THE PROBLEM WITH JOHN - THE GOSPEL THAT IS

Okay - it's been awhile since I've waxed theological and I recall having committed myself, some time ago, to blogging more about the Gospel of John, but before getting into that I need to say that for much of my life I considered The Gospel of John my favorite book of Bible.  I even read it and studied it as part of my course in New Testament Greek, which oddly didn't deter me from considering it my favorite.  That was years ago.

SERMON PREPARATION

In the church I'm a member of, I am a licensed lay reader and preacher, amongst other things. [And yes, they allow this faithful agnostic to preach every now and then, and I actually enjoy it (once I've figured out my homily or sermon)].

Giving a homily or sermon is something I take seriously.  For me, it's about giving an honest, thoughtful, and applicable talk about a reading from that Sunday's or day's lectionary (appointed scripture readings).  Doing so demands that I actually do some research about the scripture I'm going to use, to put it in context before trying to distill a message that is both true to the text and applicable to today.  It also has to be something I can deliver in eight to ten minutes. (That is a benchmark for me - anything over ten minutes better be damn well worth the time or heads will start nodding off and eyes will start closing.) 

Writing sermons actually led me to fully read and listen to scripture in whole new way that I hadn't done before.  Before giving sermons, I read the Bible "devotionally."   Devotional reading of scripture never led me to think too much about what I was reading.  I was fulfilling some sort of spiritual obligation just reading it (part of my pious Lutheran upbringing).  If something caused me to wonder about it, I dutifully put my mind at rest in the knowledge that I didn't know everything or, just as dutifully, kept my doubts to myself which I eventually couldn't do.

When I started writing sermons something came over me, a troublesome sense of having to be honest about what I was going to say. I don't worry about whether what I say will please the congregation or not. In fact, I suspect that if the congregation knows I'm going to be giving the sermon or homily on certain Sunday, some regulars are noticeably absent which is fine with me.  I believe the mark of a good sermon is when it prompts a congregation to think and to ask questions rather than provide answers to questions they have no need to ask, and I get that some don't like to go to church and have to think.

Standing in a pulpit or by a lectern or in front of a congregation requires the person in that position is being truthful about what he or she is going to say.  Sermons are particularly weighty matters.  So when I find something in a reading that doesn't strike me as being correct or right, I have two choices: 1) Point it out in the sermon, which I have done on more than one occasion, or
2) Use another reading. 

While I don't write sermons to please people, I see no need to go out of my way to disturb them if it can be avoided.

THE PROBLEM WITH JOHN

I'm scheduled to preach this Sunday (August 2, 2015) and the lectionary has us reading from the Letter to the Ephesians and the Gospel of John.  Generally speaking, the Gospel lesson is what is largely chosen as the main source for sermon development.  

Now -  I know I've complained about and discussed John in several other posts, and it would be nice if I could like the Gospel of John.  I wish I could, but to be honest, I don't. 

The fact is I thought I could give it a go this week and write a sermon based on a little known portion of John's account of the Feeding of the Five Thousand.  The story where a group of people (after being at the feeding event) get in a boat and cross the Sea of Galilee to look for Jesus.

I could see a theme develop about "Looking for Jesus" and started trying to put what I thought I could say within the context of the rest of Gospel reading, in order to say what I thought could be derived from this reading, but what I found myself doing was spending an inordinate amount of time trying to explain John and how I was getting from it a message about seeking Jesus which wasn't really there.

I know some preachers wouldn't have batted an eye about just going ahead and preaching on it anyway, but I can't.  Lectionaries cherry-pick the scripture the way it is, and I would have ended up cherry picking this gospel reading to the point of where what I was saying had little in common with what John's gospel was saying or, the more likely scenario, I would have taken so much time to explain John that whatever other point I was trying to make would have been lost.

If your interested in the reading, it is John 6:24-35.  My problem with this selection is the writer(s) of John have Jesus telling these seekers that they've got it all wrong with seeking him out in order to perform more signs (a not too subtle slam by John about Jews).  Jesus, as usual in John, is depicted as the divine "know-it-all" who basically ignores their questions and instead gives them answers to the questions they should have been asking.  In the end, John has Jesus telling these seekers (making John's point about Jesus), "I am the Bread of Life;" an answer to a question they never originally asked, but John has Jesus getting them there. 

There is something so dishonest and twisted about the Gospel of John and the way its written.  In fact, almost all the writings attributed to "John" have this problem. I understand that the writer(s) of John were using a literary device of positing their views about Jesus by making Jesus state them himself, to lend them authority, if not authenticity.  I get it, but I don't appreciate it.  At any rate, have no fear.  I'm sure any number of sermons will be given on the theme, "I am the Bread of Life" come Sunday.   

I was on my third attempted draft of this sermon when I realized that there is no way I can preach about anything from the Gospel of John, with the possible exception of John 8, the story of the adulterous woman.  I certainly couldn't do so in the eight to ten minutes I allow.  I could give a two hour lecture on the Gospel reading for this Sunday, or a whole year's course on John, but not a sermon.  John is just too complex and, in my opinion, too opinionated; has too much of an agenda about turning Jesus into God for me to distill an honest message that I could deliver in a short period of time.  So I abandoned John and wrote a very concise sermon on the Ephesians reading for the day; on the topic, "Speaking truth in love," Ephesian 4:14-16.

ON THE JOHNS

In my opinion the Gospel of John is not really a gospel at all.  If anything, I would call it a gospel about the Gospels; in that it cherry-picks what the writer wants to talk about found in the other gospels.  John is largely a theological work and a poor one at that, in my estimation.  I know most Christians love the Gospel of John. It contains some of the most quoted sayings attributed to Jesus that are to be found in the New Testament, but I find most of them very deceptive in that there is little explanation at to why Jesus is saying what he is saying.  There are all those "I am" metaphors that sound nice, but really say very little in explaining why they're being said.  John assumes the reader knows what's in the other gospels because he certainly doesn't take time to explain the conclusions he comes to.

Perhaps the most disturbing thing I find in John is the "I got you" quality to most of these sayings. You start reading something that sounds lovely and kind until you read on for the next two or three verses and find out that if you don't agree with this, you're as good as going to hell.  What also upsets me with John is how anti-Jewish it is.  I just want to scream when it talks about "The Jews did this. The Jews did that."  Jesus was a Jew, for crying out loud!  He didn't talk that way, and I'm totally convinced he wouldn't have appreciated those who follow him talking that way.  As such there is a vindictive quality and air about the Gospel of John. In fact, the more I think about it, I feel the vindictive, judgmental spirit that is present in a number of churches and expressed by a number of Christians to the fact that the Johns passively promote it.

The Gospel of John is a club house gospel.  There is nothing inclusive about John unless you're a Christian, and an unquestioning one at that.  I know that people see the Gospel of John as the Gospel of Love, but it isn't.  For all the love talk in the Johns, there's an edge.  God loves everybody, but if you don't love God back (and most seem incapable of doing so  according to the Johns) you can go to hell.  In that regard it has little in common with the teachings of Jesus found in the three synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke which are inclusive and where we find Jesus talking about loving our neighbors as ourselves, to love our enemies, etc.  You're not going to find that in the Johns. The Johns talk about love, but only in the context of the club house church. 

I used to think that if the Gospel of John was the only gospel, we would know and understand all there is to know and understand about Jesus.  Wow - has that thought changed!

Frankly, I don't see Jesus in John. What I see is a very pointed theology about Jesus being put in Jesus' mouth to give it unquestionable authority.  I understand John to be a period piece, written at a difficult time in a early church setting that was trying to figure itself out, trying to differentiate itself from its parent religion, Judaism; trying to make God more accessible by turning Jesus into God; trying to give assurance through the certainty of belief as opposed to living in the faith, hope, and love that Paul talks and that Jesus exemplified and taught as found in the other gospels.

I realize that the Johns are not going any place and I'm not advocating that they do, but I think it is important to very careful with them.  I don't find them very helpful or very encouraging in facing the problems of our current world.  They foster the certainty of belief in a narrow, closed-hearted theological understanding of  God's love that can lead one to ignore the practicality of faith that I find helpful when dealing with the uncertainties of life.

Until next time, stay faithful. 












  

ZEITGEIST

In this post I thought I would step back into a more reflective mode in order to ponder the recent events of our time. The Germans have a wonderful word that captures what I'm talking about: Zeitgeist, understood to mean the spirit of the time.

A GREAT READ

I'm writing this post while on vacation with my wife, visiting our youngest daughter who lives in New York City.  What started me thinking about this post is that on our way to the airport we stopped to have lunch at a coffee shop called the Urban Abbey in Omaha, Nebraska - excellent coffee, homemade sandwiches, and other homemade goodies.

It also has a small, interesting bookstore. While looking through the books I ran across and purchased a small book to read on the plane. The book is titled, "The Gardens of Democracy" by Eric Liu and Nick Hanuaer.  I was able to finish reading it the evening we reached our daughter's Harlem apartment. I rarely read a book in one sitting.

This is a book for our time, especially, people living in the United States. It is beautifully written and written to make one think. I will most certainly read it again.

If you haven't read it, consider doing so.

Their book isn't about zeitgeist, per se, but it seems indicative of an emerging one.  It offers new way to look at things. It reminded me of how much like thinking occurs in a massive way at certain times, but I'm not going to talk about this excellent book.  I'll leave it up to you to read it for yourself.

ZEITGEIST MOMENTS OF THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY

2000 through 2012

In this post, I want to spend time looking at zeitgeist moments. Not that zeitgeists can be defined in terms of specific dates since they give way to other such moments and trying to draw line where one ends and one begins is impossible. What marks a zeitgeist moment is an identified flow of ideas and thought that produce action and innovation.  In fact, one zeitgeist moment may lead to its polar opposite  For example, during the first decade of this new century was a move towards social conservatism in both politics and religion. Within a few weeks of 9/11 it seemed the world retracted into a shell as if, in some way, we collectively had gone too far out on a progressive limb and needed to find a way back into the safety of an idealized past. The fact is though this moment wasn't caused by 9/11,  it was more of  the outbreak event of a zeitgeist moment that was already underway. The zeitgeist of the time had a name, fundamentalism.

The irony of that era was that fundamentalism, in the form radicalized Islam, created a like radicalized Christian response in the more free intellectual environments, particularly in the United States.  The goal of fundamentalism, in all of its various forms, is aimed at eliminating freedom of thought. As such, fundamentalism easily lends itself to the irrationality of war as a necessary response or outcome to or of a perceived evil that is believed to have arisen from permissive thought.

While religious fundamentalists may talk about a god of love, their version of a loving God is a belief in conditional god who comes with a lot ifs, ands, and buts. God loves you as long as you think the right way and do what you're told. This usually means to stop thinking and just believe what you're being told. As such, fundamentalism has its own ideological deity that I would identify as the God of Wrath.

A god of wrath is helpful when trying to wipe out intellectual freedom. Interestingly, the God of Wrath is not preferential, as this god is paid homage by all fractious sides.  Human blood, in the form of war, is the preferred sacrifice by this god and fear its liturgy.

And, for a time, the world bowed obsequiously to this god.

So as war took center stage, fundamentalism in various forms strengthened. Politics became polarized and narrow as it maintained a hawkish front.  Religion, for the most part, embraced the certainty of belief rather than the truthfulness of faith. Truth no longer spoke to power.  Power was truth.

And for a moment the fundamental politics of war and the fundamental certainty of religious belief were wedded.

I remember quite distinctly how quiet not only the skies became, but also how hushed any conversation in public became that questioned the direction our nation was taking shortly after the events of 9/11.

As time went on, I could not help but observe the emerging similarities between both Muslim and Christian fundamentalism with regard to social issues. Of course in the USA we did not employ the draconian methods used by the Taliban to enforce their moral codes, but rather made attempts to enforce morality through legal processes as though the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were no longer the main focus of national and international concern. The political irrationality of the Terri Schaivo case and the effort to add an amendment to the U.S. constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman were indicative of this fundamentalist zeitgeist moment.

The Roman Catholic Church is perhaps one of the best places in recent times to observe any zeitgeist currents.  It had its own "fundamental" moment.  As Pope John Paul II's papacy neared its end, the Roman Church retracted from the progressive advances of Vatican II.  With the election of Pope Benedict XVI, the Church of Rome seemed to have stepped back into a theological time warp that resembled Catholicism of the late 19th century, but all of these occurrences had a consistency about them that said Zeitgeist.

The Great Transition

Zeitgeists, like economic markets,  have their bubbles that eventually burst. These are transitional periods between zeitgeist that are poorly defined and marked more by confusion and anticipation.

It appears that we may be exiting a transitional period.  It started with economic bubbles bursting all over the place, and the world experiencing  one of the worst economic recessions to date. At the same time, people in the USA seemingly had their fill of war and their fill of fundamentalism by electing our first black president.

With the market crash came scandal after scandal involving high profile financial moguls who bilked countless investors of their life savings and evangelical preachers and leaders of fundamentalist mega-churches who preached to high heaven on family values and then  found being involved with mostly male prostitutes.

The bastion that is the Roman Catholic Church was rocked by scandal after scandal involving pedophile priests causing a financial and moral crisis that resulted in Pope Benedict "retiring." The Middle East erupted in the Arab Spring with one after another Arab nation experiencing populist revolts that has left the Middle-east in turmoil and uncertainty, but which may emerge a calmer place if and when the dust is allowed to settle.

A new moment?

I believe we are in a new zeitgeist moment; one that hopefully is more caring, humble, patient, and reasoned than in the recent past. One might question my sanity in saying this.  I'm not being idealistic. I realize there is tremendous anxiety and uncertainty where things are going, but what gives me hope and what seems indicative of a zeitgeist moment is the emergence of new ideas, but be it far from me to predict what all this means or what twists and turns will be encountered.

Creativity is in the air as a collective fatigue over repeating the same old patterns and keeping to the same economic, political, and religious agenda set in.  I believe there is a general awareness about the insanity of doing the same unproductive things repeatedly. Zeitgeists are largely marked by massive trends that bubble up from a ground level, with new ideas and language to along with them.

SCOTUS' recent rulings on such political hot topics such as health care and same-sex marriage are indicative of the break-through moments as is the response of South Carolinians to violence inflicted on Emmanuel AME church by removing the Confederate war flag from its capital grounds.  With such break-through moments will come challenges and reaction.  Nothing about a spirit of the times is easy or has a moral value to it.  Rather it is about a thematic flow of thought which results in actions, but one can never predict an outcome to this flow or where it will lead.

Emergence

The election of Barack Obama marked the emergence of a new zeitgeist moment; one that signaled the fatigue this country and world was feeling over the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the economic recession, and the social retraction that had occurred during the eight previous years.  Awarding President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize struck some in the United States as an awkward moment, but it seemed to be more than a mere expression of relief on the part of the western world, rather it was a recognition that the zeitgeist of extreme fundamentalism was over in the West, and, as it turns out, they were right.  Fundamental extremism appears to be waning at the moment.

2013 to the Present

The election of Pope Francis I, is probably the clearest signal that a new zeitgeist moment has arrived in the West.  He put his imprimatur on language that's been around, but never recognized. His use of the word gay, for example, during an impromptu conversation with members of the press did more to break down closet doors than a single act done by anyone else. Even though he does not favor same-sex marriage, he legitimized, on a global scale, that being gay is acceptable and should be accepted. It will take time for many to catch up to this, but the seed has sprouted. Although concerns about global warming and climate change has been around for some time, his "Laudato Si" did more to awaken the world to our common plight that scientists have been warning us of than the valiant efforts of Al Gore and others who undoubtedly influenced his encyclical.

Politics, in the United States, is always fascinating and generally unpredictable. I really wish the majority of its citizens would appreciate how fascinating it is and become engaged.  Two individuals are currently dominating the presidential race. Both were considered a long shot at the start of their campaigns, but both are near leading their respective parties in the polls.

Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, regardless of what one might think of them, have proven to be game changers with regard to parties they represent. No two individuals could be further apart idealistically or politically, but their attraction, at the moment, is signaling exactly what I meant by a collective fatigue that is yearning for new ideas and approaches. Both of these individuals represent the press for plain talk and truth-telling. Whether one likes what  is said or appalled by what is said, these two are shaking their respective parties up in a way that may make this presidential race more focused.

Politics, whether of a national or of a religious nature, do not generate zeitgeist moments, but are indicators of one. Politics are largely responsive to the seismic groundswell of an emerging collective consciousness. The United States and the Roman Catholic Church are two of the best indicators of a global zeitgeist. Primarily, because both are monolithic institutions that embody diverse cultures and intellectual thought one is able to see such seismic shifts of on a grander scale.

The reality is that much smaller nations and religious institutions are far ahead of these monoliths when it comes to creative thought and innovation. I believe in part the reason for this is because they are smaller and more agile and able to make the sort of commitments to social progress and eco-friendly planning than much bulkier nations and institutions.  For example, some small European nations are no longer dependent on fossil fuels for their nations energy needs.  Smaller Christian and Jewish denominations have readily embraced same-sex marriage. Some, like the Episcopal Church and the United Church of Christ have divested their stock holdings in the fossil fuel industries and reinvesting in clean energy industries.

Zeitgeists, however, do not come out of the blue. They just appear to because a groundswell of thought and activity has reached a breakthrough point in our collective consciousness as witnessed in recent events mentioned earlier.

I remain hopeful that we, in the United States and in other parts of the world, have reached a point where, for the most part, we are poised to bury the evils of a past steeped in discrimination, fear, and segregation to embrace a more just society and fuller humanity. It is clear that not all parts of the world are ready for this, but we in the West and in other more democratic nations are poised to tackle the environmental mess that we've inherited and to create and restore the earth to its natural beauty. We are poised, but as yet not fully committed, to see fruition. Time (hopefully a short time) will tell if we become fully committed to what seems to be the spirit of the time, to this new zeitgeist.


Until next time, stay faithful.

FOR THE BEAUTY OF THE EARTH

After posting my thoughts on Pope Francis's encyclical  "Laudato Si"  (click here ),  I have given more thought to the issues that were discussed in his encyclical and wish to give my own take on some of the subjects he touched upon.  I am not a scientist nor a bona fide philosopher, for that matter.  I am just a person who thinks about things beyond his ken.  Hence my claim to being an agnostic. 

It seems to me that scientist have been warning us for some time about global warming, and economist have been warning us of the devastating effects to world security that can result because of the extreme disparity of wealth throughout the world.  In my opinion they have received little more than a lukewarm response by the vast majority of the world's governments. 

Global warming and poverty are not new to the world.  Climatologists will tell us the earth has gone through periods of extreme warming and cooling long before homo sapiens walked the face of the earth.  Anthropologist will tell you that poverty has been a constant since the dawn of human civilization and that the connection between climate change and human want is well known.  So those who would dismiss the current concerns being expressed by a majority of professionals in these fields as nothing to worry about have the past to back their lack of concern. The problem is they fail realize that it's happening now, and we know that humans are largely the reason for it happening and that there may be things we can do to change it.  

Pope Francis touched upon many interrelated subjects that I will briefly expand on this post.  The first is examining how the lack of concern for the world's ecosystem can lead to war and the further destruction of the world ecosystem.  I will also talk briefly on the problem of wealth disparity and how this contributes to our ecological dilemma.

THE ANACHRONISM OF WAR

War is perhaps the greatest threat to our ecological systems. 

As mentioned in my previous post, we humans have not advanced ethically as fast as we have technologically. The prime example of this is war.  In my opinion war is an anachronism, something we should have grown out of a long time ago, but as a whole we haven't.  In some ways, the teenager who is sitting behind a computer screen waging and fighting virtual wars of conquest and destruction is symbolic, if not symptomatic, of what the nations of the world are as a whole.  We are drawn to war, drawn to the destruction of our own kind. For the most part, we continue to act like primitive tribes when it comes to nations relating to one another on a global scale; vying for turf and the control of its natural resources; seeing this small planet as if it were the whole universe; imbuing idealistic beliefs with god-like purposes to sanction the destruction of others and their environment.  To that end much of the advancement of our modern technology has been directed to broaden defense while improving weapons with deadly accuracy to take out one's foes. 

An outcome of that type of R&D has resulted in many of the modern conveniences we enjoy today, such as the world-wide web and cellular phones, which indicates that world's technological advances could be readily turned to serious problem-solving rather than improving on how to make weapons serve an ultimate solution scenario. They have largely served to placate suspicion regarding the trajectory such technological advances are aiming for.  We still are working from the primitive principle that the person or nation who can wield the biggest stick or rock is the person or nation you need to pay attention to. In that sense, ethically speaking, we have not progressed further than the invention of the wheel.  

The fact is we, as nations, do not know how  to live with each other very well.  I believe we're learning as an inadvertent result of technological advances to communicate better on a personal level, but for humans to digest what they learn takes a long time, especially when what we are learning at  a grass roots level needs to find its way to the top.  On the other hand, this technology has also allowed some to live more insulated lives, creating virtual private rooms and a reality that exists only on a computer screen, but one that is responsive to the viewer; that conveys a sense of immortality and god-like power that vanquishes "the enemy." We now are seeing how such lone, isolated individuals are ripe for radicalization by terror groups who encourage such mesmerized minds to move from the virtual violence of their computer screens to commit actual acts of violence on those outside of their virtual reality, unable to separate the virtual reality of being in a personal war with whomever they choose and the real futility of committing such violence on innocent people, animals, and the environment that sustains them.

That we haven't learned how to avoid war simply shows how deficient we are in understanding ourselves and the world in which we live.  Some will say that war is a fact of life.  Some have gone so far as to suggest such a thing as the permanency of war. I believe a bellicose mentality is so ingrained in almost every culture that the reality of war has become a game as demonstrated in various team sports, which serve as a sort of pressure valve to release the global desire for conquest.  I know this will strike a lot of people as simply wrong because most people love their competitive sports and are loyal to the teams they support.

Parents and educators will extol the virtue of team sports as teaching positive values, of how to get along with each other, work together, exhibit a sense of fair play, and kindness to those who lose.  I certainly will not argue with that, but consider that the origin of team sports not only teaches children how to get along with each other, but also how to get along with each other for the purpose of defeating the opposing team.  While it teaches good virtues it is premised on being the winner and to take pride one's or the teams ability to the defeat others effectively. The sportsmanship of the playing field is rarely demonstrated on the battlefield and  if you haven't noticed, the more violent the team sport, the less sportsmanship is exhibited and expected.

I am inclined to live in the hope that as a world we will come to understand how small our planet home really is and of the need to eliminate war; as the old folk song put it, "We ain't gonna  study war no more." 

Preventing war is a must, if we are to save our planet home.  I am appalled how many monuments we raise to honor the dead and heroes of war, building them in temple proportions while few exist honoring the peacemakers of the world.  It amazes me how frequently we mistrust the efforts of diplomacy to solve territorial strife and are so ready to put "boots on the ground."  We know, as has been shown time and time again, that diplomacy is the only means to prevent wars and end them.  We know that a people fighting for their land or against an injustice will fight and destroy until they feel heard.  We know that for all the military hardware that is capable of wiping whole geographical areas off the map, will not stop these voices, unless one is willing to silence every voice along the way.  Even then, the ground will cry out on behalf of the innocent blood that is spilled (Genesis 4:10).

 We have yet to take "our swords and turn them into plows, our spears into pruning hooks" (Micah  4:3). What an apt Biblical metaphor that demonstrates the various ways technology can be repurposed.

"MY ROOM - KEEP OUT!"

 I see the nations of the world much like the rooms of  a house overrun by petulant teenagers who have placed signs on the doors of their nation-rooms, "Keep Out" in order to engage in any activity they choose and to clutter their personal turf as if it had no impact on the rest of the home environment.  The fact is if a room's ecology is a disaster, that disaster will spread.  It will impact the atmosphere and the environment of the whole house if nothing is done.   Bacteria, mold, vermin of all sorts can gain a foothold that will eventually impact the rest of the house.  Keeping the room of our nations clean and kept up will do much to improve our planet home. Doing so will do much to alleviate the need to look at the resources and turf of others.  As the world becomes more information based, more democratic the "Keep Out" signs are becoming less effective. 

Not that nations don't have secrets or don't want to maintain their secret ways, but rather there is a phenomenon emerging in democracy that was predicted in a book written by John Keane, "The Life and Death of Democracy" written in 2009.  This extensive book on the history of democracy in all its known forms was written before with Wiki-leaks and NSA leaks occurred.  In his book, Keane predicted that in order for democracy to work effectively, that people must be informed as to what their governments are doing; that people cannot accurately make decisions without knowing what's going on.  He called this "Monitory Democracy" and predicted it would be a game changer in world events.   It has.

I don't know if  Julian Assange and Ed Snowden were working from that principle to justify leaking the secret information of the nations they did, or if they were thinking merely in terms of personal profit.  I found it interesting that Keane had predicted such events shortly before they occurred.  It is also interesting that in the wake of such events, there is a sense that "Keep Out" signs are less effective and have resulted in exposing the adolescent voyeuristic practices that "free" nations of the world employ on each other. This, of course, comes as no shock to anyone.  Allies have always spied on each other. I think most of us at least suspected that such activities took place and that is why it has not created much of popular outcry by the citizenry of these free countries as it has by their government officials. 

You may be asking, what relevance such events have on the concerns about world ecology?

Ironically, these sorts of events may actually bring us closer together as a world by exposing the divisive adolescent-like behavior that exist amongst the nation-rooms of our planet home.  The walls are no longer sound proof.  The noise of one nation is heard by all. The sense of show and tells that has resulted has created a sense of humility amongst the nations of the world.  It exposes the fact that no one can claim to be standing on the moral high ground. Everyone has dirt on their faces.

My point is that any serious attempt to rectify the ecological problems of the world  cannot be mired with back room deals that ignore the simplest of life forms or which disregards the poverty of people who cannot fend for themselves.  Earth is not just the domain of politicians and the CEO's of large corporations.  It is home to us all. 

Repair and restoration will not be seriously addressed until such time as we are able to see the connection between such adolescent turf wars and the time and expense it takes away from providing care to the environment in which we all live. The nations of the world waste a lot of time, effort, and capital over things that will not sustain our planet home.  Every war literally tears apart the home we live in.  The "Keep Out" signs of the past need to be replaced with "Welcome" signs in recognition that each of our nation-rooms is nothing more than a room within the small planet home we share with each other. 

It would be nice if we were to allow the world to grow up and old before it dies out.  Being an old adolescent is simply embarrassing.  Amidst all the wars that are taking place right now, I believe there is a chance, however slim, that this one issue, this one important issue - the desperate needs of our common, planet home can instill a maturity among the nations of the world to come together in order to save what we have in a way that has not seen in human history.

TECHNOLOGY AND FINANCE OF THE PAST

It seems that as we develop some advanced technologies, we do so without having them moored to a foundational understanding of the past.  I read somewhere that the ancient Greeks taught that to see the future one must look behind one's self, implying that by looking at the past we have better understanding where we're going with things.  In order to put this into perspective, however, I am not just talking about recent technological advances.  The fact is technological advances have been happening since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the mid-18th Century, which also took place as the world was being introduced to a new global economic system defined by Adam Smith as capitalism. 

The problems we are facing today started long before any of our lifetimes.  I feel this is part of the difficulty some have in grasping the seriousness of the situation we are now in.  The current generations didn't start this problem, we've inherited it from our great-great grandparents.  It's not like we don't have a past to see where this is heading.   Without this important understanding, it is difficult for some to accept that the threats to the Earth's ecology is a serious problem.  For over a century we've seen the black smoke of coal fires, the danger of smog so thick as to block out the sun.  The London fog depicted in the movies of the 30'& 40's was nothing more than London smog.  Much has been done to clean that up, but there remains areas in the world that suffer from such environmental disasters.  We know there are things that can be done to eliminate such things.  It's not a matter of knowing.  It's a matter of willing. 

Large private corporations, more than governments, are to blame for the lack of will because their concern for the future extends no further than the closing bell of the stock market at the end of the week. Many do not see themselves as having vested interest to what happens to the world beyond how the world may impact their investors.  All things are interrelated.  What will move corporations to align themselves for caring about the world is if their investors insist.  The urgency, for example by the oil industry, to fracking out every drop of oil for profit is technological knowhow that could have been used to develop alternative energy sources. 

THIS GARDEN PLANET

Let me reiterate what I said in my last post, finance and technology are not the problem, in themselves.  The problem resides in how they're being used; to what purposes they are being employed. Used correctly, they could preserve and restore the beauty of the Earth in ways never thought possible.  I believe there is time if there is the will of the nations to take the time to seriously make a concerted effort to correct what we can.  What prevents the nations of the world to address this is pride and greed - the ever competitive, adolescent mind-set of whose number one.  We are obsessed with numbers, rankings, polls.  

I understand that these devices and methods exist precisely because people don't trust their own eyes and ears any longer.  We need to know how we compare to others and the world around us.  We want to know if we're in the popular crowd or the unpopular crowd.  I am always intrigued and amazed at how alluring polls and rankings are.  They have become the astrological charts of our age - which stars are rising, which planetary forces aligning, etc. 

All the while what is needed is to use one's own senses to know what is happening around  us.  We have never been so informed as we are today and yet we seem as confused as ever.  What blocks us from using information effectively is hubris and a sense of exceptionalism, a sense that the bad things happening in that nation's-room won't happen in my room; that their mess is well... their mess.  Fortunately, there are a growing number of people around the world who do not think this way, who are more than willing to help to clean the messes up where ever they are.  Many nations do come together when major catastrophes occur in another part of the world to help.  This is what gives me hope that with a little more concerted effort our world can mature beyond the need for war and become the caretakers of this garden planet. 

We are living in a critical yet  hopeful age where more and more people throughout the world have and exhibit a universal care for our planet home.  This is especially true amongst younger people.

I believe, the greatest generation is yet to be - one that will not be mired in war, but the sweat of rebuilding and restoring our planet home.  

Technology will undoubtedly play a part as will the judicious use of wealth.  There are many philanthropists who understand the importance of saving our planet.  Some smaller, progressive nations, are expending their financial resources to find environmentally safe ways to produce energy. They will help pave the way for larger nations to do likewise.  It's not about bigness its about inventiveness and ingenuity, about the will to do what needs to be done.

THE POOR YOU HAVE ALWAYS WITH YOU - NOT NECESSARILY THE RICH

In Capitalism we hear of an invisible hand that guides financial markets to unintended social benefits and which corrects the markets when they become unbalanced.  In the recent history, this belief in a self-correcting market has led to some of the most devastating market crashes, with some saying there was nothing one could do to prevent it or rectify it.  That, as we now know, was a  false assumption.   There were things people could have done to prevent it and there were things done to rectify it.  If a creation of mankind, Capitalism, has its own force, which it seems to have, than what about the forces of nature?  What is apparent is these forces, whether creations of human ingenuity or the result of earth's ecosystem, are responsive to what we humans do

Even Adam Smith warned of the abuses pure capitalism could entail.  In the US we have become so reactive to any terminology involving social welfare or socialism that we cannot wrap our heads around the fact that the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution are, themselves, perhaps the first social-orientated documents ever produced by a government.  The US is experiencing a period of time in which exists the largest income disparity. The number of people entering into poverty is increasing as the vast majority of wealth is controlled by the top one percent of the population.  Capitalism seems to work best when money is flowing, generating new jobs that improve the quality of everyone's life.  The flow of money, money spent not money kept, is what creates wealth and as wealth gets bottled up by the few, the flow of money becomes unstable. This is why seeing the middle class disappear is so disconcerting, not just to the government, but it should be a major concern for those who have wealth.  Bottled up wealth, in the long run, does nothing, buys nothing, and eventually means nothing. Money has no intrinsic value of its own.  It's value is only connected to what it can buy.  Hoarding money will eventually decrease its value, saving it for judicious purposes will not. Spending it wisely will increase its value.

Allow me to put on my theological hat for a moment.  In one of the Christian Testament's gospels (Matthew 26) is the strange story of a women who anoints Jesus' head with costly ointment.  Jesus' disciple raise a fuss of her extravagant gesture, pointing out the jar and ointment could have been sold and the money given to poor - something in line with what Jesus had been preaching about since they met him.  Jesus in a seemingly 180 degree turn around seems to dismiss the notion by saying, "The poor you have always with you, but not me."   The setting of this event is the feast of the Passover, which Jesus is celebrating with one of his friends, Simon the Leper. 

I have to admit when I first heard this story it disjointed my thinking about Jesus.  How could he so glibly, arrogantly, and in an obvious display of egotism dismiss the needs of the poor while he feasted and was literally showered in extravagance?   Had Jesus become an Epicurean?

Possibly, but I think there is a more subtle message within this story.  Extravagance is fleeting.  Feasts are few and far between.  Poverty is a constant, wealth is not.   Poverty can swallow wealth very quickly, like a drought can wither a green field or a wild fire an entire forest.

If poverty is allowed to become so  pervasive as it is in some areas of the world, it can render the value of money meaningless.  The poor are like the canaries used by coal mines to see environment is safe. What happens to the poor can happen to rich.  If the environment cannot sustain the poor, it will not sustain the rich either.  If all the rich has is money, but the money cannot buy or purchase what is needed, having it serves no purpose and the rich man is no better off than the poor man.  He may have a billion dollar yacht, but if there is no fuel to power it, if there is no food to be put on the table, the party is over, the feast is done.  That is the crisis we all face, poor and rich alike and everyone in between. 

There is nothing wrong with being wealthy, but there is something wrong with poverty.  No person in the modern world should have to live in poverty. A lot of wealthy people have no choice but to be wealthy because of the way the world's financial systems work. But for wealth to have meaning, it must have purpose beyond a self serving one.  If those who have received much do not see the responsibility to give more to causes that will benefit all, particularly the impoverished,  what they have may well lose its value as poverty will spread like a virus. The security net for the whole ecosystem is a stable, ecology-minded middle class.

    
NEGLECT IS NATURE'S SIGNAL TO CORRECT


There are many things that the nations and major businesses of the world can do to solve the ecological problems caused by human activity. Neglecting to do something is a crime against nature.   Neglect here is simply defined as a disregard of our impact on what nature has produced; a disregard to animal and plant life that may not seem important at the time, but which serve a purpose that is not immediately comprehended by the average human mind.  Life on this planet has always been a balancing act.  As technologically advanced as we have become, we cannot control the weather.  Once a species of animal or plant life no longer exists, we cannot bring it back.  Nature is a responsive force to cause and effect.  Changes in the atmosphere will result in storms or draughts.  The effects of droughts can lead to wild fires which can effect atmospheric changes. 

The depletion of rain forests has affected the air system of our planet.  Global warming caused by carbon emission and the depletion of the Ozone layer is causing glaciers to quickly vanish, which in turn is causing a rise in the oceans.  I saw this personally and up front during an Alaskan cruise in which I saw melt water gushing up beneath Hubbard Glacier and saw a huge calving of an iceberg break away from the glacier causing our ship to move.  This was a  majestic sight, but I could not help feeling sad, knowing that this majestic ice flow is shrinking at an alarming rate.   

Earth's environment, its atmosphere, the very oxygen we breath is corrosive by nature.  It is natural for things to wear out, especially things we make.  In the US we talk about our failing infrastructure, our aging bridges, roads and buildings.  If we neglect them nature will take care of them and bring them down.  What we put into the atmosphere will and has created an atmospheric response.  Weather patterns have changed drastically and is consistent with the timetables many scientist predicted regarding the urgency to do something before its too late.  So called "500 Year Storms" are becoming a yearly event in the past several years. 

Yes climate change is natural, because its responsive.  Climate change in the past was a gradual occurrence that took a long time to come and a long time to abate.  We're seeing things happen within a few years time that in the past would have taken eons to accomplish or would have been brought about by a severe natural catastrophe, such as a huge volcanic eruption or a large meter striking the earth. 

What will probably have the greatest impact on everyone's mind about global warming in developed countries is when insurance companies are seeing their assets drained away  in payouts and people see their insurance rates sky-rocket as a result.  Then the relationship between ecology and economy will set in. Unfortunately by the time most will be getting on board,  the moment for effectively addressing this globally may have passed.  Resources, such as clean water, food, and energy will be in shorter supply further impacting world economy.

What will change the will of governments, in short run, will be a change in will of every person on the street or in the field to prompt action.  No single person can change the course these forces have taken, but each person has a voice that together can make enough noise to change the will of the world's governments, and with enough will power, governments will start putting up welcome signs and working together to rectify the human impact that has caused these conditions.

The Earth is still a beautiful place and I believe it can be even more so if we act.

Until next time, stay faithful

THOUGHTS ON "LAUDATO SI"

Last week I read Pope Francis' Encyclical, "Laudato Si - On the Care of our Common Home." This encyclical addresses a broad number of interrelated problems facing our world, from climate and environmental concerns to the concerns of human poverty and the problems that give rise to the economic, political, and technological activity that are related to them.  There are so many quotable moments in this encyclical that I would simply invite the reader of this post to read "Laudato Si." 

DEFINING THE ISSUES

The broad spectrum of this encyclical may be a bit off-putting to some, but the reality is that so many of the problems that Pope Francis addresses are interrelated and therein lies the challenge to the world and, in particular, to faithful members of the Roman Catholic Church.   The fact is we don't always see global warming or climate change (if that is your preference) as being directly related to the issue of poverty in non-industrial nations. We don't see poverty as an ecological problem as well as an economic one. The fact that Pope Francis highlights these connections is refreshing and provides a needed shift in the dialogue about poverty from one centered on economy's "bottom line" to one centered on humanity's bottom line, survival.  To quote Laudato Si, "Today, however, we have to realize that a true ecological approach always becomes a social approach; it must integrate question of justice in debates on the environment, so as to hear both the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor."[Laudato Si, Par. 49]

Pope Francis has laid claim to the reality that these issues affect us all and the concerns regarding ecology and economy are not merely political concerns, they are religious concerns.  He has boldly accepted this challenge as the leader of the largest Christian denomination in the world to correct the naiveté of the faithful in recognizing the apathetic complicity religious communities can play in failing to address these concerns.  He recognizes that "obstructionist attitudes, even on the part of believers, can range from denial of the problem to indifference, nonchalant resignation or blind confidence in technical solutions."[Laudato Si Par. 14]. 

His encyclical presents a challenge to other Christian leaders and leaders of other religions to do likewise.   He points out that "the problem is that we still lack the culture needed to confront this crisis.  We lack leadership capable of striking out on new paths and meeting the needs of the present with concern for all and without prejudice towards coming generations." [Laudato Si Par. 53]

TECHNOLOGY AND FINANCE

Having said all of the above in praise of "Laudato Si,"  I do not share all of its pessimism with regard to technology, and I'm not sure that I have a full appreciation of how the terms technology and finance are being used in this encyclical.  Frequently, technology and finance seem to be described as forces in their own right which direct both business and politics rather than describing them as the tools of business and politics, as in the banking and technology industry.  Perhaps that is what is meant by the ambiguous use of these terms, but it doesn't come across that way.

I see both finance and technology being highly influenced and motivated by business and politics.  I suspect that what may lie beneath the encyclical's particular use of these terms is a reflection of an ancient and longstanding religious bias against unbridled innovation. 

BIRTH RATE, WOMEN'S HEALTH, AND WOMEN'S RIGHTS

Somewhat ironically, this encyclical places the Roman Church is in a difficult position because of the stances the Roman Church has taken throughout the past several decades regarding contraception.  I was hopeful when Pope Francis periodically quoted in Laudato Si, the assertion found in the 2013 Apostolic Encyclical, "Evangeli Gaudium" that "realities are more important than ideas," but as Laudato Si continued what was meant by reality and ideas became blurred.  What was not mentioned in this encyclical was the role the Roman Church's own doctrines and dogma (its ideas) have played in creating the ecological and economic crisis the world is now in. 

The  Roman Catholic Church still hasn't come to grips with the benefits of birth control as a means of addressing women's health concerns and the ever unbridled human urge for sex which has contributed to the suffering of populations in the most impoverished areas of the world.  The fact is the world's population is fast approaching ten billion people, which translates to a population growth in areas of the world least capable of sustaining it.  If the Roman Church truly wants to catch the world's attention to these global ecology and economy concerns, it should seriously revisit its stance on contraception, women's  health, and women's rights.

If everything is interconnected as this encyclical states, then the causes of an unsustainable birth rate in impoverished areas of the world, women's health, and women's rights is part of it.  Sticking to one's doctrinal guns when the guns don't work is foolhardy. Insisting that they work is an insanity the world cannot afford. The fact that technology in this encyclical is being blamed for the current crisis is, to my mind, a way of sidestepping these critical issues and the Roman Church's own theological culpability in contributing to the world's ecological and economic crises.

ETHICS, BUSINESS, AND POLITICS

I would agree with Pope Francis that technology advances faster than our ethical understanding of its many uses can keep track of, and there appears to be a scientific/technological mindset that says "If we can do it, we should do it" which fails to consider the important questions of "doing-its" impact on humanity as a whole and to the ends such undertakings serve.  It is such a mindset that is being warned against by the likes of Bill Gates and Stephen Hawking in their expressed concerns over the developments in Artificial Intelligence.  On the other hand, advances in technology and scientific research also offer our greatest hope of replacing the world's current dependency on fossil fuels and the addressing the ecological problems related to human poverty in realistic ways.

I would agree with Pope Francis for the need of philosophy and the social sciences to help guide the world in the proper use of technology and the preservation of diverse cultures, but I would also add that the clock is ticking and difficult choices facing all of us may require choosing a present and the hope of a future over the preservation of a past.

Pope Francis, is correct in pointing out the connection between business and politics that shapes the direction of technology frequently takes when he states, "The failure of global summits on the environment make it plain that our politics are subject to technology and finance.  There are too many special interests, and economic interests easily end up trumping the common good and manipulating information so that their own plans will not be affected." [Laudato Si Par. 54]

Again, I don't see technology and finance as the cause of  problems, but rather the short-sighted business and political interests that drive finance and technology and place the ways finance and technology can alleviate problems on the back burner in order to appease their investors and constituents back home.  The fact that there have been global summits on these important topics is cause for hope, but time is running out and, by some accounts, we're past the point of no return.

REALITES ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN IDEAS

I appreciate that Pope Francis, being the head of the Roman Catholic Church, saw the need to express these concerns in the theological language of his church.  While I understand the reason to use theological rhetoric familiar and palatable to the faithful, I found it distracting and perhaps off-putting to those who should take what he has to say seriously.

As I have discussed in other posts, the term mystery is not helpful when talking about the realities we are now facing.  The fact is I find life so mysterious as to render it non-mysterious, so inscrutable as to render it scrutable.  Life is readable as a reality. It is less so when enmeshed in idealism of mystery.  Towards the end, Laudato Si tended to abandon realities and wax idealistic as it entered the realms of mystery.  I found that unfortunate.

The Roman Church is an extremely complex monolith.  It has, over the centuries, developed it own unique theological mindset that has shaped the various cultures and people it encompasses. The Roman Church, as I believe is true of all Christian denominations and world religions, is faced with an existential crisis of its own. Such crises require a need to find common and clear language that is understandable and usable by all.

The Roman Church, along with all other Christian Churches and world religions, must demonstrate a mutual willingness to put their respective doctrines and dogmas on the table, if necessary, to establish what is helpful and what is not.  Trying to make every decision fit neatly into a doctrinal and theological schema is a waste of precious time and will only serve to confuse the issues.   I, along with many others, have hope that the Roman Church will move further in its endeavor to address this urgent situation in a way that provides clear and concise messages reflecting both the urgency to change and the commitment to change.

Above all, Laudato Si is a much needed work.  It touches upon numerous interrelated topics that will undoubtedly expand as the conversation expands.  Any criticism here is not intended to distract from it's underlying premise, which reflect my own thoughts on religion discussed in past posts on the  primary religious impulse of  needing each other.   I appreciate the position Pope Francis has taken; his boldness, conviction, and commitment to restoring humanity and our planet home. 

Until next time, stay faithful.