Times when it's best to just Shut Up!

I read a blog today written by a man about women and abortion. The author is a retiree from the L.A.Sheriff's Dept. named Tony Miano. I think that this is important to remember. I'll reference it later.
Anyway, the blog is at:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/borntoreform/2013/03/do-women-regret-their-abortions-enough/
In it Miano laid out his position on abortion and the woman's responsibility in it. Now, I'm a man and I will not get into this debate. Which is something that Miano should have done. What I do want to address is his argument and method. Particularly, I want to focus on his language and theology. Both of which are poor.
His purpose in writing appears to be to encourage women to reconsider the choice of abortion, or to reflect on the consequences of the abortion after the fact. In this process, he seems to want these women to turn to Jesus Christ for salvation. Of course, he provides the usual steps to take to do this...through faith, repent and ask Jesus to be Lord and Savior. Prior to this invitation he does his best to show these wayward female souls the error of their way. He accuses them of "murdering their unborn child," of deciding to "kill their child," of wondering about "such depravity that leads a woman to slaughter her own child." He is magnanimous enough to "give abortive women the benefit of the doubt and assert that most women later regret killing their unborn children." He hopes that women will regret and feel what he refers to as "godly grief" that will produce repentance. Now, for some who read this may support Miano's effort. From a modern, literalist point of view he seems to be heading in the right direction. Abortion is sin, therefore, those who have abortions are sinners who need God's grace. But, Miano doesn't stop there.
First, he has singled out women as the sinner, or from his law enforcement background, they are the 'perpetrator.' As such, they must be brought to justice. This is misogyny. For every woman who chooses to terminate a pregnancy there is a man who did the impregnating. Now, I realize that in the U.S. the father has no say in this issue. There may be many who oppose the choice of the woman. But, that doesn't negate his responsibility in conception. Miano did not mention men's responsibility at all.
Second, he is standing on a soap box deriding human beings for whom Jesus came. Many of the women that he simply wants to give the "benefit of the doubt" are dealing with issues and feelings that NO MAN can ever understand. In this he is spouting vitriol from a position of privilege. This would have been a time when it would have been best to shut up.
Third, he misrepresents God. By painting the Father of Jesus as One who is out to get vengeance on wayward people is a horrible misreading of the gospel. Jesus came to usher in God's realm and to reveal God's character as One who loves the Good Creation and those of us who inhabit it. To use Christian code to bash people is just wrong.
Fourth is his arrogance. He is clear that how he has read and understands the biblical text is absolutely the only proper way to read and understand it. Sorry, Tony, but it's not. Perhaps if he would have actually gone to a reputable institution of higher learning he would know that. But, nothing in his posted resume indicates this. He was in law enforcement. In this position he would have accepted the dualism of right and wrong and black and white. There is no room for gray or colors with this thinking. And, of course, he is always right.
Miano advertises himself as an 'itinerant preacher.' But, I wonder what it is that he preaches. It seems to be hate and judgement. I'm pretty certain it's not the Good News of Jesus Christ.

My Perspective on the World Christian Movement Pt. 2

As promised, here is part 2 of my musings on missions.

Randy Woodley, a Cherokee himself, in his book Shalom and the Community of Creation, observed that a large majority of native Americans understand that there is “some sort of primal power in the words of oral tradition.”[1] The transmission of ontological truth was trusted to be passed orally. They heard the words spoken “from the heart” and accepted them as truth. Yet, we in the West find it necessary to dispense with that and teach these people to read. We teach them to read the scripture, that’s good…right? In our arrogance we fail to discern that many of these people view our sacred text with suspicion. The reason? Woodley answers in a response of some native Americans: “We know that the white man translated the Bible and he could have removed things he didn’t want us to hear or he could have added things that are not true.”[2] Hmmm….

What if we had, rather, taken the time to listen to those who lived in the land? In a previous blog I wrote that maybe the Europeans were lead by God to visit other lands. But, not to conquer. And, certainly not to force their particular brand of Christianity upon the native population. Rather, what if they were lead to these lands to learn from others, to humbly listen to the stories that the indigenous people had to tell. But, Euro-Americans have a tendency to talk first and listen, well, never. (This, too, is arrogance. To think that what we have to say is more important than what anyone else on the planet has to say.) Had we listened we could have learned about the land and the people, about their special relationship to the cosmos. In dialog we could have then, maybe, shared our story. We could have had an opportunity to see where our different cultures merged and, just maybe, we could have found connecting points that would have allowed the open sharing of the Good News of Jesus Christ. Not to make others change to be like us.

But, to let our story and theirs join as equally viable realities. We could have let go of the need to control the story and let the people of the land take and assimilate it as they felt best.

Now, of course this raises the question of syncretism. And, as I’ve read about missions, this seems to be at the crux of much errant thinking. Let me digress a bit…The two major ancient churches both consider themselves the one true Church. Both the Roman and Orthodox confessions claim to be able to trace their origins back to the Apostles. Both claim to have the only accurate traditions. And, both hold tenaciously to what they perceive to be that one, true, apostolic tradition. All other claims to faith are, at best, considered heterodox. At worst, they are considered heretical. Now, I’m not a math major, but I can see pretty quickly that both cannot be right. And, to add to the confusion, along came the reformers in 16^th century who also claimed to have the only true faith. What I want to point out by this is that we in the West have a long history of trying to prove that we are correct and everyone else is wrong. We have developed an unsustainable dualism that has allowed abuses that would make Hannibal Lecter blush. Now, how would things have looked had we actually built our faith on the teaching of Jesus? We would have been compelled to accept others as created equal to us. We would have had to learn to listen. Yeah, there’s a lot of red text in the gospels, but Jesus really listened to people. How many times did he ask someone, “What would you like me to do for you?” How often did he “look at,” really “look at,” others with respect and compassion? He did not, like we have in the West, simply assume that he knew what the other needed. Even today we assume that we in America know what is best for people in Africa, Asia and Latin America. We do not take the time to listen to what they might think that they really need.

So, back to the problem of syncretism. Who said that we need to control the Gospel? Who said that ours is the only true expression of Christian faith? No one has. We seem to think that the Church and the Gospel belong to us. Therefore, we have some right to control how the story is told and how it should properly be understood. I think that there is Someone far more qualified to do that than we. Jesus told his disciples that he was going to send a Teacher. This Teacher would be Someone who would walk beside them and show them how to live in God’s new realm. Paul wrote about the work of the Holy Spirit. He wrote that it was the Spirit who provided gifts and direction for the Church. Now, it is true that these gifts are realized as people cooperate with the Spirit. But, it is God the Holy Spirit who is the director. I think that trusting in God trumps our fear of syncretism.

We Euro-Americans would do well to hear what we have actually done to indigenous people with our White, male, hegemonic, arrogant approach. What we have thought of as Good News about redemption in Christ has not had the effect that we may have thought it would. Again, I turn to Randy Woodley:

The gospel, as it has most often been preached to Native Americans, does not promise us restored balance or harmony. Actually, too often, the gospel preached to Native Americans and other indigenous peoples around the world was quite the contrary to good news. We have mostly heard the gospel as “bad news.”

The “bad news” of Jesus Christ requires people to forsake their own ethnic identity for the identity of the dominant culture. The “bad news” of Jesus Christ means trading in shared communal values for economic systems based on greed and the success of the individual over the group. The “bad news” of Jesus Christ requires indigenous peoples to accept their status as those meant to be colonized and to cooperate with their own demise. The “bad news” of Jesus Christ askes us to draw our theology, values, and meaning as people from a culture that wishes to make us self-haters.[3]

What to do? I don’t want to come across as having the answer. I don’t. No one person, or group of people does. However, a good place to begin searching for one would be to humble ourselves before Yahweh and pray for forgiveness. Forgiveness for our arrogant disregard for the wonderful diversity that Yahweh has built into humanity and the Good Creation. Forgiveness for twisting Yahweh’s Word to fit our own perceptions. Forgiveness for trampling on our sisters and brothers in God’s name. Forgiveness for not listening to the people of the land, thereby trampling on the Good Natural resources that these Others were called by Creator to be stewards of. Richard Twiss said that the Native American community does not need missionaries. It does not need us to just send money. It needs us to join in real relationship as full partners.[4] I think that maybe it’s not too late to repent and embody the love that Jesus Christ, the God who walked among us, revealed is at the heart of God.

---

[1] Woodly, Randy S., Shalom and the Community of Creation, An Indigenous Vision, William B. Eerdmans,

  Grand Rapids,  2012, p. 140.

[2] Woodley, 2012, 141.

[3] Woodley, 2012, 150.

[4]Richard Twiss: Hope For the American Church, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHKtDoKoD80, last accessed Mar. 20, 2013.

My Perspective on the World Christian Movement Pt. 1

I have been interested in Christian missions, as in cross-cultural missions, since I was a young follower of Christ. I read the books about famous missionaries and went to missions conferences. I listened to stories of selfless heroism and noble sacrifice. Early on, I thought that my part of the task of world evangelization would be to support it from home. I never really saw myself actually ‘in the field.’ At least, not until I went on a short-term trip to Australia. Ok, not a really huge cultural shift from the U.S. to Australia. But, it created a new yearning to be more involved.

I have friends who have gone to the mission field. These folks dedicated their lives to spreading the gospel, as we understood it. They work to establish churches and to help the local population grow in our understanding of the gospel. But, as I have grown and reflected on how we have pursued missions, I’ve been compelled to rethink some things.

Our understanding of missions has been deeply rooted in a Western patristic reading of scripture. It grew out of a desire to spread the good news of forgiveness of sin through faith in God alone. This was coupled with the concept of sola scriptura, which meant that the only way to salvation was a strict adherence to how we understood the scriptures. As missionaries accompanied explorers they went out to conquer the world for Christ. In essence, this was a mandate to spread the gospel by spreading the culture. What this meant for indigenous populations was the end of their way of life. They were taught that, as the late Richard Twiss said, “You can’t be a Christian until you reject your culture and your spirituality and your ceremonies.”[1] And, when the native people would not willingly do that, they were brutally ‘converted.’ Thousands of people were systematically raped and murdered…all in the name of the Church.

I began to ask, ‘why?’ Why would the God that I saw revealed in Jesus desire this kind of wanton destruction of human beings? Did God really desire that nations and people groups become assimilated or destroyed in Christ’s name? Weren’t these the nations and tongues and people that the scripture said would one day bring praise and glory to God? Something just didn’t compute.

What really got me thinking that maybe we were pursuing missions in a manner that may not be in accord with the Jesus Way, was when I wrote a paper on Jim Elliot for a missions class in seminary. Now, I am not going to disparage Elliot and the other men who gave their lives for God. Everything they did was faithful to their understanding of the Gospel and evangelization. What I am questioning is the model that they were given to use. This model, presented here very simply, was to go into a native community and begin to educate the indigenous people. They did this by learning the language of the people, translating the scriptures into that language, then teaching the local people how to read their own language so that they could read the scripture. Ok, it sounds kind of convoluted, and, actually it is. What happens with this model is that the indigenes must adopt a Western approach to education and spirituality. Their own culture and spirituality was, and still is, deemed less important than having a “saving” knowledge of scripture. In a nutshell, as Richard Twiss observed, “You have to chuck all that stuff and just become White.”[2]

Why? What makes our Western understanding of the gospel the be-all and end-all? As I continued to pursue clarity on this, I found that there is more than one way to understand the scriptural text and the Gospel itself. I began to immerse myself in the ‘story’ of the Bible. I recognized that the text that we have has its roots in oral tradition. This tradition employs narrative and poetry and forensics and history and apocryphal stories. The biblical text is NOT a user’s manual of how to get into heaven when you die. It is a love story about Yahweh’s furious love for the cosmos. From Genesis 1 to the end of Revelation, it is God’s story given to humanity so that we can know and relate to the Divine. Story. That word has kept returning to the front of my brain. Story. The telling of events and tales and fables and myth that prick our human hearts. We find God and ourselves in stories. I began to see that my story was not necessarily yours, or anyone else’s story. Or, the story of the Auca, or the Lakota, or the Cherokee, or the Maori. God had given them a different story.

Tomorrow...Part 2

---

[1]"Invitation to Reconcile Clip", Richard Twiss, CCDA, September 26 2012,

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRtATZkpAJI&feature=player_embedded,  last accessed Mar. 20,2013.

[2] "To Live in a Good Way", Richard Twiss, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PJ0CCCVZNk, last accessed Mar. 20, 2013.

I now pronounce you...

The past few years there has been much ink spilled with books, essays, blogs, etc. about Godly or biblical marriages. The evangelical tradition that I grew up in is very patriarchal when it comes to marriage relationships. The husband is the 'head' of the wife who, in turn, must remain submissive to that headship. After all, Paul made it clear in Ephesians that this was so. For many years I've felt that this is simply not accurate. There was something missing when Paul could say something about men, (husbands), being like Christ and women, (wives), being something less. This seemed to ignore the 'no longer male or female' texts. It also made singles into second-class citizens. Today at Rachel Held Evans' blog, she posted a guest essay about this issue. I thought that it was wonderfully thought out and presented. Here is a link:
http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/kristen-rosser-marriage-christ-church?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+RachelHeldEvans+%28Rachel+Held+Evans+-+Blog%29
Please take time to read and comment there, or here.

Tolstoy and Moral Relativism

As anyone who knows me or has read this blog can attest, I really like a couple of the Renovare resources for devotions. I am now working through Spiritual Classics: Selected Readings on the Twelve Spiritual Disciplines...again. Today's was an excerpt from an essay by Leo Tolstoy. In it he decried the use, or abuse, of various substances that tend to dull one's consciousness and render their ability to think and grow. In his reflection on the reading, Richard Foster, who co-edited the book, stated his concern for using conscience as a guide to moral living. He wrote, "it is especially problematic in our day in which modern relativism has turned conscience into virtually anything we want it to mean." He then turned the idea of relativism into a similar "stupefying substance" not unlike the alcohol, tobacco and opium that Tolstoy denounced. He cited as a corroborating source Dallas Willard. He quoted Willard, "there is now no recognized moral knowledge upon which projects of fostering moral development could be based."
Now, I've been hearing this same kind of concern for many, many years. It seems that it is used anytime the established 'norm' is challenged. In my time it has been applied to the liberal 60's and all those hippies who turned the world upside down. It became the cry from the watchmen and moral gatekeepers when post modernism began to show its hoary head in our culture. Now, these same folks are stating that all of the support and underpinnings of a moral and virtuous society have been destroyed. Watch out! The end of the world as we know it is upon us!
Many folks, particularly conservatives, feel that without some commonly accepted absolute truth(s) society necessarily must founder; rudderless in and ocean of individualistic ambiguity. I'm not sure that I entirely agree with this prognosis. Yes, absolutes that were accepted as truth by our parents, grandparents and, maybe, great-grandparents have been challenged. And, I think, rightfully so. Without fresh insights and understanding gained through challenge we cannot really 'own' any kind of moral or virtuous action or thought. There is NO real threat in challenge! Even when these actually reveal inconsistencies and inaccuracies in long held positions, they are still not a threat. Sometimes it's necessary to dig through and shovel away the crap in order to see the kernel of truth that has been buried. That kernel can them be rethought and recast to better serve society as it is now; today.
I actually believe that there is a very healthy moral under girding for today's society. I see it revealed in actions taken by entire communities to support folks in the aftermath of Newtown. It is embodied when people stand up to powerful forces of injustice. The moral fiber of those who care for the weakest and most vulnerable of our fellow humans is a strong witness. It shines in the lives of Palestinians and Israelis whose hearts and lives are linked in support for one another. Virtue shines when people chose what is right over that which fosters hate and division.
But, perhaps the most problematic point that comes from the moral gatekeepers is the fear and distrust that it engenders. The obvious objects are those who question and challenge. These are enemies to be fought and destroyed. They are no longer fellow travelers through life, but something 'other' and evil. I'm sorry, but I haven't yet found where Jesus took that position. More disconcerting for me, though, is the palpable lack of trust in Yahweh. It seems that God is rendered impotent by the challenges raised by those who have been created in the Divine image.
I have hope. I trust that God's will surely will be done on earth as in heaven. I am equally sure that when assumptions and interpretations, that MUST be flawed because they are of human origination, are challenged that we really have nothing to fear. In fact, we may, as one wise person was reported to have said under similar circumstances, "Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these [people] alone!...For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop [it]; you will only find yourselves fighting against God" (Acts 5:38-39).

Just a thought

I just read the following blog:
http://ethnicspace.wordpress.com/2012/10/27/tearing-up-the-letter-what-could-you-ever-trade-your-soul-for-jesus-by-bruce-crawford/
Much of what is contained in it resonates with me. I, too, was indoctrinated under the western, white patriarchy that is so pervasive in our culture. I remember sitting with the pastor who was going to perform my wedding and telling him that, as the man, I was going to be the head of the household and my wife would submit. He disagreed, but did not try too hard to dissuade me. Of course, over time the reality of my statement proved untenable. But, I continued to preach the conservative evangelical position as true orthodox doctrine.
It took rubbing elbows with a variety of cultural influences at seminary to remove the scales from my eyes. As I studied with and learned from African American men and women, Anglo women and men who truly understood the cultural contexts of those who wrote and compiled the scriptures I found that the so-called orthodox position was merely a cultural expression that had little support from the scripture that they claimed to live by.
Now, I find that I must live to respect others, especially those who live at the margins of the patriarchal culture of the West.

Thoughts on ethics, justice and the upcoming election

I know that there are many who take issue with my politics. That's ok. This is America. I must, however, give a bit more clarity to my position. I don't want folks to think that I'm simply being "contrary." I apologize in advance for the length of this post. But, there are issues that I think are deserving of thought and reflection. Especially, as we are presented with such disparate positions as we are in the current campaign. So, I hope that you are provoked to think and discuss openly and respectfully about things. I don't presume to think that this will change anyone's mind about which party or candidate to support. But, hey, why not stir the pot a little?

As the American election season continues to move forward to its climax in November I felt an uncomfortable urge to throw in a bit more of my slightly, (?), biased opinion. I have made it fairly clear that I do not support the GOP platform nor its banner-bearer, Mitt Romney. This has made many of my Evangelical sisters and brothers look at me suspiciously. After all, isn’t Christian ethical and moral identity tied to a politically conservative position? Isn’t it for the sake of a “Christian America” that we contend vigorously with the evils of progressive and liberal thought? I think that there is more to consider in this run-up to November than the current economic conditions in this country, and the world at large. I don’t think that we can separate economic issues from issues of justice and ethics. However, both political parties would have us believe that just such a position is not only possible, but proper. Let me take a quick look at some of the issues I see.

Mr. Obama has, at the very least, been a mediocre manager and administrator. However, I believe that his naiveté and lack of consensus in the other branches of government have been mitigating factors in this. The statements and policies emanating from the current White House have had, if nothing else, an egalitarian flavor. Look at the positions on Mexican immigration, rights for the marginalized, i.e. gay/lesbian, Muslim, and other peripheral groups. While many on the so-called political right see this as a threat to the American ethic, others see this as the practical working of Paul’s view that in Christ there is neither slave nor free, male nor female, Greek nor barbarian. All are equal in the sight of Yahweh and have inherent worth as eikons of God. I think that his desire for equal healthcare availability for every citizen is praiseworthy. However, I’m not convinced that the current method is the best. What is good, however, is that something other than talk has actually been implemented. They say it’s easier to steer a vehicle that’s moving than one that is not. Hopefully, the conversation will continue toward policies that are just and equitable.

The GOP, on the other hand is championing the right of the American people to be free from government interference so that they can move forward and achieve their share of the elusive, if not mythical, American Dream. In promoting this they have become, in my view, ethically utilitarian. In a nutshell, utilitarianism is “The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.”[1] This is long-winded way of stating that the ends justify the means. In the New Testament, Caiaphas stated this idea clearly when he said that it was better for One to die for the benefit of the entire nation. Or, for the trekkies in the crowd, Mr. Spock’s declaration that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few…or the one.

How does this pertain to the current political campaign? The GOP has taken a stance that what benefits the many, namely the white, middle class majority, is the direction that government must take. In their view that is to create policies that make it easier for businesses and entrepreneurs to function. Thus, in theory, this will create job opportunities and an environment for the marketplace to flourish. This is wonderful! But, it is an end that has consequences along the way. Consequences that the GOP thinks are worth the final “good.” Let’s take a look at a few.

Mr. Romney made a statement in Feb. of this year that caused the first red flag to be flown in my mind. He said, “I'm not concerned about the very poor," Romney said. "There's a safety net there, and if it needs repair I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich, they're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the heart of America, the 95% of Americans who are right now struggling."[2] This is as utilitarian a statement as anyone could make. By alluding to a non-existent safety net Mr. Romney can justify putting the concerns of the very poor on a back-burner. So, after 4 years of a Romney presidency, he can conceivably state that the goal of helping the 95% may be successful, but we never got around to fixing the net…it was not the expedient thing to do. Yes, I am speculating here. But, it is a valid question for people to consider.

In response to this I would like to quote one of my professors, Wyndy Corbin Reuschling. She wrote, “this emphasis on the greatest good for the greatest number and what serves their needs is in contrast to the scriptural obligations to care for the least of these, for the minority and for those on margins of social and political power. This is especially problematic if one has even a cursory view of human history, and even church history, and the tyranny of the greatest good defined by the majority and their tyranny over the minority. We know that the majority can be wrong and often have the resources to muster the ideological power and political support to enforce the view that might makes right and the majority always wins.”[3] The case for working for the happiness of all, especially those who have little or no voice in the process, is of paramount importance for those who claim allegiance to the text of Holy Writ. The God of the Bible mandated that it was the responsibility of those who would follow the Way to care for the widows, orphans and aliens among them. Jesus, in his first recorded message to those in the synagogue, quoted the prophet Isaiah saying, “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”[4] It seems that there is a kind of ‘entitlement’ that has been proclaimed by divine fiat that we who choose to follow Christ must consider seriously.

Mr. Romney is also on record in favor of the construction of what is known as the Keystone Pipeline. This is a project that will allow oil extracted from Canadian oil sand to be transported across the U.S. to refineries and export facilities. Much ink has been spilled on this issue. Most of which, I fear, most Americans are utterly unaware of. Allow me to share a couple of concerns. While many still think that global warming is simply a political ploy to add regulations and burdens to business and industry, the evidence is mounting to prove it. The extraction of oil from Canada may very well add to the problem of increased greenhouse gases in ways that boggles the mind. One source states,

“The oil sands are Canada’s fastest growing source of GHGs,” said the document. It estimated that the industry’s annual greenhouse gas emissions would rise by nearly 900% from 1990 to 2020. By the end of that period, the oil sands — with an estimated annual footprint of 90 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent gases in 2020 — would exceed the carbon footprint of all cars and SUVs on Canadian roads from 2008, according to the Environment Canada document.

The document also warns of other rising air pollutants that could cause acid rain or other forms of acidification to damage lakes in Saskatchewan and Alberta, along with particulate matter that could be toxic to rivers, the landscape and wildlife.”[5]

Besides the atmospheric threat, there is the threat to the environment from the path of the pipeline itself. It has been the plan of the developers to build the pipeline across the largest fresh water aquifer in the U.S. This link will allow those interested to read just one of many articles that voice concern for this major source of drinking water and irrigation, http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20110811/keystone-xl-pipeline-route-ogallala-aquifer-nebraska-sandhills. Yet, those who favor the project state that the benefits far outweigh the risks. Jobs will be created and money will be made, (at least by those at the top of the investment food chain). There is reason to pause and consider this, though. There are some who would contest the optimistic view of the project. One such sources states,

“According to the U.S. State Department the pipeline would create at most 6,500 temporary construction jobs, and would leave only "hundreds" of permanent jobs, according to TransCanada, the Canadian company that wants to build the pipeline. Claims that the pipeline would employ tens or even hundreds of thousands of people are simply not true. A Cornell University study concludes the pipeline would kill more jobs than it would create, by reducing investment in the clean energy economy”[6]

(On this issue I think that Mr. Obama has taken the prudent position to deny the project’s access and to encourage further study and conversation.)
Utilitarianism is a normative ethical position that may help people when making moral decisions. It is not, however, the best way to proceed. What constitutes the ‘good of the many’? Who is able to render that position for all concerned? Pope John Paul II had concerns about the tendency for utilitarianism to make people, individuals and groups, objects of use. He wrote, “Utilitarianism is a civilization of production and of use, a civilization of things and not of persons, a civilization in which persons are used in the same way as things are used.”[7] It is this philosophy as espoused by the GOP that causes me concern. It does not seem to matter to them what happens to the few, as long as the many benefit. In civilized society we are, in fact, our brothers’ keeper. For those of us who accept as normative the admonition of Scripture, we have a mandate from Yahweh to care for the marginalized in society. And, I feel, that the government that is elected must share in that mandate. To not do so evidences a considered disregard for justice for all.
So, what does that do for my personal position? Well, none of the choices available are ideal, or even really good. However, when presented with a choice between a well-meaning, yet naïve incumbent who seems to be clear on what is just and a challenger who is equally clear in what is unjust, I must choose justice.

---

[1]Mill, John Stuart, Utilitarianism, in The Basic Writings of John Stuart Mill, (Modern Library: New York, 2002). Qtd. In Corbin Reuschling, Wyndy, Reviving Evangelical Ethics: The Promises and Pitfalls of Classic Models of Morality, (BrazosPress: Grand Rapids, 2008).

[2] http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/01/romney-says-poor-comment-needs-context/ Accessed: 10/7/2012.

[3] Corbin Reuschling, Wyndy, Reviving Evangelical Ethics: The Promises and Pitfalls of Classic Models of Morality, (BrazosPress: Grand Rapids, 2008).

[4] Luke 4:18-19, NIV 2011.

[5] http://business.financialpost.com/2011/12/22/secret-environment-canada-study-warns-of-oil-sands-impact-on-habitat/, Accessed: 10/7/2012.

[6] http://www.nrdc.org/energy/keystone-pipeline/?gclid=CIeYq8OT77ICFUid4AodEl4AsQ, Accessed: 10/7/2012.

[7] (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_02021994_families_en.html) Accessed: 10/7/2012.