective bargaining rights) makes it seem that objectivity and certainty is possible. He also goes back to the Scottish Enlightenment as a means to find a link between reason and the emotions, and includes terms like sympathy, metis (to see patterns in the world) and limerence (a hunger for transcending time/world/things). Doesn't limerence just sound cool and fun to say, like it belongs in a poem or song?

I want to go further back though to two foundational Christian assumptions, two that many of us don't like to talk about: sin and love. A major element in Christianity, especially post-Augustine (4-5th CE), is the idea that we are trapped in a nature that fundamentally loves itself more than God and others. Self-love shapes our thinking and actions in the world, such that our thoughts are related to our aims, goals, hopes and desires. We are biased for our own idea of the good, successes, aims, advantages. So with this view, any "rational" choice is intertwined with emotion, with our desires and hopes. I do think one element of the genius of Christianity is that sin is a powerfully descriptive term about human nature, one that should make us cautious about certainty, confidence and the power of our knowledge.

So I would like to remind Mr. Brooks that there are traditions that do see the intertwining of reason and emotions. Christian loved-grounded-thinking does not mean we can't use reason to make sense of things in the world, just that we will never be objective or truly empathetic towards others in a way that will make for equality and the common good. True peace and community comes in relationship to God and from God. We need to properly see ourselves as limited, thereby opening ourselves up to working communally to address the problems we face. And it is through communal action that our self-love can be mitigated, limited and our thinking made "better." And it is through a faith tradition like Christianity that we receive a truer sense of being human, both what we are and what we should be. As we Christians begin the fast of Lent, may we use it to remind ourselves of the limits to our thinking.

Commonwealth.... Time to Reprise?

So what unites us as a nation? Obviously, there is no "one" thing, but my point in raising the question is to think about how we as people of faith think about the key values that we hold dear and believe connect us as a people. Politically, our current political debate seems to focus on the value of the free individual over any common wealth or success. Either one has successfully been an individual (and deserves the wealth and status that he/she made) or has failed, and thus deserves to be poor. I think this individualism is one of the most divisive myths within the American worldview, as it pervades so much of our debate.

And it is this individual focus that needs to be reassessed as we debate cutting education, job programs and health care. I think we should develop a more robust idea of Commonwealth, a term that has its English etymological roots in the idea of "common well-being" (wealth = well-being). What happened to "United We Stand"? Can't we unite to fight hunger, poverty and poor education?

Within our context, where religion and faith divide, rather than unite, the Christian tradition offers an ambiguous resource for political thinking. But there are several important thinkers that might help us reframe the political debate. In particular, I am thinking of Augustine. In City of God, he connects commonwealth with peoplehood: "A people is an assemblage of reasonable beings bound together by a common agreement as to the objects of their love, then, in order to discover the character of any people, we have only to observe what they love. Yet whatever it loves, if only it is an assemblage of reasonable beings and not of beasts, and is bound together by an agreement as to the objects of love, it is reasonably called a people; and it will be a superior people in proportion as it is bound together by higher interests, inferior in proportion as it is bound together by lower. According to this definition of ours, the Roman people is a people, and its weal is without doubt a commonwealth or republic."(19.24)

He believes that a true commonwealth is united under the rule of Christ. As we are modern political liberals, valuing freedom of religion, this view is untenable, as giving each person religious freedom (as a formal right) is an important part of our social contract. But a lovely question to think about is: what do we love? Is our love of individual rights greater than our love of helping others? Shouldn't we as Christians be united in our love of God and love of neighbor such that our actions are focused on common well-being?

And with this line of reasoning, I think that underneath the right of the individual over the community as a whole is the more pervasive mythos is the belief that each individual can "create" something from nothing; that we don't need any help/luck in becoming a wealthy, successful individual. In short, that the teachers, family of origin, community, class and race that form the life that we are thrown into (quoting Heidegger) don't play a part in shaping who we become. To accept the premise that our common life impacts each of us as an individual makes a commonwealth much more important. We should be united in common for the well being of all.

Wealth Inequality: Where is?

My 18 month old daughter loves to ask "Where is?" She really doesn't have a handle yet connecting her questions with nouns (book, crayon). I think that like her, many Christians today largely ignore or feel powerless in relation to the nouns "Wealth Equality." Any quick perusal of the news today will include stories about budget deficits, the need for tax cuts, pension reforms, ending collective bargaining for public unions and budget cuts to education, health and social services such as Planned Parenthood and Head Start. Yes, let's not ask the wealthy to pay more so that our children can be healthy and well-educated so that our nation can continue to prosper. Yes, let's not cut or means-test entitlements, even though they currently eat up 43% of the US budget (Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security in 2010). And yes, let's continue to spend 20% of the budget on "defense," a word that really should be called "offense."

But the real point of this blog post is to think about the underlying issues of wealth and income that lie underneath such budget battles. America is a fabulously wealthy country and the vast majority of us do not have to deal with issues like homelessness and hunger (even as both have been increasing over the past few years). America certainly has enough wealth to end such issues forever and it is an embarrassment that our public debate does not make ending such inequalities a priority (rather than tax cuts).

Instead, income inequality, though different than wealth inequality, seems to be the priority. For example:
--In 1976, the richest 1% of Americans took home 9% of total US income. In 2010, the richest 1%
   took home 24% of income.
--From 1980 to 2005, more than four-fifths of the total increase in American incomes went to the  
   richest 1 percent.
These statistics are from: www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/opinion/07kristof.html

And how do the vast majority Christians respond? Are we protesting in the streets in places other than Madison? Are we using Jesus' words about about the impossibility of loving wealth and loving God (Matt 6:24-5) to argue that being Christian obligates us to focus on loving God through the love of neighbor rather than love of comfort, dollars and things? Are we using the account in the Acts of the Apostles in which the earliest Christians shared possessions amongst themselves and no one was in need (Acts 4:34) to suggest that being a Christian obligates us to care for the needy equally with caring for oneself? Are we willing to give up what we have for others?

Or do we read books like "Jesus, CEO" and "Leadership Lessons of Jesus: A Timeless Model for Today's Leaders" that equate material success with spiritual development, supporting Max Weber's claim in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism that we relieve our anxiety about being right with God by "seeing" such rightness in worldly success? Do we support the wealthy in their search for more wealth because they are favored by God?

Where is the outrage? Where are the Christians? Where is?

You and Me and Synthetic Biology

Catchy title, eh? It sort of sounds like an off-broadway play, one across the street from Urinetown. But it is an actual science, something that I am interested in for a variety of reasons. First, I should probably explain what it is, since I think most of us non-scientist types aren't experts in such things. Synthetic biology (synbio) takes existing biological matter (say a cell) and modifies its DNA so that it produces something other than what it naturally produces or it performs a new function. For example, one scientist modified the bacteria E. Coli so that it produces a malaria medication. Obviously synbio can be used then to produce things that benefit humankind, with some proponents looking at creating new sources of energy and cancer cures. But other scientists (notably Freeman Dyson), especially those who trust human thinking, see synbio as enabling us to genetically create our children, or to create new plants as an artistic act and even to clone animals (ala Jurassic Park). Obviously, there are a many fun issues to think about with synbio.

One is the idea of "playing God." This critique is quite common in many Christian circles, and suggests that humans shouldn't modify any biological organism as either creation is as God intended it (and to modify it is then to go against God's intentions) or human suffering is deserved because of sin. I find both ideas problematic. The first denies any element of human freedom and creativity. If our reality is fixed, then nothing we do could alter or change God's divine plan for creation. Our use of human capacities (i.e. to think, to love, to imagine, to create) would already be predetermined, and we would have no part in shaping creation's future for good or ill (which we have, per scientific consensus, through the production of greenhouse gases). I don't believe God would have created us with such gifts (all of which relate to the image of God) if we would have no role in shaping our future. Plus, we create from created material; we aren't God, a being who created something from nothing. We create from creation using the creative gifts God gave us, to at least partially shape our future within the frame that God gave us through the pattern of creation itself. 

The second ignores the very reason for God's redemptive act in Christ. God's promise to creation is revealed in Christ, making God interested and concerned with human suffering. So using our God given gifts allows us to be part of God's act of redemption for creation in Christ.

The question then, at least as I frame it, is how we rightly see and use our gifts, including synbio. On the first part, of seeing, though we can create, our creations are always limited, especially in terms of what they can do. Only God can truly end human suffering and redeem creation, so to expect to end suffering or cure disease is a misguided, idealistic desire. It is to see human capacity as too free and too powerful. Plus, part of human suffering is a spiritual suffering, not just a physical suffering. Yes, there is a relationship between body and spirit, but true peace is rest, as Augustine pointed out, and rest is not possible when life is constant change and movement. Only when one is at rest, does the end of suffering occur.

So then to rightly use synbio is to see it as an aspect of human creativity, but a limited one.  We can use it to better the physical world, to strive to end disease and create alternative food and energy sources. These are noble goals, elements of loving and serving the neighbor. But to see synbio as the solution to our problems (of dis-ease, of want and need, of earthly imperfection), is to deny being finite, changing, a human. Like most technological advances, say nuclear technology, there are positive (reliable energy) and negative elements (terrific destructive power), and synbio is no different. Further, to use synbio to play (i.e. make a world full of dinosaurs) or focus on profit, wealth or honor is also to misuse such human creativity. Our world is messy enough, full of hardships and misery. Using synbio for entertainment is to avoid our obligation to use our gifts for the greater good. I mean, don't we have enough entertainment options already? They are even remaking Superman for the nth time!

Our Islamic Brothers and Sisters

Though I really should be thinking more about the "labor/split the middle class into public workers versus private workers so that the wealthy can divide and conquer/end the right to unionize" battle going on in Wisconsin and Indiana and..., but another issue has been gnawing at me: the events in the Middle East and North Africa.

I'm sure you all know the details. Tunisia starting the ball rolling (maybe I should use "domino" here, what with its deep past as a meme of US foreign policy, e.g. Vietnam) in December after a street vendor (Khaled Saeed) burnt himself to death to protest corruption. Then Egypt, along with Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, and a number of other countries. What strikes me as an interesting issue, especially for those of us who are religious in the West, is how little religious rhetoric has played in these overtly political and socio-economic revolutions. Yes, religious figures were/are involved. In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood issued a call for Mubarak to resign and supported military intervention when the protests turned violent. The Imams from the Al-Azhar Mosque, a leading authority in the Sunni Islam world and the heart of the Sunni community in Egypt, joined the protests as well. Ironically, the Coptic Christian community in Egypt, because of tensions with Islam, asked Christians to stay away from the protests. (I also think it is interesting how the Copts were not really mentioned in any of the news reporting that I came across, even if they represent somewhere between 10-20% of the population. Of course, it is hard to generalize and prognosticate when you make Egypt out to be religiously diverse....)

These events are quite different from the Iranian revolution in which the Shi'a Ayatollah was the leading voice of protest against the Shah, a case that has informed much thinking about Middle Eastern revolution. But in the current mass of revolutions, unlike the Iranian revolution, religion has not been the leading voice for change in these countries. Rather, it is a broader, more amorphic desire amongst a wide variety of people for greater freedoms, greater economic opportunities and an attack upon the ingrained culture of corruption that supports many of these regimes. They also have used technology (esp. Facebook) as the means to coordinate and focus popular anger at the unjust policies of a regime, most notably the lack of freedoms and the authority of a secret police, rather than mosques.

Part of the reason, at least in my view, is that like Christianity, Islam does not have one simple idea of a "true" Islamic state (much to the chagrin I suppose on both counts to Evangelical Christians who think Islam and Christianity both promote theocracies). The Qu'ran itself does not specify a certain form of political state, instead talking about pursuing justice through social cooperation, institutionalizing compassion in social interactions and a nonautocratic method of governance (according to Khaled Abou El Fadl in Islam and the Challenge of Democracy). He also argues that the idea of having an Islamic Caliph, which deliciously delusional Glenn Beck argues was the real point behind the Egyptian uprising, was debated and contested as Islamic reasoning developed, largely over what degree the Caliph was responsible to his people. This view suggests that there are a diversity of opinions about the connection between being a good Muslim and being a good Egyptian or Libyan. And these diverse populations are largely united then by socio-economic and political concerns rather than by one theology or Islamic doctrine or charismatic religious figure.
 
Maybe a helpful further point is for Christians to compare Christian views of faith and citizenship with Islamic ones. Even when overly-simplified, Islam, Christianity and the political have some similarity in the tension and ambiguity they have regarding the proper connection between being a believer and being a good citizen. If anything, Christianity might have less ambiguity, especially if you subscribe to the primacy of the Bible as a political text. In Samuel, God, somewhat reluctantly, agrees to allow for the creation of an anointed (the Hebrew here is Messiah) king. In Romans, Paul tells the Romans that they should obey the ruling authorities as they are ordained by God, thereby suggesting that the Roman Caesar has authority from God. Using Paul in particular, theologians like Luther see government primarily as the means to ensure peace in order to protect the church and its sacramental mission. Catholic thought gives the authority to a variety of political forms as long as these adhere to God's eternal law that directly connects the political with God. So within a diversity of Christian views, there is no one form of nation-state, no one divinely inscribed way to set up the political. And as a result, there is no one way to think about one's duties as a citizen in relationship to one's duties to God,

So how might we who call ourselves Christians see the revolutions in the Middle East? For one, we should recognize these events as full of tensions that are not reducible to simple answers. For example, what will the role of Islam be in a country like Egypt? Well, a similar question we could ask ourselves: What role will Christianity be in a country like the US? Granted, the US is a nation that adheres to the rule of law much more strongly than in a country like Egypt (i.e. corruption). But the point is that these countries, because of media and globalization and their own diversity are beginning a process of reflection and action about what type of political state they want to be. We in the US are further down such a road, yet we are still debating the role of faith in politics. We should hope that they are also able to find ways to do so in a manner that is open, fair and equal for all (which arguably we are losing in states like Wisconsin).

Having spent time in Egypt, Turkey and Morocco, in my experience (obviously limited), these regions are (mostly) full of people concerned with things like having good jobs, keeping their family safe and wondering about being faithful to their God and wanting a more just country. Yes, just like in this country, there will be zealots focused on using the instability to re-focus a nation on holiness and being more like God. But the vast majority are more interested in universal features of human life: relationships, safety, health, opportunity, hope, an end to fear. This brings up a second point: that religion may very well unite many in these countries by providing an ethical worldview that helps people understand these universal concerns. The revolutions are then not about theocracy or the attempt to re-invigorate Islam or create a "jihadist" state (itself a debated term), but attempts to secure such Maslowian actualization, and live a life made meaningful because of its connection to Allah.

And for this reality, we can support our Islamic Brothers and Sisters. May they find just and compassionate ways to live the tension between submitting to Allah and to the political. May they see and hear and read about our support in ways that emboldens constructive dialogue about just and compassionate political solutions for all. May they find ways to create a world that opens up each person to the possibility of developing their capabilities as a child of God. 

Niebuhr Bieber!

Thanks all for the comments. It is a bit strange to do a blog as it seems so one-sided--me and the
computer--rather than relational and conversational. I also realize that the longer the post, and thus
the more complete of an argument, the less likely it will be read. So I am going for broader issues
and themes that will hopefully simulate broader conversations.

On Taxes: 
Some issues that I didn't go into include: The critical role that the church plays in terms of being a community that is critical towards the government, nation-state and the church itself as a human institution (think Bonhoeffer here). This critical edge holds all human creations accountable to the ethics of Jesus, love of neighbor, focused on helping all live abundantly.

The further issue is what is life abundant? In my view, it is not attached to material riches or success, but instead a relationship with others and God that helps everyone find fulfillment, with fulfillment not being a Porsche or 68" TV. Instead, fulfillment relates to developing one's capabilities (ala Martha Nussbaum) and helping others do so as well. Policies and actions that prevent others from having the opportunity to be fulfilled, such as lack of access to health care, education, living in unsafe neighborhoods, the lack of employment opportunities that prevents fulfillment and abundance. It is also a communal idea, for only in a community that strives for the abundance of all can one find abundance.

To Kaethe: So yes, this critical edge means that money used to perpetuate violence around the world is wrongly used. The issue, though, then becomes the use of the military for things like peacekeeping, "just" defense. I am partial to Reinhold Niebuhr's view that human pride and desire for power, both of which are consequences of sin, can never be removed and gets more problematic the larger the institution or community. So there is a need for some role, albeit a minimal role to protect the innocent, maintain peace, clean up after a flood, etc. But certainly not to the extent that the US military has, invading Vietnam, Panama, Iraq for unjust reasons and spending 1/3 of the overall budget on the military.

To Tyler: If I understand your concern, the implication is that you wonder if humans really know whether what they do is God's work. My view is that one never knows absolutely that they are doing God's work, but we do have clues and intuitions that help us think about the good. Kathryn Tanner works with an idea of God as transcendent, meaning we can't know God; but this lack of transcendence doesn't mean our actions in the world should not relate to faith or be limited because we aren't certain about what is good. Instead, humans debate, using reason, tradition, revelation, science, other religious traditions, to work out as a community the good. This conversation has a frame in the sense that it assumes that God and humans work together to help human life flourish, which is a reasonable proposition (since you can't be certain about transcendent norms). I find her argument quite well developed, and think that we need both better debates in this country (that go beyond spin and sound-bites) and actions that focus on helping everyone find fulfillment and live abundantly as God reveals to us through Christ.

To Peter: Ah, the specter of individualism. I find much rhetoric (esp. Tea Party) based on the myth of self-sufficiency: I am self-made, I built my business, I made myself into the wealthy, confident person that I am (i.e. Rand's John Galt). This view ignores the reality that all of us within our context are born, shaped and succeed/fail within a community: schools, health care, jobs, infrastructure, etc. To avoid this fact of cultural situatedness, focusing merely on personal responsibilities, ignores the real gifted nature of our lives. So much of our development and success is a gift, much as Luther argues that being right with God is a gift. To acknowledge this gift is then to see the receiver as responsible to treasure and share the gift with others.


Now on to something different: Niebuhr Bieber!
Bieber has certainly been in the news, dominating the NBA Celebrity All-Star game but also giving a controversial interview to Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/justin-bieber-talks-sex-politics-music-and-puberty-in-new-rolling-stone-cover-story-20110216). In the interview, he talks about sex (only for those who truly love each other), abortion (not acceptable even if raped or after incest), health care (the joy of the Canadian health care system) and how God has a plan for everyone. He's the son of a born-again Christian who posts Bible quotes on her twitter site.

Now, what does this have to do with Niebuhr? Again, he was a Christian Realist, who believed humans could never create the perfect, ideal society as sin, especially pride and the lust for power, are always present. Christians must work within their society to have access to power, including military power, in order to change a culture for a limited "better" (with the "better" based on love of neighbor and equality).

So is Justin Bieber using his power to promote his view of Christian social ethics? Well, yes, though it is unsystematic (an interview here and there) and comes across as impulsive rather than well-thought out. It most likely will change over the next few weeks as he starts to hear feedback to his comments. His PR handlers will handle his comments no doubt!

The intriguing thing about his message, especially about sex, is that his power derives from his ability to use an ambiguous sexuality as the means to use and be used by the media.  I don't pretend to know his sexuality, but his hair is cut in a way that is appealing to both males/females; his face, dance movements, physical size and even voice blends masculine and feminine qualities. This androgyny works well for his pre-teen, teen, tween audience, and has also made him a curiosity to many (including me).

Niebuhr, who stressed the role that power and ambition plan in human decisions, might see Bieber as someone who, though he lacks the ability to really comprehend his power, is benefiting from this power, but not doing so for the "better." He also seems rather prideful, what with his belief that God has a plan for everything (which clearly means that his discovery was a matter of divine concern). Niebuhr, no doubt, would be troubled by his lifestyle and use of sexuality for profit, not love, or God or a more just society.

I am not trying to make Bieber into the Anti-Christ. He's a 16-year old who likes to sing and dance (and does them well), not someone who is clearly focused on thinking critically about what the good life is at this point in his life. (He's unlike someone like Sarah Palin on this front). Ultimately, maybe Bieber should read some Niebuhr? Couldn't he benefit from a deeper awareness of the dimensions of power that he has access to and the need to be critical and mindful of pride and neighbor love as a life abundant (rather than a dance single)? I think so....

Life, Death and Taxes

So what ought Christians do about paying taxes?

In the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew and Luke), Jesus states that one should give to Caesar what is due to Caesar, and to God what is due to God. In the history of Christian exegesis, this split between the political and the spiritual has proved a contentious issue, suggesting that ultimately what is owed to God is more important than what is owed to the political. For example, Augustine's masterpiece "City of God" makes a distinction between the secular and the spiritual. Though Christians are a part of both, being amidst both the political and the spiritual requires properly loving God over all things at all times, even over any temporal commitments (even to one's mother)! In the process, political involvements, although not necessarily in direct conflict with one's relationship to God, are relative, minor and rather unimportant in relationship with God. Of course, the political in Jesus' and Augustine's time was very different than our concept, largely being set up, run by and organized to promote the wealth, success and life of the elites, usually 1-2% of the population.

So what, in this 11th year of the 21th Century, should we do? The modern political state such as the US is based on social contract theory, assuming that we as citizens have made a contract with each other that establishes certain responsibilities and rights for the political. Amongst these rights and responsibilities is the right to raise revenue to support the operations of the government. These responsibilities, specified in very general terms in the US Constitution (ex. regulate commerce in Article 1), have changed over the years, but ultimately have as a foundational idea the general welfare of the nation. Ergo, you see the development of schools, public works, a social safety net as the means to promote this general welfare. Taxes, obviously, are at the root then of these governmental responsibilities.

As Christians, there is then a tension between supporting the government's aim to promote the general welfare and the focus on one's spiritual relationship with God (giving to God what is due to God).
This tension is complex because of the current context, where living abundantly means having access to education, meaningful work, clear water and air, health care and the like. In short, the issue becomes: giving to Caesar now has become a component of giving to God, as the modern political state is supporting God's aims of helping all live abundantly.

The issue of taxes as such--and one's duty to pay them--becomes a matter of supporting government policies that do promote life abundant. Obviously, this idea of life abundance also is fraught with questions (i.e. the role of the military, excessive medical treatments, abortion). Yet, the current debate about taxes in this country does not frame the issue in such ethical terms. Often, it is about not taxing because the wealthy spend more and we need the wealthy to spend to create jobs. Not only is this line of reasoning counter-intuitive (i.e. more money in the hands of more people who HAVE to purchase goods means more jobs as the wealthy don't skimp on things where the lower classes do), but it also misses the wider issue of the good that government does. Our nation-state builds roads to drive to the schools that teach our children and takes us to the hospital to be born and keeps the streets safe for our children and plows the roads when they get snow covered.

Here in Minnesota, we have a $6 Billion deficit and the governor (a Democrat) wants to raise taxes on the highest 5% in order to support education, health care and infrastructure. Seeing that giving to Caesar helps us live out the attempt to help ALL live life abundantly means seeing taxes as part of God's work.

To begin....

The moral arc of the universe bends at the elbow of justice.  Martin Luther King, Jr.

So tonight begins my journey into the world of blogging. It is long overdue. I am a Lutheran, someone well versed in the idea that one component of sin is the tendency to "curve in on oneself," and lose a sense of the importance of striving for worldly justice, of being for others, of trips to homeless shelters and food banks. I am an academic, and I often function the best with a book and time to muse over its ideals and concepts. Making meaningful and clear connections to issues in the world--things like hunger, environmental destruction, consumerism, economic injustice, all kinds of violence, sexism and racism--are important.  I see this blog as allowing me to put the theories and faith that rattle around in my head to a more practical use.

I'd like to believe that Martin was right, that the universe does have a moral arc. But I'm not always so sure....

These musings are also an invitation to conversation. So what do you think?