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!
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
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.
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.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
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....
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....
Thursday, February 17, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)