Islam and the World Trade Center Site, Redux

The issue of the Islamic Center near (yes, near, it is not right across the street!) the World Trade Center site continues to percolate in the media. But now, a little known pastor from Florida has captured the word's attention by threatening to burn hundreds of copies of the Qur'an on the lawn of his church. Now he is demanding to meet with leaders and is basically telling persons in government and real estate that, if they do not accede to his wishes, he will burn the holy books. I have this nagging question that will not go away: Why is he receiving all of this media attention? Has it occurred to anyone that, had the media not jumped on this, he would not even be a blip on the radar of the word's concerns? Could we spend just a fraction of the time and ink that has been given to this man to say that the media created this firestorm, yet they portray themselves as performing a public service in covering it non-stop. I have written before on this blog that an
Islamic Center near the World Trade Center site could be a real step forward in efforts to promote inter-religious understanding. What, Muslims are off-limits in those few square blocks of downtown Manhattan? Did all of their adherents commit the atrocities of September 11, 2001? No. Matter of fact, NONE of their adherents carried out those heinous acts. Islamic extremists should not be lumped in with religious Muslims in the United States, or anywhere else, anymore than Christian extremists like Pat Robertson and Franklin Graham should be lumped together with all Christians. Remember Pat Robertson's comments, along with the late Jerry Falwell, that the events of Sept. 11, 2001 were the result of God's judgment against homosexuals and those who permit abortions? Why does a pastor of a little church in Central Florida have the right to call the shots, and receive attention from national leaders trying to appease him? We were founded as a nation that values the freedom of religion, and of its citizens to worship, or not worship. This whole business reflects a reality that things are out of balance, and that extremism in various sectors is driving the media and public sentiment. Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism Buddhism..and the other major world religions advocate peace and understanding, no matter how a few ill-intentioned or ill-informed adherents may seek to have us believe otherwise. I am tempted to print up a tee-shirt with the words, "Self-avowed, Practicing Mainline Protestant." The Christian faith that I follow is a proud tradition, and must not to be left to extremists to interpret. Rev. Terry Jones and I do not belong to the same faith tradition, no matter what he would have you believe.

Lions and Tigers and Stephen Hawking. Oh My!

To no one's surprise, the news today is rife with the news of Stephen Hawking's declaration that it was gravity, not God that created the universe. In fairness to Hawking, this latest declaration was just a logical outcome of work that he had already been doing concerning the origins of the universe. Has anyone stopped to consider that Hawking makes this declaration as a physicist and not as a theologian? Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks, of the UK, offers an insightful rejoinder to the whole discussion: "There is a difference between science and religion. Science is about explanation. Religion is about interpretation. Science takes things apart to see how they work. Religion puts things together to see what they mean. They are different intellectual enterprises." The truth of the matter is that this latest scientific pronouncement does little to change the beliefs of people on either side, and that is as it should be. Having said that, folks who take the creation story in Genesis as literal fact will have trouble with it. They will get lots of airtime on the major TV networks, I am sure. The television networks never consult mainstream theologians and biblical scholars, because those folks will not feed the frenzy with hyperbole. Instead, they will calmly reason that we are talking about apples and oranges here. Faith has never been about proof, though one may be hard pressed to find folks who crave the limelight who agree with that statement. Faith is about living with our realities in light of a belief in a loving and creating God. The element of mystery is essential to faith, for it keeps the element of the transcendent about it. I always loved science in high school and college, and have never had a problem with science and theology co-existing. Why must we feel that one must somehow make sense of the other? Though recently I heard someone excoriate the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews' assertion that "faith is the evidence of things not seen" I still agree with the concept. Faith is evidence, not proof. Why can't we live with that?

Ground Zero for Political Gain

We have become accustomed to referring to the site for the former World Trade Center as Ground Zero since the attacks in 2001. However, it seems that the area has become ground zero for new attacks, aimed, for whatever reason, at the American Islamic community. There is a plan afoot to renovate an existing building near the World Trade Center site and create a community center for the Muslim community in Manhattan. At first blush, one can understand that some folks may have to think twice about that. After all, the attacks of 2001 have forever changed the way many Americans think about the Muslims in general. It is understandable, but it is not alright to use the fears and misconceptions for political gain. Our Constitution promises religious freedom for all who choose to practice such traditions, and that includes members of the Muslim community. Isn't there a way to look at an Islamic Cultural Center near the World Trade Center as a positive sign that we are moving beyond the horror of the attacks without forgetting them? There are churches and synagogues in the area, so why not a place for the building up of the Muslim community in that neighborhood. I cannot help but think that such a center would take it upon itself to educate the public about true Islam, and not the radical fundamentalist kind that brought the towers down. I have the joy of working with students from many religious traditions, including Muslim students. I believe that good, kind and peace-loving people like them would populate the center, if it is built. When some choose to decry such a center for political gain, they wound all devout Muslims, including the students who are a part of my extended family. There is an opportunity here to write a new chapter in the book of the American experience, a chance to promote healing and an opportunity for dialogue. Let's not miss it because we are too busy trying to show how patriotic we are.

Cool Atheism

Last year some posters appeared on our campus, advertising a group for those who were tired of the "lies and delusions" of religion. It caught the attention of some students who are active in the religious life program, and they were angry and felt that they had been insulted. They did some investigating and discovered that the group, which had created a Facebook page, had just three members. We never heard anymore about the group after those posters appeared, but I know for a fact that a significant number of students harbor, or think they harbor, the sentiments expressed on that poster. That is not a new phenomenon. I remember my freshman year of college, when I had pledged a fraternity. We had to interview all of the active brothers, and one of them was a philosophy major. Since I was a Bible/Religion major, he seemed to take special delight in asking me why I had such a strong faith, and then constructing well-reasoned arguments to show why I was foolish. As a first year student, I had not yet developed the skills necessary to at least stay away from the trapdoors that a philosopher could set for me. I left the interview feeling angry, foolish and defensive. The "new" atheism that seems to be all the rage appears to have much the same effect on people of faith. They can be made to feel defensive, or, at the very least, stupid and gullible. I have even heard this new phenomenon referred as "evangelical atheism." Daniel C. Dennett, a Tufts University philosophy professor has just published a study, "Preachers Who Are Not Believers," published in the journal "Evolutionary Psychology". It includes interviews with five anonymous Protestant ministers who no longer believe in God in the traditional sense. Though he uses that as fodder for calling them at least agnostic, not all of his subjects agree with him.
One of those interviewed "came out" in the press and released his name. He serves as a campus minister at a well-known university. He says he still believes in God, but not the God who sits on a throne in the sky. To him, God is a process of mysterious cosmic creativity that makes for greater love and justice. He thinks of God as a force working within human beings and nature, and he sees his role as trying to imitate that divine character whose greatest exemplar is Jesus. I think there are many Christians who agree with what he says about his own beliefs. Those on the right would call such people agnostics, and those on the far left would welcome them as fellow non-believers of a sort. When I was in divinity school, we used to joke that we could never preach what we learned in our Bible and theology classes. People in the pews would simply pass out, or worse! Dennett plans to interview many more clergy and publish a larger study about clergy who, to his way of thinking, have ceased to be believers. But does admitting that one's faith is not so simplistic as it once was mean that one has ceased believing? In the coming year, I hope to facilitate discussions between those who consider themselves people of faith and those who define themselves as atheists or non-believers. It's the only way to move past the name-calling and misunderstandings. And perhaps people on both sides will come away with a broader understanding of what "faith" means.

Heaven

Mary Chapin Carpenter wrote a song several years back entitled "My Heaven," in which she included the line, "your childhood pet in Dad's old chair." The song is her vision of what Heaven might be like, and it is full of familiar images to her, and to many of us. I just finished reading Lisa Miller's Heaven:Our Enduring Fascination with the Afterlife, and I found it to be a really good summertime read. She does not claim to be a scholar of religions, though she is the religion editor for Newsweek. She interviewed dozens of theologians, thinkers and writers from the three major monotheistic religions, and has done what I think is a good job of sifting out some salient observations about heaven. Is it a place, or a state of being? Why is it that the vision of heaven for many Muslims, Christians and Jews seems to be the same place? And what of Miller's conclusion that, for her, at least, heaven is not a place, but a dynamic state of being when people love and feel loved and also experience a sense of the transcendent? For years I have taught an undergraduate course on death and dying. Before that, I led eight bereavement support groups, advised or worked on the volunteer staffs of four hospice programs, led workshops on bereavement support and also presided at an abnormally high number of funerals during my early years in the parish. So, death is something to which I have given much thought. As I get older, I find that I have few answers about death, and even fewer certainties. And to those who would say, "What do you mean you have few certainties about death? Are you not a Christian, sir?" Yes, I am a Christian, and as such, I have certainty that I can never be separated from the love of God through Christ Jesus my Lord. But, let's face it, much is left up for grabs when it comes to what happens when we die. Americans have a particularly American way of describing heaven, with streets of gold and deciduous trees and verdant meadows everywhere. When I was in my mid-thirties, I traveled to Jordan, Israel and Palestine.I discovered rather quickly that my ideas of Jesus' world were steeped in the Chestnut Ridge of the Allegheny Mountains in which I grew up. Aside from Nazareth, where Jesus spent his childhood, his world was dusty and semi-arid. I felt like an alien in that climate and terrain. Why? Because I had painted a picture in my mind that the world of Jesus looked just like my world. I think we do the same with our idea of heaven, not to mention our idea of God. Yes, I have an idea of heaven in my mind, but it is muddled. I guess that's because I have never given much thought to the afterlife. While I think that life after death is the icing on the cake, too many sincere people of faith think it is THE cake. I have tried to spend my time helping to represent, however imperfectly, the God that I serve and to help others to feel that love that emanates from God. For Miller, that is part of what she means by heaven. I think I agree.

A Civilized Society?

Last week, the state of Utah executed a death row inmate by firing squad. I find it curious that a state known for its conservative Mormon religious ethos that emphasizes the sanctity of human life would be known for such a brutal method of execution. But then, many religious people support capital punishment. After all, does not the Bible say "An eye for an eye?" Folks love to quote that verse, forgetting, or ignoring the fact that Jesus quoted that verse and then followed it with "But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile." There you have it: a rule so contrary to our way of thinking that we choose to ignore it. Christian people continue to stand outside of prisons where executions are carried out and cheer the result. The most conservative Christian states, such as Texas, Virginia and Florida, are the states who carry out the greatest number of executions.
So, it begs the question: Why do we execute criminals who have killed others? Well, because it serves as a deterrent to repeat crimes, right? Wrong. There is no research to support the theory that capital punishment deters violent crime. Well then, the Bible commands us to do it, right? The scripture cited above shows the house of cards upon which that argument is built. Well then, why DO so many Americans support capital punishment? Well, fear, for one. The majority of persons on death row in America are African American. Most were unable to afford the kind of defense team that would have been more effective in offering an adequate defense. And for White America, people of color are the "other" and many people tend to be suspicious of those who appear to be strangers or outsiders. There is not space here to discuss the role of the outsider in the story of our faith, but I will give you a hint: in scripture, the "other" often turns out to be an agent of God's grace. But back to our question of why we take such delight in executing people. I have believed for many years that it comes down to one simple fact: it makes us feel better. We don't know what to do with people who commit horrible crimes, so we kill them. And somehow we look away from the fact that, in carrying out an execution, the state acts with the same premeditated coldness as that of the offenders whom it is putting to death. Why do you think there have been no live broadcast of an execution? Might it be because, if Americans actually viewed the horror of an execution, including the supposedly humane lethal injection method, they might just reject capital punishment as a solution to violent crime? Yes, we are a civilized society. And that is what frightens me the most.

On Being the Father of the Bride

Recently, I had the experience of walking my daughter down the aisle at her wedding. I don't think that any father has an idea beforehand of what that experience feels like. I was told that some folks had placed bets on when, exactly, I would lose it. As it turned out, I did not cry, which is saying something for a dad who has always teared up when talking about his daughter to others. In hindsight, I know why the tears really never fell in quantity: it was much too happy an occasion for such to happen. My daughter and her new husband have had a long courtship, and the love and friendship between them has been evident to anyone who has ever seen them together. And the ceremony was a service of Christian marriage, and I know how important my daughter's faith has always been to her. So, it was a day for joy, not tears. I have admitted to biting the insides of my cheeks during most of the ceremony, however. If you have not guessed as much by now, I did not perform the wedding. My daughter wanted me to be the father of the bride for the whole day, and it was indeed a privilege to be just that. When I look at the photos of my daughter in her wedding gown, I am struck by her radiance. She has always been beautiful and photogenic, so that is not a surprise. But there is a look in her eyes and in her smile that tells anyone who sees the photo that she is having the time of her life. Several times during the wedding and reception she commented on how unbelievably happy she was. The way in which she made the remark reminded me of a child who makes a new discovery in a meadow of flowers: the expression was one of joy and wonder. There is nothing else in all the world that I could wish for her on her wedding day that would exceed those emotions. I have often referred to the saying "God danced on the day that you were born" when speaking about my daughter. Now, I believe that God also enjoys a good wedding dance! Thanks be to the One who is eternal and whose love never ends, and who enables mothers and fathers and sons and daughters to share in a love that is unending.