Yesterday on talk radio a man was bewailing African American financial woes. I do not know who he was, but he sounded like a college professor or researcher (he was Black). The point he made was in the Black community every dollar spent was spent, on averge, one more time in the Black community. In the Asian (seven) and White (six) the rates are much, much higher. This, he said, was a factor in the continuing financial challenges which Blacks experience. Blacks are not benefiting Blacks the way other communities were, he said. He then said that mortgages are a major part of that and that there are no Black mortgage banks.
I am not indifferent to the special challenges which Blacks face, nor am I naive enough to think that racism has no impact. On the other hand, I also think behaviors and choices need to be factored in. I know that, around here, the government is an employer of a large number of African Americans. If you work for the government you get certain benefits. Owning banks is not one of them. So the solution to Black unemployment (i.e., the government) creates a new problem (no Black businesses). The radio man was not railing against government jobs.
Today is the feast of Bishop Charles Quintard. He was born in Stamford, Connecticut in 1824. He became a doctor, worked in Athens Georgia and ended up in Memphis. He became a priest in 1856 and was elected the second bishop of Tennessee in 1865. He served 33 years in this position. During the Civil war he was both a Confederate chaplain and a surgeon.
After the war he was instrumental in reconciliation and outreach to Blacks. In the prayer for today we prayed in thanksgiving for his example ("who opposed the segregation of African Americans in separate congregations and condemned the exclusion of poor people"). We did not focus on his medical work, his role in the military, he efforts on behalf of the University of the South, or any number of things with which he was occuppied in his long life. [side note, he donated the windows at St. Andrews, the parish I serve.] It was striking to me that the person writing the prayer was obviously motivated by a very particular agenda. It is an agenda which the Episcopal Church very publicly embraces (and this is not a critique of that point of view) so that is why I am able to notice it.
How the church chooses to remember him (five paragraphs on one page and a prayer on the other) is but a partial summary. That is the challenge. How do you summarize an entire life by a few words or a major social situation in a few minutes. Reality is much more complex. Whatever we say must be nuanced. We must remember that much is left unsaid. Yet, how can we say everything about everything? We need to summarize and need to use few words. Our hope is that while incomplete, the summary is still accurate.
I wish I was better at keeping that perspective. I wish I alwasy remembered that there is always more to the story. I have struggled with being wider and deeper on issues the last few years. It is not easy. I am not smart enough, nor educated enough, to get beyond pretty simplistic thought in almost everything (there are a few areas where I am okay!). Being aware of agendas and perspectives is important. It is valuable if we are to find the truth (rather than impose it). It takes more humility and hard work than most of us want to muster.
We live in a big world and we only see 'parts and pieces.' We are all "partialists." Everyone needs to hear the rest of the story. Jesus is the Truth. We know and love Him. He is our hope for someday grasping (and being grasped by) Truth. In the meantime we need to keep both eyes open and constantly ask the question, "what more is there to this." It does not mean giving up convictions and speaking out strongly. It does mean doing so with humility and care.
Showing posts with label thinking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label thinking. Show all posts
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Thursday, September 22, 2011
GLBT's sticky argument
Those familiar with the tiny hands of toddlers know that frequent washing is mandatory. Toddlers tend to involve all their digits when eating, and they enjoy foods which are loaded with ingredients which produce 'hand magnets.' You know, the jelly coated paws which are then covered with fuzz and assorted other debris. Yes, sticky fingers can unintentionally pick up all manner of excess. Arguments work the same way.
I am a counselor and was drawn to this vocation because of a natural inclination to feel empathy. The pain of others induces a response in me. I have counseled several young men and women who struggled with their sexual identity and inclinations. In almost every case, the person I dealt with was a sympathetic figure. Their pain was real and heartbreaking. Among other things, we discussed the morality of the situation and I explained the 'internal forum' to those whose understanding of their situation was different than mine. I was involved in one gay bashing incident, where I was asked to intervene with someone who was bullying some homosexuals, which I did. I am against picking on people.
When the episcopal church made it's decision(s) around all things GLBT, the process was political. We met in conventions and passed legislation. As such, the decisions were made in the realm of power and politics. Arguments were obviously provided, sometimes with great passion, but I am not sure how much actual discussion took place. Dialogue frequently means, "let's talk and then do what I want." That was certainly what I saw in this process.
As an inside observer of the process I attempted to listen to the arguments. In the end, the pro-GLBT arguments drove me to the other side. They were generally problematic. They tended to ignore the implications of their conclusions. It did not feel 'nice' to take such a position. It was difficult in light of the pain so many GLBT had suffered. But having spent many years in seminary where moral argumentation was taught I knew that reason has a place in argumentation and reason was not on their side.
Among the things which worried me most was the disdain for tradition and philosophy (especially teleology). The Biblical arguments were typical. Each side grabbed up some texts and either "proofed" their position or "explained away" the other. The best argument I heard (though ironically unappealing at first hearing) was that the natural order is man-woman marriage as set forth in Genesis. I found this to be unmoving for a long time. The genius of the insight dawned on me later. However, perhaps because of the more Protestant nature of the group, rarely was the church's historical interpretation of the texts brought forth. In the end, the fatal flaw of personal interpretation is it is personal. As such, conservatives tend to read conseratively and liberals tend to read liberal-ly. It is the nature of our subjectivity. Therefore, the pros and cons argued past each other. Much of the Biblical interpretation was shaped by feelings and limited insights into the position held.
However, as the 'progressives' rejected large blocks of scripture as 'outdated' they failed to recognize the repurcussions. Like a toddler with sticky fingers, their arguments were picking up exrtra debris. For example, the claim that one's sexual orientation is God given and therefore God blessed. We heard the constant refrain "God made me this way." I and others pointed out that this was an erroneous assumption and a problematic one as well. We were ignored (and demonized). Fastforward eight years, to September 2011. Now we hear a growing movement to normalize pedophilia... The argument used? You guessed it. We cannot judge the natural occuring desires of another. Let me be clear, I and others made this logical connection almost a decade ago and we were lambasted. Now, before our eyes, we see and hear exactly the things we said would happen. The horror.
The pro-pedophilia crowd has embraced the GLBT arguments and inserted their own group. The outcome is less certain, but in the end, once one begins arguing about the acceptability of such things, there is a sense in which the battle is lost. A society which argues about such things is open to the possibility. A society which embraces unfettered freedom and individual rights is ripe to embrace it.
I am not saying gay people are child molesters. I am, however, also not shying away from the fact that the arguments made for acceptance of LGBT is also being used by the pro-pedophilia. That is what I saw coming long ago. Arguments have consequences. Changing institutions impacts other institutions. Dismantling marriage will produce other unintended consequences.
The connections between some in the GLBT community and those sexually attracted to youths are documented. Sex between adult males and male teens has been well documented in the clergy sex abuse scandals. Ignoring this inconvenient truth has not been helpful. The politically correct limitations have helped create an environment where the idea of child molesting may become past tense. It is all so awful.
Years ago when I said such things I was told it would never, could never happen. Today, we are in the midst of the discussions. Many people have no idea what is going on. They did not pay attention to the consequences of 'sticky' arguments. Trying to be nice they opened the door to 'everyone' without thinking what everyone includes. An unattended, open door provides an open avenue to the monsters. And the monsters are real. And the monsters are trying to come in the house.
I am a counselor and was drawn to this vocation because of a natural inclination to feel empathy. The pain of others induces a response in me. I have counseled several young men and women who struggled with their sexual identity and inclinations. In almost every case, the person I dealt with was a sympathetic figure. Their pain was real and heartbreaking. Among other things, we discussed the morality of the situation and I explained the 'internal forum' to those whose understanding of their situation was different than mine. I was involved in one gay bashing incident, where I was asked to intervene with someone who was bullying some homosexuals, which I did. I am against picking on people.
When the episcopal church made it's decision(s) around all things GLBT, the process was political. We met in conventions and passed legislation. As such, the decisions were made in the realm of power and politics. Arguments were obviously provided, sometimes with great passion, but I am not sure how much actual discussion took place. Dialogue frequently means, "let's talk and then do what I want." That was certainly what I saw in this process.
As an inside observer of the process I attempted to listen to the arguments. In the end, the pro-GLBT arguments drove me to the other side. They were generally problematic. They tended to ignore the implications of their conclusions. It did not feel 'nice' to take such a position. It was difficult in light of the pain so many GLBT had suffered. But having spent many years in seminary where moral argumentation was taught I knew that reason has a place in argumentation and reason was not on their side.
Among the things which worried me most was the disdain for tradition and philosophy (especially teleology). The Biblical arguments were typical. Each side grabbed up some texts and either "proofed" their position or "explained away" the other. The best argument I heard (though ironically unappealing at first hearing) was that the natural order is man-woman marriage as set forth in Genesis. I found this to be unmoving for a long time. The genius of the insight dawned on me later. However, perhaps because of the more Protestant nature of the group, rarely was the church's historical interpretation of the texts brought forth. In the end, the fatal flaw of personal interpretation is it is personal. As such, conservatives tend to read conseratively and liberals tend to read liberal-ly. It is the nature of our subjectivity. Therefore, the pros and cons argued past each other. Much of the Biblical interpretation was shaped by feelings and limited insights into the position held.
However, as the 'progressives' rejected large blocks of scripture as 'outdated' they failed to recognize the repurcussions. Like a toddler with sticky fingers, their arguments were picking up exrtra debris. For example, the claim that one's sexual orientation is God given and therefore God blessed. We heard the constant refrain "God made me this way." I and others pointed out that this was an erroneous assumption and a problematic one as well. We were ignored (and demonized). Fastforward eight years, to September 2011. Now we hear a growing movement to normalize pedophilia... The argument used? You guessed it. We cannot judge the natural occuring desires of another. Let me be clear, I and others made this logical connection almost a decade ago and we were lambasted. Now, before our eyes, we see and hear exactly the things we said would happen. The horror.
The pro-pedophilia crowd has embraced the GLBT arguments and inserted their own group. The outcome is less certain, but in the end, once one begins arguing about the acceptability of such things, there is a sense in which the battle is lost. A society which argues about such things is open to the possibility. A society which embraces unfettered freedom and individual rights is ripe to embrace it.
I am not saying gay people are child molesters. I am, however, also not shying away from the fact that the arguments made for acceptance of LGBT is also being used by the pro-pedophilia. That is what I saw coming long ago. Arguments have consequences. Changing institutions impacts other institutions. Dismantling marriage will produce other unintended consequences.
The connections between some in the GLBT community and those sexually attracted to youths are documented. Sex between adult males and male teens has been well documented in the clergy sex abuse scandals. Ignoring this inconvenient truth has not been helpful. The politically correct limitations have helped create an environment where the idea of child molesting may become past tense. It is all so awful.
Years ago when I said such things I was told it would never, could never happen. Today, we are in the midst of the discussions. Many people have no idea what is going on. They did not pay attention to the consequences of 'sticky' arguments. Trying to be nice they opened the door to 'everyone' without thinking what everyone includes. An unattended, open door provides an open avenue to the monsters. And the monsters are real. And the monsters are trying to come in the house.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Thinking Through our Points
We live in a contentious time. Arguments and debates are all around us. Unfortunately, we do not seem to be very good at it. The failure to think through our positions and to look into our own arguments creates many problems. I want to illustrate with two recent, non-theological, "arguments" I have recently encountered and then draw a theological point.
There has been a recent flurry of debate about paying college football players. Actually, there is not much debate, mainly I have heard the radio guys/guests pontificating on why they should be paid. Now it is the nature of talk radio to create 'buzz' and controversy. But it is still instructive to hear the argument.
Last week the local Progressive Weekly contained an editorial. The author was demonstrating (in his mind) how stupid the people who do not believe in global warming are. He began with a list of summer events which, to him, obviously proved that global warming is real. There have been tornadoes, huricanes, droughts and an earth quake the last few months. What else could it be????? My first impulse is to recall the numerous tornadoes, floods, droughts and hurricanes which have impacted the planet every year for countless centuries, but I was not able to enter that argument at all. I was too stunned by the inclusion of the "earthquake." Earthquakes are not a strong arguing point for his position, and by including it it made me think that this guy is just an idealogue spouting his stuff because it is what his team (Team Progressive) is advocating. In general, it is a bad idea to say stupid things when you are trying to demonstrate how stupid the other side is.
Thinking through college football and global warming are important. The decisions made will cost, literally, billions of dollars and impact all of us. The same is true for numerous other decisions we make. Theology is equally impacted by this phenomenon.
Recently I hear a discussion about thrill seeking. One man said it is dumb to put your life at risk to thrill seek. Another man said that he thought it was okay. I leave out much of a longer conversation, but wanted to identify his main pro-danger argument. "When God decides your time is up, your time is up."
That claim, that God decides when you die, is certainly one which most of us believe. But when you hear it used to justify life threatening thrill seeking it causes one to ask, what do we really believe? The world of "theological bumper sticker arguments" has not produced much fruit in the last couple of decades. The decline in faith has been accelerated by the way faith has been expressed. I am not sure I am a good example of thinking through my arguments, but I do recognize the need to ask, "If I think 'X' what follows from it?" That is where investigating our own thoughts and beliefs is vital.
There has been a recent flurry of debate about paying college football players. Actually, there is not much debate, mainly I have heard the radio guys/guests pontificating on why they should be paid. Now it is the nature of talk radio to create 'buzz' and controversy. But it is still instructive to hear the argument.
- College football makes lots (millions/billions) of money.
- The institutions and coaches makes lots of money. The players are the reason people watch.
- Therefore the players should be paid.
Last week the local Progressive Weekly contained an editorial. The author was demonstrating (in his mind) how stupid the people who do not believe in global warming are. He began with a list of summer events which, to him, obviously proved that global warming is real. There have been tornadoes, huricanes, droughts and an earth quake the last few months. What else could it be????? My first impulse is to recall the numerous tornadoes, floods, droughts and hurricanes which have impacted the planet every year for countless centuries, but I was not able to enter that argument at all. I was too stunned by the inclusion of the "earthquake." Earthquakes are not a strong arguing point for his position, and by including it it made me think that this guy is just an idealogue spouting his stuff because it is what his team (Team Progressive) is advocating. In general, it is a bad idea to say stupid things when you are trying to demonstrate how stupid the other side is.
Thinking through college football and global warming are important. The decisions made will cost, literally, billions of dollars and impact all of us. The same is true for numerous other decisions we make. Theology is equally impacted by this phenomenon.
Recently I hear a discussion about thrill seeking. One man said it is dumb to put your life at risk to thrill seek. Another man said that he thought it was okay. I leave out much of a longer conversation, but wanted to identify his main pro-danger argument. "When God decides your time is up, your time is up."
That claim, that God decides when you die, is certainly one which most of us believe. But when you hear it used to justify life threatening thrill seeking it causes one to ask, what do we really believe? The world of "theological bumper sticker arguments" has not produced much fruit in the last couple of decades. The decline in faith has been accelerated by the way faith has been expressed. I am not sure I am a good example of thinking through my arguments, but I do recognize the need to ask, "If I think 'X' what follows from it?" That is where investigating our own thoughts and beliefs is vital.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)