Apparently, Jesus is a good name – but not so much a role model.

Christians in the U.S. who labeled themselves politically liberal or conservative told researchers Jesus wouldn’t necessarily agree with their social views if he were alive today, according to a study.

The conservatives said Jesus would probably be more against abortion and same-sex marriage than they are, and less opposed to helping illegal immigrants obtain citizenship. Liberals believe Jesus would be tougher than them on morality and more open on questions concerning fellowship.

I’m not sure about the “more against abortion” thing. “Conservative” is almost synonymous with “never allow any abortion” and it’s hard to see how Jesus could be more extreme than “never.” The same thing goes for same-sex marriage. It is interesting, though, that they seem to think “Jesus would be like us…but more so.”

Similarly, I’m not sure what “tougher…on morality” means. Especially since we’ve already eliminated abortion and same-sex marriage from the consideration. Are we discussing theft or cheating on one’s taxes? Are they the same thing?

Even more odd is the “questions concerning fellowship.” I can’t even imagine what that might me. Are there Christians who are against fellowship?

Still, it seems to appear that more liberal Christians are saying “Jesus is a lot like us…but not quite so much on some things.” Which seems to be a big difference from the conservative stance.

As it stands, this is pretty much a useless blurb. I can’t tell anything from it – even if it is only my personal bias that slants my interpretation of it.

I heard of this story via NPR, but I can’t find a link to the story, so I found this one instead. So here’s the meat of the article:

She is 16, the daughter of a firefighter and a nurse, a self-proclaimed nerd who loves Harry Potter and Facebook. But Jessica Ahlquist is also an outspoken atheist who has incensed this heavily Roman Catholic city with a successful lawsuit to get a prayer removed from the wall of her high school auditorium, where it has hung for 49 years.

A federal judge ruled this month that the prayer’s presence at Cranston High School West was unconstitutional, concluding that it violated the principle of government neutrality in religion. In the weeks since, residents have crowded school board meetings to demand an appeal, Jessica has received online threats and the police have escorted her at school, and Cranston, a dense city of 80,000 just south of Providence, has throbbed with raw emotion.

Okay, the author probably didn’t mean “dense” as a jab at the collective intelligence, but…I took it that way and had a laugh at their expense.

As far as prayers go, it’s pretty innocuous. It barely mentions God and it really doesn’t promote religion beyond the fact that it is, in fact, a prayer. But that, all by itself, is enough to set it aside. If a prayer is not religious; then what is it? There is no such thing as “secular God” so there is no such thing as “secular prayer.”

Katherine Stewart shows a remarkable insight when she writes:

Under our Constitution, religion is something special, something that is and ought to be treated differently from every other kind of activity. I bring this up because some of the recent jurisprudence on church/state issues is based on the very opposite view: that religion is just like everything else.

Defenders of the status quo – the idea that Christianity has a special and protected place in American society – too often want to argue both sides of the coin. The prayer, or religious exemptions to law, should exist because there is “something special” about them. But if people don’t like the prayer or exemption, they should ignore it as if it were not special after all.

It’s hard for me to get behind that argument.

On the other hand, atheists make it particularly hard to be sympathetic when they say things like this:

Does she empathize in any way with members of her community who want the prayer to stay?

“I’ve never been asked this before,” Jessica said. A pause, and then: “It’s almost like making a child get a shot even though they don’t want to. It’s for their own good. I feel like they might see it as a very negative thing right now, but I’m defending their Constitution, too.”

Yes, she is saying that the purpose of this lawsuit is to save us from our own beliefs. Sigh. I don’t need that. I don’t need it when the Baptists want to tell me that I don’t understand God’s will and I don’t need it when the atheists tell me there is no God. I’m an intelligent man and I can make up my own mind – and I have done so. Even if I am wrong, I have the absolute right to be wrong.

Elsewhere, Jessica has said:

“This isn’t about religions anymore, it’s about the constitution and it always has been and those of you who are bringing religion into this need to stop,” she said.

Which part of the Constitution, Jessica? Yes, the part that deals with religion. Demanding that religion be taken out of a religious question is as effective as arguing a fish out of the water. It is also dishonest and, at best, self-indulgent.

It’s about religion. Religion holds a special place in our Constitution – mainly that the government will not endorse any specific form nor stop people from worshiping as they feel they must. Just be honest about it, on all sides.

It is possible that the Supreme Court would allow it to stand – like they did in the case of the Ten Commandments monument in Texas. Because it was part of a larger display, it was fine. But if it is part of a solitary display, that includes no other culturally significant features than to acknowledge and promote the Christian God…then it is not fine.

So here are a couple of suggestions for Cranston:
1) Remove or cover the words “Heavenly Father” and “Amen” from the display. It is now a wonderfully secular exhortation of morality and effort.
2) Allow an atheist to post a similar moral exhortation without reference to God.

I don’t understand the need, on both sides of the issue, for people to enforce their view as the only correct one. Yes, I know both sides think that only they are right. That doesn’t mean they have the right to impose their belief, or to utilize public spaces to promote it. Arguing otherwise is promoting tyranny and double-sided logic.

The Washington Post has a short article relating poll findings from the Barna Group (here is the Barna Group’s write-up on their findings). As with most such polls, it is the results in light of themselves that I find interesting.

Barna Group, an evangelical company based in California, found that 46 percent reported no change [in their life from church attendance]. About a quarter of Americans said their life was greatly affected by church attendance and another quarter said it was somewhat influential.

Remember this as the foundation for the rest of the numbers. Otherwise, it’s just interesting that nearly half of the people who go to church are not being changed by the experience…which could mean a number of things. It could mean that they simply found a church that says things they agree with. It could mean that they aren’t really paying attention. It could mean that what they hear simply isn’t relevant to their daily lives. We just don’t know.

The second thing to note is the polling methodology. Barna writes:

This report is based upon telephone interviews conducted in the OmniPoll? (part of Barna Group’s Barna Poll series). This study consisted of a random sample of 1,022 adults selected from across the continental United States, age 18 and older. The research included 150 interviews conducted among people using cell phones. The maximum margin of sampling error associated with the aggregate sample is ±3.2 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. Minimal statistical weighting was used to calibrate the aggregate sample to known population percentages in relation to several key demographic variables

All this means is that it was pretty standard, which is a good start. I wonder about the 150 cell phone calls…firstly that it’s only 150 out of 1,022, and secondly that these people actually answered a call from someone they didn’t know and answered these questions. I wouldn’t. I’m definitely in the “don’t bother me” section of such things.

The problem lies earlier when they write, “…Barna Group surveyed Americans who have attended a Christian church sometime in the past…” So someone who hasn’t attended church in fifty years (or more) would still be included. Given the problem churches have with ongoing attendance, this is absolutely going to skew the numbers downward. I think a better method might have been to pick churches at random and then poll their membership. Or perhaps asking, “Do you remember the last time you went to church?” and if they said, “No.” then their response should not be counted because if you can’t remember it, it isn’t likely you can answer questions about it.

Back in the Post, we find this: “Two-thirds of respondents said they had felt “a real and personal connection” with God while attending church.” Remember that only “about a quarter” had felt their lives had been changed by attending church. So if everyone who felt their lives changed also had a personal connection with God…then 5/12 (about 41 percent) of the people who felt a connection with God were not changed by the experience. That’s interesting to me because one would tend to think that connecting to the Almighty (or whatever one calls it) would change them. Apparently not. Maybe 41 percent of people were told by God, “Everything is just fine like it is. Don’t change a thing.

Next we find this:

Among weekly church attenders, 44 percent said they felt God’s presence every week and 18 percent said they had that experience once a month.

Unfortunately, we aren’t told how many of the 1,022 people who were polled attend church weekly. SO this is a factoid devoid of any meaning. We also aren’t told what weekly means – how many weeks in a row does one have to go before it is “weekly?” If they miss a single week, is their status revoked? If so, how far back into the past or forward into the future does that revocation reach?

This is the next factoid:

Of those who attended in the previous week, 50 percent could not recall walking away with a significant new understanding.

Again, we have no idea how many people this is. Two? Nine hundred and twelve? Such details matter.

“Significant new understanding” is also undefined. I understand that they are letting people define that however they want, and that should result in more positive responses than if it were defined for them. In that light, it is surprisingly low.

What it does managed to do is show some real researcher bias in that it supposes that the purpose of going to church is to get significant new understandings of faith/God. Somehow, I think that by the time someone has gone to church “weekly” for fifty years or so, they probably are not looking for that. The can find deep meaning in the service without it being a learning experience. It may simply deepen their faith or increase the level of a significant older understanding. It’s important to understand how unimportant this question is, because Barna says it is “One of the most significant gaps uncovered by the research was the fact that most people cannot recall gaining any new spiritual insights the last time they attended church.” In this case, at least, we are told that “most” means 61 percent.

Flipping back to the horse’s mouth, we learn that “connecting with God is perhaps the most important outcome facilitated by churches.” Yet “most” (meaningless term) “describe these encounters as rare.” What does that say about churches failing in their most important outcome? And who says this is the most important outcome?

Churches score much better in the categories of “feeling cared for” and “helping the poor.” However, there is a significant minority of people who don’t identify this at all.

Also, the size of a church doesn’t seem to matter appreciably.

Dan Wetzel has it right:

Tim Tebow’s pastor, Wayne Hanson, says he knows why the Denver Broncos are 7-1 since installing Tebow as quarterback – it’s the player’s faith.

“It’s not luck,” Hanson said according to TMZ. “Luck isn’t winning six games in a row. It’s favor. God’s favor.”
snip
Very few people, even the ultra religious, believe God cares about the result of a football game. There are plenty of believers on the other teams also.

There are few subjects that I feel confident in speaking for God on, but I’m pretty confident that God doesn’t care about football games. If he did; then football would have been around for much long. Perhaps Moses would have said, instead of “Let my people go!”, “I’ll see you on the gridiron, Pharoah!”

But there are a few things missing from Wetzel’s observations.

Like: “It’s been a magical ride and one, no doubt, that has aided the image of, and interest in, Evangelical Christianity. A likeable spokesman will always do that.”

Gee, I thought Jesus was the Evangelical Christianity spokesman. I REALLY haven’t seen any evidence of anyone anywhere being interested in Evangelical Christianity “because Tebow does it.” And, for the record, if they did, it would wrong-hearted of them to do so. Evangelical Christianity teaches that Christ works on a person’s heart…not Tebow. Even if Tebow were giving lengthy sermons to the masses after each win, theologically, it would still not be Tebow doing the work. At best, he’d be the tool in the hands of the Master.

Then there is this earlier statement, which I can only characterize as “bat-guano crazy”:

Comments like these aren’t helping Tim Tebow. And they aren’t helping gain acceptance for the faith Tebow is willing to serve as public representative.

Newsflash: Christianity is not accepted in the American mainstream!

Wha?

Get real. Please.

According to the latest iteration of Wikipedia’s “Religion in America“, Christianity is the largest religion in the United States, with some 76% of us claiming to be Christian and 26.3% claim to be evangelical Christians. In a ranking of US and Canadian Churches, Southern Baptists rank second (with over sixteen million members) and the Church of God in Christ ranks fifth (with over five million members). Both of those are evangelical denominations. There are more Christians in the US than in any country in the world.

And while we’re at it, this:

“Tebowing,” as it has become known, is one of the things that Jesus spoke against, according to the Bible. Matthew 6:5-8 reads:

5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

You would think Tebow’s pastor might want to talk to him about that. Apparently, you’d be wrong.

I found this article to be interesting:

The study, by sociologists Elaine Howard Ecklund of Rice and Kristen Schultz Lee of the University at Buffalo, found that many atheists want their children exposed to religion so that they can make up their own minds on what to believe. In addition, church may provide a better understanding of morality and ethics, and occasionally attending services may ease the conflict between spouses who disagree over the value of religion to their children, the study contends.

The research, published in the December issue of the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, was based on in-depth interviews with 275 scientists at 21 “elite” research universities in the United States. Sixty-one percent of the participants described themselves as either atheists or agnostics, and 17 percent of the non-believers had attended church more than once in the past year.

This is both encouraging and discouraging to me.

It is encouraging because it shows that people are willing to expose their children to a variety of experiences in order to help them become well-rounded individuals who are grounded in the culture in which they live. It shows an open-mindedness that I find rather refreshing. They have made up their mind that they do not believe, but are willing to allow others – including their children – to feel differently. In fact, they are encouraging them to do so.

It is discouraging because it also says that atheists feel pressured to go to church just to get along with the people most important in their lives. The do not believe and they see the whole process as so much empty time spent wishing they were elsewhere. Yet they are pressured to accept what they find unacceptable to such an extent that they find it impossible to refuse.

It also shows that there is a very real level of ignorance about Christianity, not just among its adherents, but among those who study it as well. Don’t the spouses of agnostics/atheists realize that there is no spiritual value to a person going to service with no belief in it? Why would they push their spouses to be dishonest about who they are?

As well, there are denominations who do not express a creedal philosophy about even the existence of God. The Universalist Unitarian Church, for example, believe that each person is free to determine their own belief as to the existence of God. I have to wonder where this group fits in with the research – and how many scientists who go to other churches would gladly go to a UU group.

Or what about the Ethical Union? If scientists are pressured to go to Christian services; then are their spouses willing to go to Ethical functions? How about the slightly more churchy (in that they meet on Sundays and such) Ethical Society (or Ethical Culture Society)?

This is the most disappointing, but possibly most honest, statement in the article:

Columnist Michael Kinsley confessed to being a “nonbeliever” in the Los Angeles Times last month. In an op-ed piece he conceded, “That puts me in the only religious grouping in America whose members are effectively barred from any hope of becoming president, due to widespread public prejudice against them. There will be a Mormon president, a Jewish president, an openly gay president before there will be a president who says publicly that he doesn’t believe in God.”

I agree with him. And given the predilection of fringe religious groups to have apocalyptic beliefs, it is frightening that such a person would be judged to be more ready to be President than a sane person who would not try to destroy the world.

The Occupy Wall Street movement has gotten me thinking about the business of banking. Currently, I use Chase Bank for my financial needs – which are fairly limited. I use a direct deposit of my earnings and pay most of my bills online. I carry a Visa Debit Card, which I use most often when I purchase something (I rarely use cash). So if my needs are not specialized – if pretty much any bank can be my bank – then why am I using a bank that was so integral to the creation of the financial meltdown that has pulled our economy into a morass?

There really isn’t any good reason. It’s convenient not to have to change banks. But it is not responsible for me, as a consumer, to reward such a poor steward of my money. As a Christian, it is unconscionable that I should continue to reward such an immoral business – which continues to be profitable while the rest of the country suffers.

So the question becomes: Where do I move my business. There are several small banks in the area, and I am researching them to decide which one I like best. But I know that even small banks are in the business of business. And small businesses pay into organizations that buy lobbyists just like the big boys do. So while trading to a smaller (potential) criminal is better than staying with an enormous criminal…it isn’t quite as satisfying as I’d like.

The Bible is pretty clear about banking – interest is not to be charged to fellow believers (also, profiting on food is a no-no – sorry restauranteurs)>. Yet this is so often overlooked that it might as well be cut out of the Bible. While conservatives like to crow about being “real Americans” and having a “Christian nation”…there is not a peep about the scriptural principles of banking. Muslims, by the way, are way ahead of us on this. Consider this:

An innovative approach applied by some banks for home loans, called Musharaka al-Mutanaqisa, allows for a floating rate in the form of rental. The bank and borrower form a partnership entity, both providing capital at an agreed percentage to purchase the property. The partnership entity then rents out the property to the borrower and charges rent. The bank and the borrower will then share the proceeds from this rent based on the current equity share of the partnership. At the same time, the borrower in the partnership entity also buys the bank’s share of the property at agreed installments until the full equity is transferred to the borrower and the partnership is ended. If default occurs, both the bank and the borrower receive a proportion of the proceeds from the sale of the property based on each party’s current equity.

The closest I can come to an example of this for American (Episcopal) Christians is The Episcopal Federal Credit Union in Phoenix, Arizona (which is, oddly enough, a division of the United Methodist Federal Credit Union). Or the Episcopal Community Federal Credit Union in Los Angeles. I’m sure these run by more traditional banking practices, but it is still a step in the right direction.

I have no idea how one starts a bank. I have no idea how one starts a bank based on non-traditional, but scripturally sound business practices. I don’t even have an idea in whose ear such a whispered idea might take wing…but perhaps someone will read this and take the idea further.

I came across Feminism and Religion, a blog run by and for divinity students wrestling with topics of ethics and feminism. It has been a real treasure for me to listen to women from a variety of faith traditions wrestle with what it means to be a feminist and to be a person (potentially) dedicated to helping tend the spiritual well-being of others. They certainly don’t need my input, and I’m writing here so that whatever I add can be taken as an addition to what they say, and not in any way a corrective or a critique.

The post I want to deal with is this one dealing with the “problem” of men. It is difficult for me, as a heterosexual man, to hear myself referred to as a problem. Yes, patriarchy is the default position throughout the modern world and women are denigrated, abused, and violated in every country, and all too often without any thought of punishing their assailants.But should I be held responsible for all of the crimes that men commit throughout the world simply because I have mismatched chromosomes?

The knee-jerk reaction is to say, “No!” The reasons for that should be fairly obvious. But thinking closer on this issue reveals that, while I am not actively promoting patriarchy or attacking women, I do benefit from a position of status in society simply by being male. This was brought home to me anew when a colleague of mine (who is a woman) was discussing with me the difficulty she encounters as a teacher with international students who come from very heavily patriarchal societies. This is nothing I’ve ever had to contend with. This is what privilege means: to never even be aware of the struggles others encounter.

So I shouldn’t be held personally responsible for things I’ve never done, but I should be held responsible for understanding the privileged position I hold, and understand that it blinds me to the struggles others face. I should be held responsible for attempting to understand what they see when they look at me, not only as an individual, but as a symbol of an institution and society that still reinforce patriarchal as the norm.

It is a painful experience for me to hear others talk about how they have been hurt. To be blunt, I’d really like for them to simply not talk about it – because it makes it easier for me to enjoy my life without their pain getting in the way. Ignoring or minimizing their experience also relieves me of the responsibility to be an agent of change in the world. More than that, though, my knee-jerk reaction is a reiteration of the violence done to a person in the first place.

Part of my spiritual growth has been to resist this reactionary part of my being. To open my ears and my heart and simply become a witness to someone’s testimony of pain and abuse. It is an exercise in carefully planned vulnerability. It is an exercise in willfully experiencing heartbreak, again and again, because there is no end to the pain in the world.

So I read the comments that spoke of how women have been injured by simply insisting that they be allowed a “sacred space” for women only. My personal belief is that a person should be allowed to approach their spirituality in whatever fashion makes it more meaningful. Some need solitude, some need a congregation. Some need silence, some need clanging bells and a choir. Some need to be sheltered from men.

But I would be disingenuous if I were to stop with that. I do not believe we create a more peaceful world by sowing discord. We do not have a more just world by sowing injustice. We don’t create a more equal world by promoting inequality. We never find truth by closing our eyes to our own failings.

If radical feminism’s only answer to every problem in the world is to shoot for a world where no men exist; then it is a fool’s errand. If there is no chance at redemption for anyone who has a penis or a Y chromosome; then radical feminism has aligned itself with the iron-clad thinking of every two-bit dictator and oppressive ideology – including religious fundamentalism – that has ever existed. If the purpose is to improve the plight of women; then this approach will simply make enemies of those who should be allies. That’s a plan to fail. And one I simply cannot endorse.

Robert Jeffress has finally gone on the national record to claim Mitt Romney is not actually a Christian. This is no surprise whatsoever to anyone who has ever sniffed sideways at a Southern Baptist Church. But it is now in writing, and it’s what derailed Romney during the 2004 primary when he had to contend with Mike Huckabee – who is ordained in the Southern Baptist church.

I’ll write about the political implications of this elsewhere, but right now, I’d like to take on the religious implications. To put it bluntly, Jeffress has set himself up as the gatekeeper of God. That takes a lot of chuzpah…or pigheadedness.

Or it simply takes a theology that assures someone that they are the “chosen” by God and everyone who disagrees is not. That’s what I call a theology of arrogance. If it isn’t arrogant to believe that one denomination – not broad school of religion, but a single narrow denomination – is the only one who can possibly know and understand God’s will…then what exactly is?

I believe that my brand of Christianity is right…for me. But I would never consider forcing someone else to confess to my beliefs. Don’t get me wrong, I am not hesitant to share what I believe when I think it is proper to do so. But when I do, I am sharing what I have come to believe about an infinite being that is beyond my ability to understand. I freely admit that I could be wrong.

I’ve studied the Bible, off and on, for most of my life. Sometimes I studied it in a group, and sometimes I studied it alone. Sometimes I thought every word was meant literally and later on I realized that couldn’t possibly be true. There are works of poetry in the Bible; there is analogy and parable and allegory. It can’t possibly all be true.

So any theology that says, “This wisdom in this book is limited to that which is literal!” is not being honest about the book it is reading. And when a theology starts with such a dishonest foundation, it cannot help but bring forth rotten fruit. Beyond that, any critical thinking which seeks to examine this core untruth is immediately attacked, because any sliver of untruth found anywhere in the Bible would then unravel all of the pretense of literal representation of the word of God.

It’s a theology that is intellectually and morally lazy. It is afraid to force adherents to learn critical thinking skills that would allow them to challenge the bounds of literal interpretation. It teaches individuals to turn off their own brains and rely on those of the professional class of behavioral controllers that call themselves “pastors.” Because it cripples their intellectual curiosity, it castrates their moral compass. They become entirely dependent, mindless drones that can do nothing but repeat the same tired slogans they have been taught.

If, as I believe, there is a being that is infinite and powerful beyond our ability to understand – if there is a God – then I can’t believe God would want mindless worship, even if it is overwrought with emotion. It seems to me that God would want mindful, thoughtful, and earnest searching and the respectful and positive worship that naturally flows from it.

Michael Gerson has an op-ed at the Washington Post that tries to find a way to hold religion accountable for political influence. It’s a good idea, and I think he has some good take-away lines (like: “This use of religion in politics is a source of cynicism. It should raise alarms when the views of the Almighty conveniently match our most urgent political needs.”) But he gets it wrong, as well.

“A faith that conforms exactly,” he writes, “to the contours of a political ideology has lost its independence.” This is a common critique of the Religious Right – that their theology has conformed itself entirely to a political agenda. But a short review of history shows it is the other way around – the conservative agenda has been hijacked by a religious agenda. I’m the last one who would say that it is wrong for Christians – or any person of faith – to let their theology inform their politics. In fact, I’m on the record as saying it’s flat out impossible to be earnest in theology and keep it separated from one’s politics…especially in a democracy.

But there is a significant theological difference between the left and the right that is being overlooked. Most liberal Christians I know of are perfectly willing to admit that they do not know everything there is to know about God. They view Muslims and Jews, Hindus and Buddhists, secular humanists and pagans as all having equally valid views. They are generally willing to offer up a seat at the table in the hope of finding common ground.

But I attended several fundamentalist Christian churches who did not even believe that Catholics were fellow Christians. Anything other than their own narrow interpretation of The Truth was, at best, misguided. At worst, it was willfully disobedient. Any deviation from The Truth was heretical, and risked calling down God’s judgment on the whole community.

When that unbending attitude is brought into a governmental system that is specifically designed to force compromise, it necessarily causes bottlenecks. There are only two choices – success and capitulation – and it is unthinkable for such a believer to fail to carry out God’s will…even if it means stepping on the liberties or tax dollars or lives of other people. What matters is that the individual remained faithful and fought to the end.

When I was involved with the Liberal Faith BlogCon, a reporter asked me if I wanted the liberal faith movement to be like the religious right, and I emphatically answered, “No!” This is the heart of the reason why not…I do not wish to impose my faith through my politics. I only want a chance to explain my politics through the faith that informs it. If individuals want to reject my faith or my politics, that is their option – and their right.

Today is Maundy Thursday, or Holy Thursday, set aside during the lead up to Easter for remembrance of Jesus’ new commandment: “Love each other as I have loved you,” he is reported to say. Then he went out and committed suicide.

We don’t normally think of Jesus’ death in that manner. But I think it is similar to the concept of “suicide by cop.” A person knows that what they are about to do will get them killed by the duly appointed officers of the law – and they continue to do it anyway. If Jesus had the power to save himself (and if he didn’t then a whole lot of Christian doctrine is voided) and didn’t…well, I don’t see any way around the conclusion that it was a form of suicide.

I bring this up because I just finished reading a post by Arthur Drobin on the topic of the morality of suicide. He concludes:

Sometimes, all things considered, suicide may not only be rational but courageous. It may be neither moral nor immoral, but a personal choice, one that confers dignity upon a person that life itself can no longer provide.

I think that, before we can rule on the morality of suicide, we have to understand why it is even considered immoral in the first place.

In the Christian scheme of things, it comes from the understanding that a believer owns nothing – everything, including their life, actually belongs to God. So our body is just a loaner, so to speak. And God is testing each of us (or allowing us to be tested) to see if we deserve something better. Like eternal life in Heaven. Killing off our loaner is obviously a bad thing because it shows God that we have no regard for what He has given us. In theological terms, directly opposing the will of God is sin – so suicide is sinful and immoral.

But only under certain conditions. Obviously, Jesus’ death was not in violation of God’s will (if it was, then the doctrine itself disappears). So what makes his death special? The sacrificial nature of it?

To some extent, the answer is yes. We regularly accept someone voluntarily dying in order to save someone else. Fire-fighters and police officers, not to mention soldiers, are upheld as heroes for this. But here the logic of dogma works against itself. If it is God’s will that we live and someone else die; who are we to interfere with His will? And the far reaches of that concept is the denial of all medical care because God will cure us if He wants – and there is a segment of people who call themselves Christians who follow this concept. Medicine is immoral because it violates God’s will.

Theologically, we can get out of this mess by claiming that it was God’s will that led us to discover penicillin, for example. But that opens up an entirely different can of worms. If it is God’s will that we use some medicine for some people at some times…then how do we deny it to anyone, anywhere, for any reason? Even something as simple as a “Do Not Resuscitate” order is a violation of the providence of God through medical science.

So we are left in a quandary of theological dogma. On the one had, we have to deny medical care to allow God’s will to do what it will. To lift even one finger to do otherwise is sinful. On the other hand, we are the instruments of God’s will and therefore we must provide an endless parade of medical care, and hang the expense. To leave one finger un-lifted (so to speak) is sinful. It isn’t suicide that is sinful, but death itself.

Not even the Catholic church takes that extreme position. Despite their “seamless garment of life” they do allow for “passive measures” to be taken so that a person may die without exhausting medical technology. To me, this is the cruelest and least Godly approach to an uncomfortable question. It is cowardly, because it shields a person from making the decision of taking another life by claiming the last and most horrible moments of existence are the will of a loving God. It is cruel because it refuses to allow a person to pass from their life in anything but the most excruciating manner.

The whole concept of the immorality of suicide falls apart if one does not accept that basic premise that even our body belongs to God and we are simply the stewards of what He has given us. If our body belongs to us – if it is a gift freely given – then the morality of suicide becomes a bit more murky. If it is simply the result of biological interaction, without divine providence, then it is even more so.

In Mr. Drobin’s piece, he gives two examples of people who committed suicide – and they are meant, I believe, as examples of suicide that is irrational (which, I would posit, it pretty much the same to a humanist that sin is to a Christian). I don’t think it’s that easy.

A person takes medication for depression (this is one of the example), stops the meds, and then walks in front of a train. To the extent that the behavior accomplished its goal, it is coldly rational. I hear a lot of people who have never struggled with depression say that it isn’t worth suicide…but how would they know? Only someone who has been to that dark reach of human existence, and fears going back there, would be able to accurately determine that. And it isn’t as if taking pills for depression cures it. At best it makes it tolerable. But depression is a response to something – and taking away that defense may, in fact, make life even more unbearable.

I’ve dealt a bit with depression. I take medication to deal with it. I have never been to that place where I actively consider suicide – I just see too much worth hanging around to see and experience. But I’ve been far enough down that rabbit hole to understand how suicide can seem like an option to some people. I will never be one of them, but I can understand how, if a few more of my internal controls were different, it would be. I understand enough to say that it could be a rational reaction to looking ahead at a hellish life.

If you can’t understand that; then thank whatever God you worship for it. And if you don’t worship any God, then just be thankful as you can be.

A friend of mine used to say, “There’s only two ways to die: You kill yourself or someone kills you.” After a whole lot of thought on the matter, I have to agree. The standard American lifestyle cuts years off of a person’s life expectancy…which is simply a slow way of killing yourself (think of that the next time you want another slice of pie). Even things that seem to come out of nowhere – like some cancers – are often tied directly to our lifestyle.

So what makes it okay to eat 3000 calories a day until one’s heart explodes, but not to take the short-cut and take one’s life more directly?

I don’t think I can actually answer this question – and I’m not sure I’ve answered any questions. But I know this much: Death is sometimes a tragedy, but sometimes it is a welcomed balm to a tortured soul. Given that, I think it is awfully conceited for us to stand outside of someone’s existence and declare them immoral for wanting it to end.

Sphere: Related Content

]]> http://xpatriatedtexan.com/blog/2011/04/21/the-morality-of-death/feed 0