Sunday, May 29, 2011
Blog frequency
I'm going to try something over the summer: twice-weekly postings. I'll be shooting for Tuesdays and Thursdays in the evenings. Hopefully I can keep it up. I know there's no shortage of things to write about. The question is simply whether or not I make the time to do so. Plus, this will give me the impetus to write down the random not-quite-a-paper thoughts that always spring up. Adorno/Horkheimer's "Culture Industry" and 20th-21st century church cultures? Sure. Reflections on the concept of intentional living? Absolutely. Musings on Ammon Hennacy and total conscientious objection? Oh, definitely. If I get bored, maybe I'll post old papers and/or sections of my MDiv thesis.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Justice, Compassion and Apocalypse
May 21 came and went one week ago without Harold Camping's predicted time zone chasing earthquake. I spent the day driving from New York City to Cape May, NJ with family and not thinking too much about Camping or Family Radio. Then the news reports started rolling in. Sure, I did my level best to ignore the news, but there's only so much Žižek a fellow can read on the beach.
What troubles me is not what happens to Camping. Frankly, he's a dolt at best and a pitiless charlatan at worst (and more probable). What worries me is what has and will continue to happen to his followers. A few folks on Facebook posted thoughtful musings on the lives of the people who believed in this false prophecy. I came across the story of a man from Long Island who had spent down his life savings to spread Camping's word. This man spent what he thought would be the last of the world's time in Times Square, believing that he was warning his fellow human beings of the imminent and immanent apocalypse. When 6pm came and went, this fellow was left crestfallen and surrounded by reporters who all demanded to know what he was going to do with his life now.
In reflecting on all of this, my thoughts turn toward the commands to love attributed to Jesus and to the Buddhist principle of compassion. By both measures, my heart breaks for those who--admittedly foolishly--put their hopes and trust in the wrong place. I don't think too many of them need to fear a supernatural "Hell" any longer. They're now reviled, mocked openly and occasionally broke and newly homeless.
Of course, the news cycle rolls on. Two New York City police officers, who apparently wanted to really live into the epithet of being "pigs," were acquitted of charges of raping a drunk woman in 2008. Our system of delicately balanced laws and punishments continues to fail those who were not fortunate enough to be born into privileged genders, races, economic classes or sexualities. The wolves have never left the doorsteps of "the least of these."
All of this brings me around to the central questions: can "justice" and "compassion" coexist? Do we have to give up some of one to get any of the other? In a dark mood, I'm tempted to say "no" and "yes," respectively: they cannot coexist in full expression and we must mitigate or temper one with the other. But what does "tempered justice" or "mitigated compassion" look like? I don't think the former would satisfy Micah nor would the latter be of much interest to the Buddha.
What troubles me is not what happens to Camping. Frankly, he's a dolt at best and a pitiless charlatan at worst (and more probable). What worries me is what has and will continue to happen to his followers. A few folks on Facebook posted thoughtful musings on the lives of the people who believed in this false prophecy. I came across the story of a man from Long Island who had spent down his life savings to spread Camping's word. This man spent what he thought would be the last of the world's time in Times Square, believing that he was warning his fellow human beings of the imminent and immanent apocalypse. When 6pm came and went, this fellow was left crestfallen and surrounded by reporters who all demanded to know what he was going to do with his life now.
In reflecting on all of this, my thoughts turn toward the commands to love attributed to Jesus and to the Buddhist principle of compassion. By both measures, my heart breaks for those who--admittedly foolishly--put their hopes and trust in the wrong place. I don't think too many of them need to fear a supernatural "Hell" any longer. They're now reviled, mocked openly and occasionally broke and newly homeless.
Of course, the news cycle rolls on. Two New York City police officers, who apparently wanted to really live into the epithet of being "pigs," were acquitted of charges of raping a drunk woman in 2008. Our system of delicately balanced laws and punishments continues to fail those who were not fortunate enough to be born into privileged genders, races, economic classes or sexualities. The wolves have never left the doorsteps of "the least of these."
All of this brings me around to the central questions: can "justice" and "compassion" coexist? Do we have to give up some of one to get any of the other? In a dark mood, I'm tempted to say "no" and "yes," respectively: they cannot coexist in full expression and we must mitigate or temper one with the other. But what does "tempered justice" or "mitigated compassion" look like? I don't think the former would satisfy Micah nor would the latter be of much interest to the Buddha.
Monday, May 2, 2011
The Puzzling Concept of Justice
"Justice language" is, in my experience, the greatest stumbling block in an otherwise rich and productive dialogue between socially-engaged Christians and Buddhists. It should not be so, but last night's Presidential announcement of the death of Osama Bin Laden shows us precisely why this stumbling block exists. Last night, Obama announced that "justice" had been served. In this case, the clear implication was that the death of Bin Laden was part and parcel of this "justice." But was it?
I don't think that Amos had this kind of thing in mind when announcing that God wanted justice to "roll down like waters" (Amos 5:24). In fact, I don't think that there's any language about "justice" in the gospels which would support Obama's view thereof. The word he was looking for last night is "vengeance," which I'm pretty sure God has reserved for Godself (Deut 32:35; Rom 12:19; Heb 10:30).
If we think instead of what "justice" should mean in any theosocial context, we can come quickly to the notion expressed in the sermons given on the "Kingdom of God" (or Kin-dom or just basileia). Justice is merciful care for the downtrodden. Justice is a social order in which human bodies are not violated for profit or any selfish intent. Justice looks more like the community described in Acts 2:44-47 in which the community held no private property and distributed any material goods among themselves according to the need of each. No word about revenge is spoken in that description. No word of revenge has any place in justice at all.
If justice then is more about mercy and compassion, it is not only more consistent with Buddhist understandings of human relationship, but it is also precisely the opposite of what's been pronounced "justice" in this political context.
I don't think that Amos had this kind of thing in mind when announcing that God wanted justice to "roll down like waters" (Amos 5:24). In fact, I don't think that there's any language about "justice" in the gospels which would support Obama's view thereof. The word he was looking for last night is "vengeance," which I'm pretty sure God has reserved for Godself (Deut 32:35; Rom 12:19; Heb 10:30).
If we think instead of what "justice" should mean in any theosocial context, we can come quickly to the notion expressed in the sermons given on the "Kingdom of God" (or Kin-dom or just basileia). Justice is merciful care for the downtrodden. Justice is a social order in which human bodies are not violated for profit or any selfish intent. Justice looks more like the community described in Acts 2:44-47 in which the community held no private property and distributed any material goods among themselves according to the need of each. No word about revenge is spoken in that description. No word of revenge has any place in justice at all.
If justice then is more about mercy and compassion, it is not only more consistent with Buddhist understandings of human relationship, but it is also precisely the opposite of what's been pronounced "justice" in this political context.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)