The FIfth Sunday of Lent: Living Morality

Aim above morality. 
Be not simply good, 
be good for something. 
-Henry David Thoreau



I must admit that I wasn’t sure where this week’s post was going to lead. Morality is a BIG topic and one that can bring much controversy as we have seen very clearly in the last year or so in politics. As usual with something like this I started with a dictionary definition. Merriam-Webster said:

Definition of morality for English Language Learners. : beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior. : the degree to which something is right and good : the moral goodness or badness of something.

Again, a lot of ways to go with that. What is it we believe about “right behavior?” Where do we get those beliefs? How do they change over a lifetime? How do we determine the rightness or wrongness, the goodness or badness of something? It seems to me that some of what we say we believe about these is very cultural and even situational dependent. It even varies depending on the person doing the action. When person X does something it is wrong; when person Y does the same thing maybe it isn’t. Is morality situational? Is moral decision making based on variables that can change?

Phew! My head hurts thinking about that. It can be a deep intellectual, philosophical, and theological exercise that brings more questions than answers. So what was it that Thoreau was thinking about? He does give me an answer in the rest of the quote. Morality is not just about being a good person. There may be lots of good people in the world who are good because they just are and never do anything with it. Their “morality” may be nothing more than just not having an opinion or in a position to do anything. Thoreau says that morality is being good for something. What is it you stand for and how do you live it.

I am writing this post early on Sunday evening instead of the day or two before. As we were traveling on Friday afternoon my wife stepped off a curb coming out of a restaurant and fell, causing pain, abrasions, and, we found out later, a torn ligament. That threw off all my writing schedule until now. The next two paragraphs are from an email I sent to the general manager of the motel we were to stay at for Friday night, just one night. I think the morality of this is obvious and captures what Thoreau was talking about.

My wife and I had the pleasure of staying at [your motel] on Friday and Saturday evenings last week (March 16 and 17). Before we arrived, my wife had an accident when we were leaving a restaurant and was in great pain. We knew that we would not be able to continue the trip the next morning as originally planned. When we checked in on Friday we were told that there would be no rooms available for Saturday night due to a tournament. But [the desk person] did say that she would put us on a waiting list. I checked in before leaving for supper with some friends but she said there was nothing available. I called a couple hours later and she was excited- she had a room for us for Saturday night!!! When I got back from supper we took the necessary steps to reserve the room! Friday was an extremely busy afternoon and evening and she had hardly anytime to catch her breath, but she pleasantly and efficiently took care of my needs. Her personality and honest caring for our needs was amazing.

Saturday my wife and I spent most of the day at the hospital making sure there was nothing serious in her injuries. Fortunately there was not. After the day there, when I checked in for the second night the same desk person was again working and helped me through a couple things, including setting up my Wyndham rewards account and helping get a reservation for Sunday night up the road.

That desk person was a little bit of Jesus to my wife and me. Her willingness to pay attention to us in the midst of an incredibly busy evening (there were never less than 3 people in line when I was there on Friday afternoon and evening). She took care of me- and all the other customers- with no sign of frustration or short-fuse or being tired. She smiled; she helped; she did what she had to do and gave all of us a little bit of herself.

It would be easy to say, “Of course she did. That was her job.” But what I saw and received was over and above the basics of her job. She could have done her job just as efficiently without the extra TLC she gave us and the cam attentiveness she gave others. That is morality. That is right behavior. That is goodness in action.

I have a hunch that this IS what Jesus meant. It seems to have struck enough resonant chords:

• Don’t preach me a sermon; live one for me.
• Preach the Gospel; if necessary use words.
• If anyone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar. For if a person does not love his brother, whom he has seen, then he cannot love God, whom he has not seen. (1 John 4:20)
• Faith without works is dead. (James 2:26)

Our morality is in what we do and in the end how we treat others. We have enough hatred in our country and world; we have enough division and preaching with fingers pointing in all kinds of directions. It is time to kneel down with Jesus next to the woman caught in adultery. He looked at the men about to stone her and made on simple statement: Anyone without sin can throw the first stone. No one dared. We should not either. That is morality at its highest as we support others simply because they need it.

• Who has acted with morality and care to me this week?
• Lord, I give thanks for these people who have helped make my life a better this week.
• When have I not acted with the care and compassion?
• Lord, forgive me and help me make amends.
• What can I do better in the week ahead to preach the Gospel without words?
• Lord, direct me inward to find your Spirit filling me.
• Where is God directing me to be a witness of faith alive?
• Here I am, Lord. Show me your direction.

Such actions are not a burden. Morality is not a chore that we do out of fear or from having no other way to act. When we begin to live with the power of morality in action, we may find joy and others being helped. Perhaps even ourselves.

Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm.

-Ralph Waldo Emerson

Lenten Journey- Sunday 5- For the Children

The ultimate test of a moral society is
the kind of world that it leaves to its children.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Unknown source

It is always helpful for me to remember that Bonhoeffer grew up in what was considered one of the more civilized countries. Culture, science, theology had all flourished in Germany for decades and decades. They excelled in music- the home of Beethoven, Brahms, and Bach. They gave us Goethe, Schiller, and Remarque; Einstein, Albert Schweitzer, Count Zinzendorf, and Martin Luther. He himself was from an aristocratic family. His family pedigree was as good as it gets. His father was a well-respected and honored doctor of psychiatry in Berlin. His brother would become lead attorney for Lufthansa Airlines.

In the early 1930s they all watched with increasing horror as this great heritage was run over by brown-shirted thugs bent on undoing everything German and making it into their empire. For Bonhoeffer seeing Luther become an adjunct to Aryan theology while the church went along was the ultimate degradation. The source of moral direction, the church, was helpless at best and complicit in horrific evil at worst.

Bonhoeffer was not alone in this view of course. Many, even within the German Army (Abwehr) were horrified at what Hitler had done to their proud military heritage through the SA, the SS, and the Gestapo. The plots to undermine and then assassinate Hitler formed from the Abwehr where Bonhoeffer was working as a double agent with them against Hitler. He was convinced, with solid reason and evidence, that Hitler and his supporters were not just bad, but truly evil. Against such evil, victory will be very difficult and costly. It might even be he would have to wish for - and support - the defeat of his own country in war.

In the midst of all these conflicting concerns and feelings, Bonhoeffer worked on what he hoped would be his greatest work. It was started in the early 1940s and was his constant task during his time in prison. He never finished it but it has been cited by David P. Gushee, director of Mercer University's Center for Theology and Public Life as one of the five best books on patriotism. It was simply titled Ethik, Ethics in English.

For Bonhoeffer Christlikeness is at the center of ethics. No greater moral standard would there be but becoming as much like Christ as possible. An online overview describes Bonhoeffer’s thinking in this way:

All separation, fragmentation, and binary thinking must now be overcome. The practice of ethics, therefore, is not the division of the world into good and evil; instead, the goal of ethics is the full reintegration of all humanity into the divine reality revealed in Jesus Christ. Bonhoeffer thus sees the merging of secular reality and divine reality as imperative; separate, they, too, form a binary conceptualization to be overcome. ("Ethics - Overview" Literary Essentials: Christian Fiction and Nonfiction Ed. John K. Roth. eNotes.com, Inc. 2007 eNotes.com 30 Mar, 2017 )

Simply put, Bonhoeffer’s ethics was therefore not a list of right and wrong, a code of behavior, or even judgement. It was the living out of one’s Christlikeness thanks to the work of God. It was always based on God’s acceptance of humans and God's love for humanity. Jesus does not love a moral code, but people. Each of us must “create his or her own moral behavior within the frame of his or her own Jesus-Christ consciousness.” (Same citation as above).

It is an over-simplification to say that this is a summary of the basic of his ethics, but without going into great theological and academic depths, it does seem to be a decent summary. It can therefore be our jumping of point for this Fifth Sunday of Lent and the week ahead. Keeping it simple and concise is important or we will end up playing all the old theological games like the number of angels on the head of a pin.


What about the world we leave to our children?


With that in mind here are the themes I am going to work on in my Lenten journey this week.

• Christ-consciousness
• Christ-likeness. 

Then, bringing them together into

• How can my actions, not just my thoughts, help bring about a world where the moral example of God’s love is lived and 
• How can my actions today help make this a more moral, I.e. God-directed world?
• How can my actions help make this a better world, one we are proud to leave to the next generations?
  

We humans tend to be very short-sighted. If it's good for me right now, the long term consequences are not even added into the equation. Hence issues like climate change can be challenged and disbelieved since it isn't imperative TODAY. Why should I care about 50 years from now?  Someone, sometime will find a solution to these long-term problems, is the "optimistic" take on this. The reality is not so rosy.

A number of years ago I asked a confirmation class the then popular question:

What would Jesus do?

The answer was quick and concise.

We know what Jesus would do. We just don't do it.

But most of the time we don't even ask the question to try to figure out how we should act if we are to be Christ-like. We don't spend much more than a nano-second to check in our the Christ-consciousness within us. 

God has been interrupting me these Lenten weeks, getting into my face at times. I must now be prepared to do something with that. This week, then, is a good time to bring all these weeks together and use the Christ-consciousness we have been cultivating during Lent to be more Christ-like in our actions. It is a good time as we prepare for Palm Sunday and Holy Week next week, to put a few more pieces of awareness and spirit into my life.

[Note: This week's quote is one of the most often repeated of all the quotes I found from Bonhoeffer. What is interesting is that I cannot find a source. I did a bunch of searches in many places and the quote has not yet popped up. I have found almost all the other quotes in the Metaxas biography which I have been reading this Lenten season. But not this one. It may very well be in a book of sermons or letters that I have not yet found- or one that is not digitized for easy online searching. Whatever the situation, it is certainly well known- and one that should not be ignored.]

Consider this Quote...

The quote to consider is at the end of an article reporting on revelations in a new book about musician Lou Reed. It seems Reed was racist, vulgar and probably a serial abuser of women. The author said to The Daily Beast:

The obituaries were a bit too kind, he was really a very unpleasant man. A monster really; I think truly the word monster is applicable.”

Here's the quote to consider from the website Uproxx:

One of the most uncomfortable aspects of loving art is knowing that some of the most brilliant work was made by some of the worst human beings.

There have been books and theses written about this issue, of course. The most common issues often relating to substance abuse and addiction, but we do know that being a great artist (or anything else for that matter) does not make one a good person. Many of them no doubt were monsters- or worse. It is a struggle, then, to look at, read, or listen to high quality art by low-quality people.

The Academy Awards faced this a number of years ago when Roman Polanski was nominated and won for best director for The Pianist. He could not- and did not- attend since he is a fugitive in the United States wanted on charges of sex with a minor.

What then are we to do?

Sorry, I am only asking the question. I have no easy answer.  If only moral people were making great works of art, that would be a no-brainer. Who decides what is moral? Some appear  clear, yet I wonder about others. What happens when people are accused of being "monsters" in other ways? That brings to mind the McCarthy-era witch hunts and blacklists. The movie Trumbo starring Bryan Cranston will raise that question. When the powers-that-be decide what is moral or immoral by political means, we can be in a difficult position.

Slippery slopes can be found just about anywhere.

Conscience- or Discrimination?

Back in the 60s (and before) there was this moral position about war that was called "Conscientious Objection." You had to prove to your local draft board that you were opposed to war- and that being drafted and going to war was against your faith and belief. It became quite contentious in many places. Some draft boards were notorious for never granting CO status to anyone but those who were from the traditional "peace churches:" Quaker, Mennonite, Brethren, etc. Other draft boards would take the position that someone who went to all the trouble to put together the application probably was being sincere. There were all the positions in-between that caused much anguish and tension within communities and families.

This was of course the Vietnam War era and the thinking was that they didn't want to give CO status to someone who was just out to save his own butt in that particular war. If you were opposed to ALL wars and wouldn't have fought in other wars either, then you were more likely to be deemed CO. Otherwise you found yourself with a difficult dilemma. What if you didn't get your draft board to grant you CO status so you could do alternative service in a hospital or other such institution for two years? What if you ended up getting drafted and ordered to report for your physical or, if passing that, your induction?

Well, you had several choices. First, you could simply follow the law and your notice and go into the Army if drafted. Second, you could enlist in one of the military branches before being drafted and try to get something that would fit your conscience. Third, you could refuse, get arrested and sent to prison for several years. Or, fourth, you could leave the country and become an ex-pat in Canada. There were people who chose from this list and followed their conscience. Some went into the service, voluntarily or not, because they didn't want to go to jail or leave the country. Others who didn't want jail went to Canada. Needless to say there was a lot of soul-searching by a lot of young men in that era. The stakes for any individual were of course quite high. To become a felon, refugee in a foreign country, or move from your principles and possibly be killed in war- none of those was particularly enticing. Many of those were not from the traditional peace churches also faced separation from their communities or families simply for taking the stand.

Were there those who misused this? I am sure there were. Did some lie or build a case that wasn't their true beliefs but were simply to stay out of Vietnam? Of course there were. But most of those I knew were honest- sincere- and ready to take the consequences. Some fought it in the courts; most of them lost their appeals. Nearing the end of the Vietnam Era the Supreme Court broadened the requirements some, allowing those who were not part of the "peace churches" to be considered.

Back to accepting the consequences, though. That was the underlying decision faced by many. Which consequence, in their mind, was the least onerous, the best of all bad options?

So what does this have to do with discrimination?

• Example: A doctor who refuses to see patients who wish to have an abortion because of their belief that abortion is wrong.
• Example: A counselor who refuses to counsel a gay man because he believes homosexuality is sinful and would urge that person to work to change their sexual orientation.
• Example: A family-owned company does not want to pay for contraception as part of insurance coverage because of a sincere belief that it is sinful and against God's will.

The doctor, counselor, or corporate owner could easily see themselves as "Conscientious Objectors." Who am I to make them follow MY conscience or beliefs against theirs?

Ah yes, but it can get really tangled up. It has only been in my lifetime that in some states it became legal for people of different "races" to get married. It is only in my lifetime that people were told they couldn't treat people of other "races" or ethnic groups differently because they were "different." That is to name but a few examples of how discrimination can show up in the guise of "conscience." It wasn't that long ago that women weren't allowed to vote. And it is not long before that when even men who didn't own property were given the same right.

When, then, does conscience become discrimination? When does conscience become prejudice- or become a justification for what acts and looks like prejudice? When can a society- by cultural standards or law- tell people that their "beliefs" or "conscience" is wrong, unpatriotic, or even "illegal."

Mormons in the 19th Century wanted to practice polygamy- by their conscience. The greater society said no. Was society "discriminating" against Mormons in so doing?

Yet, prohibitionists in the early 20th Century persuaded the society to adopt "their" "moral position." The society suffered greatly.

Perhaps to answer the questions we need to look at issues and ethical principles like "the greater good" or "justice" (in the ethics sense of equality of care, fair distribution of resources, etc.), "autonomy", "do no harm, do good. We can get into different types of ethical stances and come out in different places. I believe it is worth the discussion. We are having it, of course, in our country at this time over same-sex marriage and its ramifications as well as the Affordable Care Act and contraception.

Let's do it in honest and supportive ways. Let's recognize that there are consequences to any of our actions. Which ones are we willing to accept- and live with- and which ones do we feel will cause harm and injustice? Let's do it with openness about what we really do believe and why we believe it, accepting that in a diverse and highly pluralistic society we may be in the minority as often as we are in the majority.

The COs of the Vietnam War era were definitely in the minority. Yet they were listened to and accepted. What can that mean for our current debate?