We Shall Not Weary

Like I said, absolute Neuhaus kick right now...and on this solemn anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision on January 22, 1973 I share with you the words of a tireless defender of "the least of these."

Here is an article from remarks he delivered to the convention of the National Right to Life Committee in July 2008. Especially personal to me are these words:

The culture of death is an idea before it is a deed. I expect many of us here, perhaps most of us here, can remember when we were first encountered by the idea. For me, it was in the 1960s when I was pastor of a very poor, very black, inner city parish in Brooklyn, New York. I had read that week an article by Ashley Montagu of Princeton University on what he called “A Life Worth Living.” He listed the qualifications for a life worth living: good health, a stable family, economic security, educational opportunity, the prospect of a satisfying career to realize the fullness of one’s potential. These were among the measures of what was called “a life worth living.”

And I remember vividly, as though it were yesterday, looking out the next Sunday morning at the congregation of St. John the Evangelist and seeing all those older faces creased by hardship endured and injustice afflicted, and yet radiating hope undimmed and love unconquered. And I saw that day the younger faces of children deprived of most, if not all, of those qualifications on Prof. Montagu’s list. And it struck me then, like a bolt of lightning, a bolt of lightning that illuminated our moral and cultural moment, that Prof. Montagu and those of like mind believed that the people of St. John the Evangelist—people whom I knew and had come to love as people of faith and kindness and endurance and, by the grace of God, hope unvanquished—it struck me then that, by the criteria of the privileged and enlightened, none of these my people had a life worth living. In that moment, I knew that a great evil was afoot. The culture of death is an idea before it is a deed.

Whatever you do to the least of these...

The least of these. Society generally deems the "least of these" to be those who are poor and destitute. I think that's a fine definition, but is this definition complete? I would argue that definition is not complete. Maybe it really isn't even a "definition." But generally when people talk about the "least of these" they are referring to the disenfranchised of society. Those human beings who have been treated as less than human. The abolitionists and other anti-slavery groups of the 19th century would definitely define those being used as property by other humans beings, and being counted as less than human in the ruling law document for this country, as the least of these. The Supreme Court in the Dred Scott Decision of 1857 definitely made the claim that African Americans were less than human according to the Constitution of the United States of America. An abominable claim if there ever was one.

In 1973 the Supreme Court made another decision and based it on the Constitution. Human fetuses, babies in the womb, have no Constitutional right. The right is only there for the mother carrying that child. Human fetuses, developing or fully developing human beings, are less than human. The thing that rules the day is not humanity in the collective sense, but the one individual's "right." An abominable claim if there ever was one.

I'm on a Neuhaus kick as of late. I found this article from October 2009 to be most helpful in sorting out this situation. Here are a few paragraphs from the above linked article that get at the heart of the problem.

No other question cuts so close to the heart of the culture wars as the question of abortion. The abortion debate is about more than abortion. It is about the nature of human life and community. It is about whether rights are the product of human assertion or the gift of "Nature and Nature’s God." It is about euthanasia, eugenic engineering, and the protection of the radically handicapped. But the abortion debate is most inescapably about abortion. In that debate, the Supreme Court has again and again, beginning with the Roe and Doe decisions of 1973, gambled its authority, and with it our constitutional order, by coming down on one side.

The result is the Court’s clear declaration of belligerency on one side of the culture wars, endorsing the radically individualistic concept of the self-constituted self. In the Casey decision, for instance, it waxed metaphysical in its assertion that the unlimited abortion license is necessary in order “to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.” (Such philosophical speculation, bear in mind, is made by lawyers presumably interpreting the Constitution.) Not only does authentic personhood require freedom from the state, but also freedom from other potentially encumbering communities. From spouses, for example. The Court struck down the requirement that fathers be notified before mothers get an abortion. That, it is said, would be an “undue burden.”

The Court has from time to time cautioned against the state establishment of a “civic religion.” The same justices seem to be blithely unaware, however, that in Casey and other rulings they are in fact asserting and endorsing a philosophy of at least quasi-religious status. Addressing the “concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life” crosses into those “ultimate concerns” by which religion is ordinarily defined. Against alternative understandings of the self in relation to community, normative truth, and even revelation, the Court recognizes no other reality than the isolated individual defining his or her reality.

I especially like the last paragraph I posted just above here. It shows what the real issue is here. The Court in this ruling is establishing a sort of religious philosophy, and the decisions, as was the case in the Casey Decision in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey in 1992, are some quasi religious philosophical reasons for why abortion or "choice" is necessary. The Court(s) and others assert this understanding that goes beyond the realms of legality and secularity that a human is an individual autonomy. And in the case of abortion the mother who is living, but outside the womb of her own mother, is more human than the developing (or developed) human being, who is living, but inside the womb of his/her own mother.

In actuality what we have here is the Supreme Court and our individually autonomous society asserting the same decision as the Dred Scott one in two ways

1) The Court takes one side and demands everyone follows

2) Certain human beings are less than human

This is tragic. Is this really Liberalism? Is this really Libertarianism? Can we be beholden by such labels as Conservative/Liberal, Republican/Democrat, Theistic/Atheistic, etc., or at some point in the given moment of time are we all actually human beings? I'm a Conservative, registered Republican, and a confessional Lutheran, but when I see someone on the street who is poor I don't give them a background check to see if they match my worldview in order to give them help. I help my neighbor because I am a creature created by God, and redeemed by God, I serve my neighbor because it's the right thing to do. In the same vain I don't stand and speak against abortion because I am a Conservative Republican Lutheran. I make my stand because that is a human being, my neighbor, and Jesus told me to look out for the least of these.

Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Earlier this morning (last night) I posted a little chunk from an article/talk delivered by the sainted Father Richard John Neuhaus. While a Lutheran pastor is Brooklyn, NY during the 60's Father Neuhaus became heavily involved in the Civil Right's movement. He knew Dr. King, he worked with Dr. King. The congregation he served was The Lutheran Church of St. John the Evangelist in Williamsburg. I had the pleasure of interning there last summer.

Dr. King was and IS an important figure for American politics, African Americans, and the church. His impact is beyond words. Heres a link to a video that shows that influence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0FiCxZKuv8&feature=related

A Particular Kind...

Today there is an intense interest, almost an obsession some would say, in diversity and pluralism. Within the worlds of higher education, a Christian university serves the great good of diversity and pluralism by being a different kind of university. It does not mimic the false pluralism and diversity that pretends our deepest differences make no difference. Rather, it engages within the bond of civility the differences that make the deepest difference. The Christian university, if I may use today's academic jargon, does not fear the otherness of the Other. It very deliberately is the Other. As the Other, it respectfully engages and defines itself in relationship to the other kinds of universities to which it is other.

In speaking about the crisis of the Christian university, I have been generalizing, and I am assured by some that Valparaiso University is an exception—that it is determined to be what it was founded to be. I pray this is the case, for I cannot forget the Valparaiso that helped form me and innumerable others in the high adventure of responding to the the Church's heart for learning. I cannot forget those chords of the Mass in B Minor and O.P. Kretzman's pilgrim pondering of the falling autumn leaves, prelude to winter and the promise of a new springtime. Yes, this is in part nostalgia, but it is in much greater part hope and anticipation of what a Christian university can be in imaginative fidelity to its motto—”In your light we see light.”

--Father Richard John Neuhaus, Valparaiso University, February 2007

Haiti

Material donations are requested within the next two weeks by LCMS partners for shipment to Haiti in response to Jan. 12 massive earthquake. Two 40-foot shipping containers will be loaded with donated supplies and shipped to an intact Port-au-Prince depot, to arrive within three weeks of the earthquake.

The following material items have been requested:

• Bottled water
• Canned food with pop tops
• Peanut butter
• Dry rice
• Dry beans
• Dishwashing liquid
• Bedding (sheets, pillows, etc.)
• Shovels and tools for rebuilding
• Buckets
• Antibacterial ointment
• Band aids
• Washcloths
• Soap
• Deodorant
• individual packets of disinfectant wipes
• Tooth brushes
• Tooth paste
• Band-aids
• First aid ointment
• Clean, used clothing in good condition (Must be sorted by type such as women's clothing, children's clothing, etc., and boxed and labeled).

Items may be sent to:

Gloria Dei Lutheran Church
7601 SW 39th St.
Davie, FL 33328
954-475-0683

St. Paul Lutheran Church
801 West Palmetto Park Rd.
Boca Raton, FL 33486
561-395-0433

This effort is a partnership of LCMS World Relief and Human Care (LCMS WR-HC), the LCMS Florida-Georgia District, MISSION: HAITI, and Orphan Grain Train (OGT). Through grants, LCMS WR-HC will assist with shipping charges. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in Haiti (ELCH) as well as OGT and MISSION: HAITI partners in Haiti will receive the containers of donations in Port-au-Prince and oversee their distribution.

Financial donations are also urgently required for the long-term Lutheran response in Haiti. To make a gift, click the Give Now button below, call toll-free 888-930-4438, or mail checks marked "Haiti Earthquake Relief" to LCMS World Relief and Human Care, P.O. Box 66861, St. Louis, MO 63166-6861.

Catastrophe and the hidden God/revealed God

Pat Robertson, televangelist, and all-around egghead sought to one up his explanation of why 9/11 happened, and why Katrina happened, today when he declared, "We will serve you if you get us free from the French," paraphrasing/quoting the people of Haiti 200 years ago to Satan himself. Satan's reply was "Okay, you got it." And in striking up that deal with the devil you get why Haiti has been poor and why they experienced yesterday's devastating earthquake.

Now the only reason I bring up Robertson is to highlight how much of a problem his theological framework is. Oh, and also to point out that he pulls this Hatians working a deal out with the devil from the opposite place of reality. The first thing that came to mind when I heard Robertson said this (okay after the initial "again?"), was Luke 13:1-5:

¹There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. ²And he answered them, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? ³No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. ⁴Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? ⁵No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."

Robertson seems to think he is exempt from the seemingly random acts of nature, of which God is Lord over, when Jesus himself told people, "Do you think that these were worse sinners?"

The problem with Pat's theology is he seeks after the hidden aspects of an already revealed God. The interesting thing about Pat's theology is, in that respect, the rest of us aren't all that different from him. We all will try and explain why bad things happen, especially when they happen to good people, in order to satisfy ourselves. We become obsessed with the hidden will of God. We are not satisfied with what God has revealed to us because this world is a maddening place. What kind of a God allows something like a 7.0 earthquake to rock a poverty stricken island? What kind of God allows supposedly one of his own shepherds, Archbishop Joseph Serge Miot, to be crushed under the rubble?

This God who allows natural disasters scares us on our backs. We end up looking up at a world, and a God, who we know nothing about and it frightens us to our core. This is what happens when we constantly talk about the things of God that we do not know much about. When Christians are constantly explaining God and never proclaiming Him we get caught up in missing the whole point of why God came. God did not come to reveal some abstract "truth" or to give us some abstract "wisdom" or to give us a seemingly abstract set of rules and moral conduct. When we "preach" about a God who came and gave us a book on good and moral living we miss the point. The constant explaining of God, which never gets around to proclaiming, leaves God on our backs and we cannot shake him.

The late Gerhard Forde in his book Theology Is for Proclamation, once said:

We see that apart from God preached, we are estranged from God. Rather than being the one we are allegedly always seeking, God not preached appears more as the one we can never quite get off our backs. As such, "God," is the name for whomever or whatever is "out there," "up there," "in the depths," "transcendent to us," and messing with us...Outside the proclamation both theistic and atheistic theologians are strangely one. Both are trying to get God off our backs. The theist most often does it by trying to make God "nice," to bring God "to heel," so to speak, and the atheist does it by trying to make God disappear. Both attempts have a similar outcome from the point of view of proclamation: they only subvert it.

Nevertheless, for better or for worse, neither theistic nor atheistic appeals seem to work for long. We may find an argument temporarily convincing, but then something else overtakes us--some tragedy, some joy, some fortune or misfortune, some deed or happening that inflates or deflates our ego--and we are back where we started (p. 14).

Forde goes on to describe how this "God not preached" in the end gets us nowhere. This is not to say that explanation does not have its place, it most certainly does. But the problem with explanation is that most people begin and end with just explanation. Many Christian churches see no reason to proclaim to people once they've been "saved." The Gospel is not something that should cease to be preached once people have been "saved." The Christian life is not to get saved and then find out what the point really is, what God really wants from you. The Christian life begins, is lived, and ends on the very same point: Christ crucified and risen.

So Forde offers up that the only solution for this problem of the hidden God is actually proclaiming the revealed God:

This is the classic illustration of how a theology that understands the place of proclamation will make certain moves and refuse to make others. Luther knew that only the proclamation--only the preached God, the living Word here and now--could save us from the God not preached, the absolute God (p. 28).

In closing I offer up a prayer from Concordia Publishing House's Pastoral Care Companion, with those affected inserted:

Almighty God, merciful Father, Your thoughts are not our thoughts, and Your ways are not our ways. In Your wisdom You have permitted this disastrous earthquake to befall Haiti. Keep the Haitians and all of s from despair and do not let our faith fail us, but sustain and comfort us. Direct all efforts to attend the injured, console the bereaved, and protect the helpless. Deliver any who are still in danger, and bring hope and healing that we may find relief and restoration; through Jesus Christ, Your Son, our Lord, who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever. Amen.