Right from Wrong

In Francis Collins book, The Language of God, one of the underlying supports for his work is that we all are created with a Moral Law - and understanding of right and wrong.  This is a theory that C.S. Lewis discusses in Mere Christianity, the book that led Collins to this theory.

Later in the book, Collins discusses four ethical principles that T.L. Beauchamp and J. F Childress argue undergird much of bioethics, and are "common to virtually all cultures and societies."  They are:

• Respect for autonomy - people should have freedom for person decision making
• Justice - requirement for fair, moral and impartial treatment of everyone
• Beneficence - treat others in their best interest
• Nonmaleficense - do no harm

As I read about the innate moral law and these ethical principles, I started thinking about how we treat each other in society.

We believe that the moral law and ethical principles are part of everyone's creation because of God, but the presence of them, and our adherence to them, isn't dependent on faith - it's part of who we are. 

For me, as I see how we fight each other (thinking about politics), and how we judge each other (thinking about politics), I react in disbelief. This is not how we were created; this is not how we are to live. We know this, and yet we do it anyway.

This is why I believe character matters in an election. This is why I an disgusted with congress. I see a lack of honor and a lack of ethics. It's not that some politicians aren't behaving as I think they should, but that they are ignoring the moral law that makes us human. We all do that, but we don't all do it in such consistent "me first" actions.

They need to do much better.

 

Church and Politics

What is the best relationship between social/political activism and Christian faith?  List some positive and negative ways the church has sought to influence society.  What distinguishes the positive and negative efforts?

 

I have heard many times in West Virginia that the church should stay out of politics.  I’ve heard it from politicians and from members of the congregation. I think – and I may think this because I am United Methodist – that the church belongs in politics. It’s a dangerous balance, but we need to find a way to do it that brings glory to God (and not harm to people).

 

Who could really argue that the church should not have been involved in halting slavery or bringing safer working conditions to children or to coal miners in West Virginia? Shouldn’t the church work to end racism, gender discrimination, and exclusion? They were and are political stands, to be sure, but they were made at God’s calling. 

 

The truth is that we will not agree on what stand the church should take. The danger arises when we see each other as objects rather than people, and we fail to work together for mutual discernment. The other danger, I think, is when Christian nationalism comes into play, and the values of patriotism and self-centered nationalism become our guiding forces instead of God’s leading.

 

On losing

On the way into work today, I listened to quotes from presidential candidates as they conceded that they had lost the election.  The following list isn't from what I listened to this morning - I can't find that - but are quotes from concession speeches:

• Tonight we rejoice in our democracy, we rejoice in the freedom of a wonderful people and we accept their verdict (Walter Mondale).
• I want the country to know that our entire administration will work closely with his team to insure the smooth transition of power (George H. W. Bush).
• I say to president-elect Bush that what remains a partisan rancor must now be put aside and may God bless his stewardship of this country (Al Gore).
• His success alone commands my respect for his ability and perseverance, but that he managed to do so by inspiring the hopes of so many millions of Americans (John McCain).
• Our leaders have to reach across the aisle to do the people's work, and we citizens also have to rise to the occasion (Mitt Romney).
• Senator Jones has just informed me that the returns indicate your election, and I hasten to extend my congratulations. We have summitted the issue to the American people and their will is Law (telegram from William Jennings Bryan, 1896).
• I have great faith that our people, Republicans, Democrats alike, will unite behind our next president (Richard Nixon).
• Our constitutional democracy enshrines the peaceful transfer of power.  We don't just respect that. We cherish it.  (Hillary Clinton).
• I have a deep appreciation of the system, however, that lets people make a free choice about who will lead them for the next four years (Jimmy Carter).

I could go on and on.  I find these speeches to be inspiring and some of the most patriotic statements about who we are as a country and how we function.  Go to google and search for presidential consession speeches.  I think you too will find inspiration.  Just reading John McCain's speech almost made me cry. These speeches are a celebration of democracy, given as gifts during a time of deep personal loss.  They are courageous statements during times of grief for the speaker.

How do we, individually, handle losing?  I'm writing this on election day, and while I do not know what will happen, I know that some of us will be happy, and others will not be.  

Bob Dole, in his concession speech, said of President Clinton, "he was my opponent and not my enemy."  How will we treat each other after the results of the election are known (whether it be tonight, or days into the future)?  Will we rise up to who we are meant to be?  Keep fighting for what we believe is right, but not fighting against each other, as if we are enemies?  Will we be Christians, sharing the love of Christ with everyone? 

These speeches are moments of unselfishness.  A concession speech is not required.  It is a decision made by the losing candidate to put the welfare and higher ideals of the country before his or her own desires.  Dare I say, it is a holy moment?

What will your holy moment look like when the results of this race are known?

Voting

In Sunday school a few weeks ago, a member of the class read a quote from John Wesley taken from his journal, dated October 6, 1774:

"I met those of our society who had votes in the ensuing election, and advised them,

1. To vote, without fee or reward, for the person they judged most worthy:
2. To speak no evil of the person they voted against: And,
3. To take care their spirits were not sharpened against those that voted on the other side.

I've been thinking about those words.  Do you find them difficult to put into practice?  When they were read in Sunday school, another member said, "Well, one out of three isn't bad."

We would all agree, I think, that we shouldn't sell our vote, and that we should make a judgement and vote.  But what about the other two?

I admit, I do speak negatively words about the person against whom I vote, and I do probably have sharp words to say about the people who do not vote the way I do.  And yet, I do think there are times when one must stand up and speak against the people and ideas that we believe are wrong, or even evil.  

In a country that is so divided politically, and in a church that is divided by one particular (that we are currently noticing) issue, how do we implement Wesley's advice while still acting and speaking with integrity?

I don't have the answers, and I confess I've not been able to follow Wesley's advice, but I do think we need to see the other person as a person.  Once we change that person into an issue or into an obstacle, and no longer see him or her as a child of God, we lose the ability to act in Christ's healing peace.

Rules for Facebook

From Adam Hamilton's book, Revival:

We have forgotten how to listen, as individuals, as churches, and as a nation.  Liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats, progressives and fundamentalists find it easy to demonize others.  The mark of those early Methodists, and a key elements of personal and corporate revival in the twenty-first century, is a willingness to see the good in others, hold our positions with humility, and treat others with respect.

I enjoy Facebook.  I like catching up on what is going on in friends' lives, I like to see their pictures of their families, I enjoy articles people post, and I like the funny shared stories. For the most part, it is a nice addition to my day. What I don't like are the political posts - or perhaps I should generalize it more to say I don't like the judgmental or arrogant posts.  I don't like the unsubstantiated posts.  For me it seems to be a more widely spread form of gossip at the least, and slander at the most. I don't like the comments people make when they don't have all the information - and don't really want to know the whole story.  I don't like the manipulative political posts, and for the most part, I don't read them.

Many years ago, an author (Stephanie) of one of the blogs I read asked her readers to consider her blog to be her living room.  She asked her readers to ask themselves if they would say what they post in comments to her while sitting in her living room.  Would they say it if their mothers were sitting there, too? The problem with online conversation is that we perceive a distance between us and the reader, but it's a distance that really isn't there. (Please don't think I'm directing any of this to people who comment on my blog - you are all very nice, and very wonderful).  I think we should extend Stephanie's test to a much wider venue (ie, all of social media, and beyond).

I posted the above quote on Facebook a few days ago, and wrote that it should be the personal rules we use when posting and commenting.  Our Christianity - how we love people - doesn't stop when our fingers meet the keyboard.