A Comforting Confirmation (Yesterday's Blog Continued)

The Headliner

The Festival Fireworks Finale

So often, God seems to give us the encouragement we need- and after spending so much time thinking about my trip to the Municipal Court recounted in my last post, I needed encouragement.  Tonight was the last night of the Lancaster Festival (our 25th!)  It was a great show, preceeded by a great meal.  The Festival is and was after a fashon a celebration of those values and institutions which seemed so ignored and undervalued in the municipal court.  It was good to look around and realize that there are many who believe in our Republic and the economic and political system which supports it.  It is good to know that I am not alone.

But the issue remains that many people do not believe that they have a stake in the system.  They lack what President Obama calls "skin in the game."   What can the church do to change the situation of those who feel alienation from this magnificent experiment which has worked so well for so many?  Perhaps a better way to phrase the question is to ask, "What can our culture do to give people a genuine stake in preserving an expansive status quo which will grow with the realities of the present without jettisoning the values of the past?"  Could it be a good first step is to acknowledge that it may not be the job of the church at all?  In the past, religious people of many faiths seem to have approached the question in several ways.  One was to worship the state.  Another was to take the Erastian path and subordinate religion to the state.  A third was to drop out of the state.  A fourth, very popular today,  was to adopt a rather hypocritical call for justice which employs all of the vocabulary of revolution while relying on the status quo for financial support and enjoying all of the solcial and economic benefits of the system the religious claim to decry.  Undoubtedly there have been others.  Perhaps religious folks ought to be encouraged to apply their faith to their public and social ethics as they enter into the political process according to the dictates of their individual consciences,  and stop pretending that a particular political fix is God's will for all people.  When  a denomination or a faith group endorses a party or the agenda of a party, they become so aligned with the same that they are bound to be discredited when that party or agenda fades from popular view or falls from popular acclaim, which it most certainly will.  A better way might be an individual approach which calls on people of faith to apply their beliefs individually within differing political parties, recognizing that good people will often differ in their outlook.

A necessary correllary of this option must acknowledge that in political discourse there must be winners and losers.  Everyone cannot feel good all of the time, and everyone does not get a trophy.  I am a capitalist, and the economic system I support cannot reasonably coexist with a communist system.  Either the government controls the means of production or it does not.  There is no middle ground.  I am a libertarian.  Either there is a significant effort to protect personal liberty, even at great risk to security, or there is uniformity in the name of security at the risk of liberty.  You can't have it both ways.  I am a supporter of a constitutional bicameral republic which limits government and shys away from direct and instantly responsive democracy while giving the populace some voice through the lower house of the legislature.  I would add to that description that I am a constitutional monarchist because of the stability a continuing executive brings to foreign and economic policy.  The policy instability inherent in direct democracy, which I would characterize as "mob rule," is incompatible with my system of choice.  I would acknowledge that Christian people, even good and right thinking Christian people, might well disagree with me.  Thus the struggle to determine what type of society is best ought to occur in the political realm among individuals of good will and strong faith in their particular system of belief, whatever it might be.  Religion ought to inform the struggle, but not take sides, unless a particular contending system denies the basic tenents of religion as does pure philosophical Marxism. (I would note that socialism as it is generally practiced does not share this rejection of the basic idea of religion.)

It is late, and so I won't attenpt to complete what remains for me a partial argument.  Suffice to say that I am leaning toward a conclusion that the Church, or the Mosque, or the Temple, or the Synagogue, is neither designed nor equipped to instill a love for and appreciation of any particular political or economic system in any group of people.  That is a job better left to conpeting and contending political parties.  It is enough for institutions of faith to instill in their adherents an understanding of the principles of their own particular ethical system, and give them a consistent moral basis for developing and implementing their own political goals in a non-homogenoeous society.  It might also be a good idea to realistically acknowledge that there are opposites in the world, and that accomodation and compromise are not always possible.

In any event, I am thankful for the Lancaster Festival, because it reminds me that perhaps revolution is not as imminent as it might have seemed to me twenty four hours ago.

A Most Unsettling Realization

I suppose I shouldn't have been surprized, but it is so easy to forget about such things living on a small farm in what commentators call "the fly-over country."  Recently, I had occasion to attend a series of arraignments in the metropolitan court of a large American city.  Considering the nature of their charges, the dress, demeanor, and deportment of the eighty or so people who were arraigned that afternoon, I think it is safe to say that a good ninety percent of them showed serious disregard for the court, her officers, and the law she represented.  I did not witness seething anger or revolutionary contempt.  But I did see a practiced unconcern for legality and those basic considerations of good citizenship to which I have dedicated my life.

The day was troubling to me.  The officers of the court took it all in stride as if it were what they saw every day of their working lives.  They processed cases with an almost emotionless consideration for the realities that seemed to fill the room.  Theirs was the practiced professionalism of the assembly line mechanic from beginning to end.  It occurred to me that the vast majority of the people they saw that day had no stake in the republic.  Pundits may argue the reason for this marginalization and virtual ennui, but whatever its root causes, it was palpable. 

Last week, son Tristan, who has certainly paid his dues to this Republic, attended the new Batman movie with some European friends.  Apparently, there is one scene where the mob goes berserk and chaos reigns in Gotham City.  Tristan turned to one of his friends and said, this looks like a page out of a history of the French Revolution.  She solemnly nodded in agreement.  As we were discussing that night, he told me of a very disconcerting event he witnessed at the fireworks which celebrated American Independence here in Lancaster.  The man sitting in front of us became very boisterous for some reason, and in the midst of his diatribe, he said that he could deal with things, and that he had been to jail once and would probably be there again.  The display unnerved my decorated Marine combat veteran son in the same way that the arraignment hearings unnerved me.  When large numbers of citizens (or residents) demonstrate such unfeeling disregard for those institutions and basic responsibilities which govern and define civilized behaviour in any nation, there will ultimately be the Devil to pay.  It is from such disconnected marginalization that violent revolution is born...and violent revolution has a tendency to set neighbors against each other and destroy all that is good, and beautiful, and true.

In their commentary on the Fifth Commandment (that we honour our fathers and mothers), the old English and American catechisms counsel deference to all lawful authority and solemn attention to personal and corporate responsibility.  Somewhere along the way, our families, churches, and schools have failed to instill those lessons in many people.  Perhaps our economic and social institutions have failed them.  Perhaps our society has embraced new values which defy and reject older ways.  Perhaps the traditional means of transmitting values received have become ineffective.  The fact remains that for many people in America today, a new set of values is being transmitted which bode ill for our future as a people.  Without doubt, some believe that to a greater or lesser degree they are pushed aside.  Others may be so preoccupied with pleasure, or self, or survival that they consider the law to be a minor inconvenience and an occupational hazard.  Whatever the motivation may be in the hearts and actions of so many, the spread of such attitudes threatens order, good order as well as tyrannical order.

I have no answers about the best way to change the situation, but it troubles me deeply.  Might God who is the granter of our life and our liberty show us a way forward, that all the peoples of this fair land might find good reason to participate in pacific and supportive ways in this civilization which has been so painstakingly built over so many centuries.

Rules for Christians in a Political Season

Rector’s Rambling-June 2012

We are in the midst of a political season, both in the church and in the state. This summer, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church will meet in Indianapolis to debate issues and pass resolutions which will be misunderstood by many, held to be prophetic by some and un-godly by others, and ignored by far more. In November, the people of the United States will elect a president, a congress, and one third of the US Senate. The process and its results will be misunderstood by many, hailed as an answer by some and mourned as the end of the world by others, and life will go on in some form for most of us. In the mean time, many of us will have conducted ourselves in ways which will divide us from friends, hurt the feelings of many, and effectively shut down the probability of real communication between people for some time to come. Politics can be a ruthless game. If we accept the practices of many and allow ourselves to believe that “the ends justify the means,” or that we must “win at any cost,” we break our covenant as Episcopalian Christians to “respect the dignity of every human being.”

In this month’s Rector’s Rambling, I offer some ideas for civil discourse that just might help us to preserve our friendships and lay the groundwork for ongoing cooperation between people of differing views. This list is of course incomplete, but I pray that it will help us to think twice before speaking once, and help us to develop a framework for peaceful co-existence and mutual respect.

1. Keep your language respectful. Tone can mean as much as words when we speak of others. I once knew a cleric who referred to a former bishop as “_______, our Bishop” when she was upset with him. The form, drawn from the prayers of the people, is perfectly respectful, but as she used it, it was filled with scorn. I would suggest never speaking of the principals in the debates which surround us with adjectives or by employing their first names. The phrase “President Obama,” or “Governor Romney,” or “Bishop Jefferts-Schori” can be delivered in a respectful tone which is much more rational and healing than “Barry,” or ”That Mormon,” or “Herself.” When we start with a pejorative or with mocking, there is no real possibility that respectful and rational discussion of the issues will follow.

2. Check your facts and stick to the facts which are relevant to the issue being discussed. Far too many people are too quick to forward or tweet or post to my-space. The result is that at best inaccuracies are spread, and at the worst, vicious lies are circulated. The commandment is clear that we are forbidden to bear false witness against our neighbor. Forwarding false things is breaking the ninth commandment. It must be repented of and correction must be made if we value our souls. Verify your facts and state them as part of a clearly reasoned argument. Believe half of what you hear or read, about a quarter of what you see, and delete anything which constitutes a personal attack on anyone. As inspector Joe Friday used to say on Dragnet, “Just the facts ma’am.”

3. Insist that your conversations be limited to issues and verifiable facts. If someone starts attacking a person without evidence or if they jump from factoid to factoid or issue to issue in a way which excites emotion without addressing substance rationally, say something like, “I really don’t want to get involved in this kind of discussion. I’d be glad to discuss a single issue at a time with you after we have both had a chance to marshal and verify our facts.” It may seem rude at first, but it will preserve more friendships and enable more good citizenship (and more good churchmanship) than just going along with what most people do.

4. Avoid the talking head shows on both left and right. They set a tone of loudness and a precedent of talking over each other which debases public discourse. Don’t let them be your example of how to argue or debate.

5. Beware any speaker who employs sophistic rhetorical tricks over well reasoned and organized arguments. Such people are often expert at moving the heart, but they seldom inform the mind. Their method has been regularly employed by demagogues and tyrants throughout history. This is not to say that a good debater should not try to move the heart, but he or she ought always to appeal to reason over emotion. To do otherwise is merely to incite the mob.

6. Never cast the person with whom you disagree as “evil.” There are evil people in the world, who after a pre-meditated fashion seek to dominate or hurt others. Most people do not fall into that category. Be willing to give your political adversary the benefit of the doubt for the sake of a respectful argument. Once you have called them evil, or assumed them to be so, your relationship is probably over forever, as is the real possibility of your living together successfully.

I hope these suggestions will help us all to survive yet another political season, and to fulfill our covenant made with each other before God that we will “Respect the dignity of every human being.”

Faithfully,

Bill+