This past week as I was
headed to my class at Valencia, I observed two bumper stickers within a half
mile stretch on Michigan Avenue that prompted me to think. Both were religious
in nature and both were designed to provoke a response. I’m guessing my
response was probably not what either driver was seeking.
Praying for Miami Beach
The first bumper sticker
read “Global Warming? How about Global
Prayer?” The graphics featured a horizon of mountain tops and drops of
water around the edges. In all honesty, I’m not
totally sure what the point of this one was. To begin with, the sticker adorned
the bumper of one of the oversized pickup trucks that are major contributors to
the climate crisis we face. I call them Selfishmobiles – they hog more than
their share of the road, gas, parking, pollute more than their share of the air and kill more than their share of those on
the roads with them in accidents. Given that starting place and the message, my
guess is that this is probably the sentiment of a religiously based climate
change denier.
As I understand it, this is a
perspective that argues that we don’t need to worry about some man-made theory (sound of spittle hitting the
ground) about climate change, we just need to worry about obeying G-d’s
commands (as understood from a largely uncritical, self-referential reading of
scripture). While I’m very clear that one can be concerned about global climate
change and see prayer as one of many means of meeting that challenge - a practice
in which I regularly engage - my guess is that the displayer of that bumper
sticker constructs this issue in terms of a false dichotomy: One either prays
and relies on G-d to save us from ourselves or they buy into some politically
correct theory (there’s that sound of spittle again) about global warming.
While I’d like to presume a
little higher level of credibility to the thought of the bumper sticker owner,
I also know that about 1/3 of Americans regularly watch Fox and a wide
assortment of religious channels where this false dichotomy is regularly preached
from broadcast pulpits. My guess is that this fellow probably hasn’t been to
Miami Beach lately to see the massive new pumping system currently being
installed to keep an island already dealing with regular tidal flooding from being
completely submerged.
Of course, these folks have
every right to believe as they see fit and to articulate the opinions they
hold, no matter how indefensible in light of evidence of which they either aren't aware or simply avoid. But they don’t have the right to be taken seriously when
they spout nonsense (and dangerous nonsense at that). The right to believe
something and to have that right respected by others is not the same thing as
an entitlement to have any belief one articulates taken seriously regardless of
its inherent credibility.
But that started me
wondering. Is it possible that this game of baiting the public with incredible (in
the sense of unbelievable) assertions only to cry “Foul!” when confronted on
them is part and parcel of something much larger? Does this somehow tie into an
indefatigable compulsion of religious
conservatives to construct themselves and their faith in terms of martyrdom, no
matter how disingenuous?
Canon within a Canon – St. Paul
Within a couple of blocks of
the first bumper sticker, I encountered a second that was even more
provocative. Featuring the symbol of a cross, the machinery of state killing utilized
by the Roman Empire, the sticker simply read, “Not Ashamed.”
It is my guess that this assertion
references a sort of evangelical canon within a canon, a handful of verses in
the Christian Scriptures seen as supporting – if not commanding - the practice loosely described as “witnessing”
regardless of how it’s practiced. For many evangelicals, these verses are seen
as the distillation of divine will for themselves - and
everyone else. Anyone who has ever had any dealings with evangelical
Protestants or their conservative counterparts within Christendom have heard
the verses which follow below, almost inevitably out of any kind of context by
which to make sense of them.
The first is the writing of
St. Paul in his letter to the Romans in which he says, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for
salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.”
(Romans 1:16, NRSV). The word translated as “salvation” here in reference to
“gospels” is usually understood in individual existential terms in the west and
in dogmatic transactional terms in western religions (if you buy into our dogma
now, you are among the saved and thus assured of a positive afterlife ).
Ultimately, it’s all about me.
A recent translation by four
scholars from the Westar Institute, determined that the Greek word euangelion, good news, used in this
verse can only be understood in the context of the Roman Empire’s world-wide
claim to dominance and world order. As such, euangelion, as St. Paul was using it, actually means “world-transforming
news of God,” i.e., the kingdom of
G-d taught by Jesus and Paul as the alternative to Caesar’s empire. The
scholars translate this verse and the end of the preceding verse as follows:
I’m eager to proclaim God’s world-changing news to you in
Rome. I’m not embarrassed by this news because it has the power to transform
those who are persuaded by it, first Jews and then Greeks.
Note the lack of any
references to individual salvation in the next life, to “good news” understood
as written scriptures or to the individual as a purveyor of an understanding of
those scriptures. Bear in mind there is no New Testament in Paul’s time. This
verse is simply not about evangelizing, at least not in any sense of that term
today. It’s also not about the individual testifying. Rather, it’s about
changing this world, here and now.
Canon within a Canon – Gospel Writers
The second source of this
honor/shame understanding comes from the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke.
There the gospel writers report Jesus as saying, “Those who are ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and
sinful generation, of them the Son of Man will also be ashamed when he comes in
the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” (Mark 8:38, Luke 9:26)
The Westar scholars sitting
as the Jesus Seminar coded this passage black
indicating that while Jesus probably did not actually say this, it is certainly
something the early church would have said. Formulated well after Jesus’ death,
the scholars determined that this verse arose when “disciples were being forced
to acknowledge or to deny him.” It arose out of the period when the Jesus
followers were being pressured to leave their synagogues enroute to creating a
new religion about the Christ.
This use is contextually a little closer to the appropriation that evangelicals make of it. But these two
contexts are not “on all fours,” as we used to say in law. The difference is
that evangelicals are not being thrown out of their churches. They are not
being pursued by the empire as enemies of the state. And they live under a
constitution which makes their ability to articulate their understandings protected
by the law of the land.
Without looking at the
contexts of these verses, they make little sense. But they readily lend
themselves to an acontextual use as the slogan of a self-styled martyr.
This writing is not about
individuals today or their senses of disappointment that result from having the
religious ideas they are selling rejected by would-be buyers. They are not
about behavior willingly engaged without consideration for others in the name
of testifying which causes potential buyers to respond with irritation. And they are certainly not about the intentional
engagement of such behaviors knowing they will offend others for the purpose of
becoming a martyr, however consciously entertained.
There is a world of
difference between martyrs and mere boors.
Being Offensive v. Being Offended
These bumper sticker
evangelizers brought into focus a new tactic that I am seeing among evangelicals of inappropriately
interjecting religious behaviors into public forums and then claiming foul when
others object. This new line of argument something goes like this: Why should my religiosity offend you?
The implication here seems
to be that being a member of American society somehow requires that respect be show both a believer’s right to
believe as they see fit as well as a supposed right to act upon that belief any
way the believer sees fit regardless of context. Of course, a long line of
SCOTUS cases readily reveals that behaviors have never been within the scope of
the Constitutional protection as are beliefs. Ask the Native Americans seeking
to use peyote. Ask the Mormon men seeking to legally marry multiple wives.
But there is more than a
little offensive behavior in this approach to go around. First, it deliberately
confuses beliefs with behaviors. Frankly, I don’t care what others believe or
if they don’t believe anything at all. So long as those beliefs are not
inflicted upon me, it’s no skin off my nose. But when believers are unwilling
to live within those parameters, the irritated responses they draw from the
public upon whom they have inflicted themselves say nothing about the content
of their beliefs, it simply reflects the inconsideration of their behaviors.
It’s also important to note
that a reluctance to endure inconsiderate behavior engaged under the banner of
religiosity does not necessarily indicate religiously based antipathy. It’s
quite possible for fellow Christians to negatively view such behaviors among fellow
Christians. A good example is exasperation over the obsessive need of athletes
to engage in religious displays during sporting events.
I greatly admire Tim Tebow as
an individual but he’s about as tone deaf to social context as the day is long.
At meetings of his religiously based organization, it’s not only appropriate to
ostentatiously pray and write Bible verses on his face, it’s expected. The same
is not true in the National Football League. Sadly, I think it’s hard to
imagine that this tone deafness did not play a role in his inability to make it
in pro ball.
This offensiveness approach also
deliberately conflates beliefs and believers. Beliefs stand on their own,
believers aside. When beliefs are sold like any other goods or services on the
market, rejection of a proffered belief system is not a devaluation of the
offeror any more than the decision not to buy a sweater is a denigration of the
Macy’s sales clerk. The failure to make that sale hardly makes the salesperson
a martyr.
However, what I find most
troubling in all this is the intellectual dishonesty implicit in it. A
deliberate confusion of irritation over inconsiderate behavior with martyrdom
for one’s religious beliefs is not honest. And a willingness to deliberately
engage in behavior one knows will be seen as inconsiderate then responding to the rejection
of that behavior as somehow conferring martyrdom suggests there is a lot more
going on there than religion.
License, Registration, Proof of Salvation
All of these issues came to
a head earlier this month in an event in Indiana. USA
Today reported it like this:
Ellen Bogan expects police to protect and serve — not
proselytize. But she says Indiana State Police Trooper Brian Hamilton pitched
Christianity to her when he pulled her over for an alleged traffic violation in
August on U.S. 27 in Union County.
With the lights on his marked police car still flashing,
the trooper handed Bogan a warning ticket. Then, Bogan said, Hamilton posed
some personal questions:
Did she have a home church? Did she accept Jesus Christ
as her savior?
I hasten to note that
this event as described here is only an allegation at this point. According to USA Today, the Indiana State Police did
contact Ms. Brogan to tell her that the agency was "taking supervisory
action" though it did not inform her of what that was. However, the
details of this encounter are currently only allegations in Ms. Brogan’s
lawsuit against the agency and subject to the harsh scrutiny of the civil legal
process.
What I found most troubling,
however, was the response from Micah Carr, executive director of the American
Family Association of Indiana. Carr told USA
Today that while the traffic stop might not have been the best time to quiz
someone about faith, he questioned whether a police officer should lose his
right to free speech because he is wearing a badge. "I have people pass out religious material all the time. Mormons come to
my door all the time, and it doesn't offend me," Clark said. "(This
case) might not be the most persuasive time to talk to someone about their
faith, but I don't think that a police officer is prohibited from doing
something like that."
Again, the tone deafness is
striking. Truth be told, most Americans resent having the privacy of their
homes invaded by religious missionaries. That it occurs with regularity does
not mean other instances of inconsideration somehow become acceptable. Moreover,
this was not an issue of the officer’s exercise of free speech, an analysis
that readily reveals the enormous solipsistic – if not narcissistic - tendencies
in most proselytizing. Nor was it about whether this was “the most
persuasive time to talk to someone about their faith,” a statement which also reveals immense self-focus.
The question at hand is first and foremost about
an abuse of state power as well as the complete inconsideration of the officer in question vis-a-vis the citizen he is pledged to serve. Such persons are not martyrs, they’re boors. And in
this case, if what is alleged is proven, their behaviors exceed mere
offensiveness; they border on being tyrannical.
As You Would Have Them Do Unto You
Throughout my time in
seminary I wore a tee shirt with a quote from Anglican theologian Urban T. Holmes which read,
“Evangelism: The people of God are to the world as a lover, not a salesman.” I
am also prone to quote St. Francis on evangelism: “Preach the Gospel at all
times. Use words only when necessary.” I’m hardly opposed to evangelism per se and there is a part of me that
empathizes with those who wish to share what they consider to be good news with
others. If St. Paul’s take on it is correct, we could all use world changing
news with the power to transform those who hear it.
But it isn’t necessary to be
inconsiderate in that process. Indeed, it’s largely counterproductive. Good
news worth hearing does not find an expression in self-focused bumper stickers
(*I*am not ashamed). And the appropriate time and place for considering
religious understandings is neither at major sporting events nor on the side of
public highways in the shadow of flashing lights under the auspices of
uniformed, armed officers. In such
cases, it is the conduct which is offensive, not the messenger or the message.
And the rejection of inconsiderate behaviors is not martyrdom. It’s a badly
needed lesson in mature adult behavior and the expectations of a civil society.
Let those who have ears
listen.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Rev. Harry Scott Coverston, J.D., M.Div.
Ph.D.
Member,
Florida Bar (inactive status)
Priest,
Episcopal Church (Dio. of El Camino Real, CA)
Assistant
Lecturer: Humanities, Religion, Philosophy of Law
University
of Central Florida, Osceola Campus, Kissimmee, FL
If the unexamined life is not worth living,
surely an unexamined belief system, be it religious or political, is not worth
holding.
Most
things of value do not lend themselves to production in sound bytes.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 comment:
St. Francis of Assisi was profound in his statement to "use words when necessary".
In all reality, words are almost NEVER necessary to get the idea of LOVE of neighbor across with action.
Agape,
Mike
Post a Comment