What is "Traditional Christianity?"

Don't miss Mark Jordan's fantastic article at ReligionDispatches today on the political assumptions made about the "traditional" and "liberal" divide.

I'm as guilty as the next "liberal" of railing against the imposition of "traditional values" in medicine and social services. Jordan gives us the necessary reminder that "traditional values" as proclaimed by the Religious Right (Catholic and Fundamental/Evangelical) are not representative of the whole or even traditional religious teaching. This frame has greatly helped opponents of equality and individual rights. And the media, reticent or unable to report the nuances of religion, have used the frame to perpetuate inaccurate assumptions about religious teaching and adherents.

Of course the Religious Right plays a heavy hand in enforcing the dominance and theological rightness of it's positions. Saying that church theology supports, for instance, gay equality, falls outside the understood, reported, polarized frame. Jordan writes:

You wouldn’t know this reading Steinfels’ description of our recent debates. To be fair, he is hardly alone. Most reporting of religious debates over sexuality, whether in the Times or on the wire services, assumes the same division—or performs the same sleights-of-hand. When self-proclaimed “traditional” voices are quoted against same-sex marriage, they are allowed to claim scriptural evidence, church history, and even the name “Christian.” When other Christian clergy or believers are quoted in support of same-sex marriage, they become “activists” who are allowed only to speak about civil rights or fairness or—sometimes—wispy Christian principles, but not about scripture or church history or faith itself.

I used to think that this was the fault of progressives—that we reverted too often to the bland language of fairness, toleration, or rights. So I tried always to give reporters scriptural and historical arguments. They rarely found their way into print. I wondered whether the forced simplification of religious journalism had a built-in bias for obvious, “literal” readings of scripture. Or whether the need to tell a story—to sell a story—drove reporters back to the familiar plot: venerable belief versus modern liberalism. So I began to experiment with saying very traditional religious things in interviews.

“I support ordaining openly lesbian and gay candidates because that’s where I’m led when I study scripture and pray.”

“My belief in incarnation pushes me toward the blessing of same-sex unions.”

The reaction was mostly an awkward silence. I could hear the typing stop at the other end of the line.

Religious Left Supports Baxter v. Montana Decision.

Mariya Starchevsky writes about the recent Baxter decision and with (almost too much) surprise notes the religious supporters of the decision to allow aid in dying in Montana.

It's easy to forget that we live in a country of diverse religious practice because typically the loudest and most organized of the crowd are Protestant or Catholic Right. They're the ones with influence, resources, and the power to shape our health care delivery. Their objective is to turn the country and its laws over to God, to delivery social services and health care according to doctrine - and they've been surprisingly successful the past 40 years. But as Starchevsky points out, there are other religious voices out there:

The dispassionate tone of the opinion sweeps under the rug the fiery arguments of amicus curiae.

On the “Pro-Life” side, the International Task Force on Euthanasia argued that allowing physician-assisted suicide would lead to abuse, and intentional killing of the elderly and the incompetent by self-interested relatives and insurance companies. Margaret Dore, Esq., a lawyer from Washington wrote in as well, echoing the Task Force’s sentiment, and claiming that the trial court’s findings were “clearly erroneous because Oregon’s law [on euthanasia] allows involuntary killing.” Page 5.

They are both fantastic reads. I highly recommend them.

But most interesting was the amicus brief filed by religious groups and representatives - on Mr. Baxter’s behalf!

These were not out-of-state weirdos, or special interest fanatics, but persons of religious authority, and most from Bob Baxter’s home town of Billings, Montana. Making their plead for a right to die from a religious point of view were Rev. Canon Gary Waddingham (Episcopal Priest) Rev. Steve Oreskovich (Episcopal Priest), Rev. Meg Hatch (M. Div, UCC) Chuck Heath (M. Div. LCPC, Chaplain), Reverend John C. Board (Episcopal Deacon) Rev. Jean Collins, (Episcopal Priest), Rev. John R. Payne, Journey BE (Disciples of Christ) and Dr. L.A. Kemmerer (Professor). These authorities then list approximately 70 other religious figures from the United Church of Christ, the Church of England, the Unitarian Universalists Association of Congregations, the Methodist Church, etc., all who support euthanasia when concerning competent, terminally ill adults. Page 6, footnote 3.

I know what you’re thinking: no Catholics? Well, in the word of Moishe, nobody’s perfect.

Christians believe life is a gift from God. Further, Christians believe that death is not the ultimate enemy nor is the human soul ended by death. The Old and New Testaments teach free will, love, and compassion. God granted humans the ability to choose between good and evil. Page 2.

These religious amici stress that end-of-life decisions are deeply personal.

“Those who do not share in the religious beliefs and doctrines of groups opposed to aid in dying see this as an unwanted intrusion into what should be a private decision making process between patient and physician." - Deric Weiss, M.D.,Billings, Montana.

By the way, I've said some bad things about the Examiner lately. I still stand by them. But nice to see this piece, however irreverent and flippant the tone!

Redefining "Pro-Life."

Using the story of Jesus' healing of blind Bartimaeus' as a metaphor for how "pro-life" supporters must daily open their heart to new ways of seeing and redefine the definition of "pro-life," Father Thomas Rosica writes today at Salt+Light:

Disciples of Jesus have vision problems. How often do we use the metaphor of blindness to describe our inability to grasp the meaning of the suffering we endure? We sometimes describe our blindness as an inability to see the forest for the trees, but that is a rather simplistic analysis. More worrisome is the inherited blindness which so often assumes that there are no lessons left to learn. Arrogance is very often the root of our blindness. We need the miracle of restored sight each day.

What corners of the Church, of society and of our culture need serious healing, restoration and reformation in our time? Where are our blind spots? Where are the big problems with near-sightedness and far-sightedness? How often do we prefer monologue to dialogue, refusing to believe that we might learn from those who oppose us and disagree with us; refusing to engage the culture around us and preferring a narrow, obstinate and angry way of existing? How often do we say that there are no other ways to look at an issue than our way…or the highway!

This promising plea for open minds then trails off into a reminder that abortion is not the only "pro-life" issue on the platform.

If our sight, pro-life energies and efforts are limited only to atrocities against the unborn, it can lead to blindness. We must not ignore the other great challenge faced by humanity today–the serious question of mercy killing, or euthanasia, no longer found in abstract cases and theories. It concerns ordinary people and is debated not only in Congresses or Parliaments but also around dinner tables and in classrooms. Euthanasia is false and misguided mercy.

To say that we are pro-life means that we are against whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or willful self-destruction. We stand firmly against whatever violates the dignity of the human person such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself, whatever insults human dignity such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children, and disgraceful working conditions where people are treated as instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons. All of these things and more destroy human life and poison human society.

I am personally delighted by entreaties by pastors to focus on poverty, imprisonment (though he qualifies "arbitrary"), rights for the impaired, the disabled, the abused. For far too long, "pro-life" has been used to mean anti-abortion. Recent Catholic writings have worked to expand that definition to include "unjust" war and capital punishment as well as other injustices against society's disadvantaged.

Yet Rosica's call for renewing the definition of "pro-life" would be more meaningful to me if it weren't, as I suspect, being used to focus the Church on euthanasia. To be clear, as aid in dying is legal in some parts of the world, it is almost exclusively used for the terminal, in other words, for someone who is already dying from some crippling disease for which there is no cure.

The patient, of sound mind and less than six months to live, is already condemned to death. They probably love life and deeply regret its impending end, yet realize that the end is nonetheless coming. They don't wish to kill themselves - depression is not the cause of their death wish; they wish to end the suffering caused by their disease in a way that is humane and dignified.

I've read a lot of hideous commentary lately about how suffering is redemptive, how it has meaning and makes us better, how it is God's will that we should suffer to emulate his death on the cross, that God does not give us more pain and suffering than we can handle. I find it all blasphemous and degrading to the afflicted patient. It reeks of justification of illness, as illness as punishment by God.

It is the disease, which we have failed to cure, that causes the suffering. It is the disease which has determined the terminal patient's end. It is the disease which has struck them down and ended their vitality. And it is the disease that will cost them quality of life, dignity, and comfort.

Rather than see the Catholic Church promote the ghastly suffering of afflicted patients, I would prefer they focus on scientific research into the causes of these diseases, into the corporate deregulation that has allowed the polluting of our water and environment, into the medical industry that over-treats and over-medicates us so as to turn a grotesque profit on our pains.

Yet, I know that my definition of "pro-life" will have no effect on the great Catholic Church or it's teaching, I am encouraged by those denominations that do understand that "pro-life" should also include work to end suffering. These denominations espouse the true meaning of life. They are the religious left. It is their message that I find most uplifting as we face new diseases, work to end continued injustices, and challenge society to alleviate the suffering of "the least of these."

Unfortunately, the Catholic Church continues to be hindered by its own blindness.