Donald Trump: No One Can Tame the Tongue (eCrozier #300)

On May 6, 2016, in culture, politics, sin, by bishopbenhase

No one can tame the tongue—a restless evil, full of deadly poison. – James 3:8

The Latin term ad hominem is used to describe a person who attacks another person when he/she is making a claim rather than address the actual point the other person is making. This is usually done when a person has no substantive way of responding to the other’s point. “You’re stupid for saying that” is a common ad hominem refrain where we attack the person’s intelligence rather than what they’re actually saying. We do this to put the other person on the defensive and deflect attention away from the point he/she is making. This is akin to a magician who doesn’t want us to see how he’s doing a particular trick. He waves a hand high above his head ostentatiously so we’ll look at that hand and not see the other hand that’s doing the trick. It’s deception, but in the magician’s case, it’s done only for our entertainment.  

Blessed James has a very low view of human nature and our ability to keep our words from spewing forth “deadly poison.” He concludes that “no one can tame the tongue.” If we’re at all self-reflective and honest, we must admit we’ve all failed to tame our tongues at one time or another. It’s not pretty when it happens. When I look back at the times my tongue was “a restless evil,” it was usually when I was feeling inadequate compared to the other people around me or in some way excluded by them. In a childish, mean-spirited way, I thought I could build myself up by tearing others down. If I could humiliate them with words, then maybe no one would notice my own failings.

Unlike some who argue we’ve entered a coarser, meaner public square in recent times, it seems to me that such coarseness and meanness has always been a part of our currency of communication in the human family. We just hear and see it more often than we used to because we’re so connected through all manner of media. I do agree with those who make such claims that these attacks have gradually become less and less shameful in our culture. And maybe that’s because of how often we now experience them. The “deadly poison” of ad hominem attacks we now regularly witness just drips, drips, drips into our waiting souls and we eventually become inured to them. We may even come to believe that those on the receiving end of such attacks probably have it coming to them.

Enter Donald Trump, who like me when I’ve behaved childishly, thinks he can build himself up by tearing others down. He tries to humiliate other people with the “restless evil” of his tongue so maybe no one will notice his own inadequacy. He called former Texas Governor Rick Perry a “dimwit.” He made fun of Carly Fiorina’s face. He said Senator and former POW John McCain was no war hero. He implied a reporter, Megyn Kelly, was menstruating because she had asked him a difficult question he didn’t want to answer. This is the deceptive behavior of a mean-spirited magician. Like I said, we’ve all engaged in such shameful conduct in our lives, but most of us recognized it for what it was, sought repentance, and then a more gracious path forward. Not Donald Trump. He just continues. I pray we see this magician’s act for what it is and that the “better angels of our nature” not find it the least bit entertaining.

+Scott

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

A Word for the Church (eCrozier #293)

On March 18, 2016, in culture, Good Friday, politics, Violence, by bishopbenhase

Below is a statement from The Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops. We passed it unanimously, which, from my experience in the House, is a rare occurrence. That should indicate to the entire Church how strongly the bishops of our Church feel about this.

A Word to the Church

On Good Friday the ruling political forces of the day tortured and executed an innocent man. They sacrificed the weak and blameless to protect their own status and power. On the third day Jesus was raised from the dead revealing not only their injustice but also unmasking the lie that might makes right.

In a country still living under the shadow of the lynching tree, we are troubled by the violent forces being released by the season’s political rhetoric. Americans are turning against their neighbors, particularly those on the margins of society. They seek to secure their own safety and security at the expense of others. There is legitimate reason to fear where this rhetoric and the actions arising from it might take us.

In the moment, we resemble God’s children wandering in the wilderness. We, like they, are struggling to find our way. They turned from following God and worshipped a golden calf constructed of their own wealth. The current rhetoric is leading us to construct a modern false idol out of power and privilege. We reject the idolatrous notion that we can ensure the safety of some by sacrificing the hope of others. No matter where we fall on the political spectrum, we must respect the dignity of every human being and seek the common good above all else.

We call for prayer for our country that a spirit of reconciliation will prevail and that we will not betray our true selves.

Now for my personal thoughts on the above statement. While I agree 100% with what we bishops wrote, I think in some ways it’s not a strong enough warning. Our country is at a pivotal moment in its history. During times of great cultural change or of profound dislocation and uncertainty, nations historically have made poor choices in protecting the common good, but particularly for the less powerful, which usually meant religious or ethnic minorities. Those times of uncertainty have led nations to scapegoat those on the bottom rung of the ladder. Our nation has had signs posted in its history that read: “Irish need not apply” or “No Colored Folk” or “No Jews.” We imprisoned Japanese-Americans during World War II for no legitimate reason. We shouldn’t see ourselves today as being so morally pure or advanced that such things couldn’t happen again. They well could. When people are desperate they can act violently and irrationally. And when their desperation is fueled by scapegoating, it leads to a national moral failure.

Future generations of Christians in America will look back and offer their judgment on how we behave in the days ahead. Let’s pray that their judgment will find us faithful.

+Scott

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Francis: the Scandal of Following Jesus and Political Tribalism (eCrozier #275)

On October 9, 2015, in culture, discipleship, politics, by bishopbenhase

Not long after Francis, Bishop of Rome, left the United States a media frenzy broke out. It seems while he was at the Vatican Embassy in Washington, D.C., he met with a number of people those serving at the Embassy had arranged for him to meet. He greeted them, encouraged them in their faith, and then was whisked off to New York to continue his visit there. Among those whom he greeted that day was none other than Ms. Kim Davis, the now well-known County Clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky. As you may recall, she was willing to go to jail rather than issue marriage licenses (just one part of her job) to homosexual couples who desired to be legally married.

Once this meeting became known in the media, the outrage started. It seemed Francis, who many on the political left had embraced as being “on their side,” had met with “the enemy.” The bewildered cries of “how could he?” arose. Many felt he had betrayed them or their particular cause. Others said that they knew all along he was “that way.” Some, trying to explain this apparent aberration, said staff at the Vatican Embassy must have bamboozled him. There was no way he could have known about everyone with whom he met that day. Surely he never would have knowingly met with her? They had hoped Francis would be loyal to their political tribe. Of course, other political tribes, those that support Ms. Davis’ position, were beside themselves with joy, smugness, and relief. Meeting with her proved Francis was really loyal to their tribe after all.

Most folk want (or need?) to put Francis in a particular political box. But he, to my great delight, doesn’t care whether he satisfies the needs of political tribalism. He is, after all, serious about following Jesus. That means he is less concerned about partisan politics and the culture wars in which we wallow and more focused on living in the world in a way that reflects the claims of Jesus on his life. All this media drama showed was how little most people know about what it means to follow Jesus, who in his earthly ministry never cared about what others thought of him when he met or hung out with the mixed-bag characters we read about in the Gospels.

The late Dom Helder Camara was the Roman Church’s Bishop of Recife in Brazil from 1964 to 1985. During his episcopacy a brutal military dictatorship ruled the country. While bishop, he wrote:  Let no one be scandalized if I frequent those who are considered unworthy or sinful. Who is not a sinner? Let no one be alarmed if I am seen with compromised or dangerous people, on the left or the right. Let no one bind me to a group. My door, my heart, must be open to everyone, absolutely everyone. In writing this, the bishop was not shrinking back one bit from his long-standing prophetic witness against the dictatorship in his country. The dictators of Brazil in his day consistently labeled him a Communist. They, too, needed a political box in which to place him. Yet he, like Francis, was merely seeking to follow Jesus, always and everywhere.

We should expect nothing less from those who call us to follow Jesus in his Church, whether they be the Bishop of Rome, the Bishop of Recife, or if he is somehow up to it, the current person who is the Bishop of Georgia.

+Scott

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

The Pharisees of the Extreme (eCrozier #258)

On April 10, 2015, in culture, humility, politics, Religious Freedom, by bishopbenhase

“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”
― Winston S. Churchill

The states of Indiana and Arkansas have recently enacted laws purportedly to protect the religious freedom of their citizens. Some see these laws as back door efforts to discriminate against others, particularly gay and lesbian citizens. Other people see these laws as needed in order to protect their religious beliefs and convictions. So, through the democratic process we as citizens are trying to honor what may appear to be competing moral claims: On one hand, the right to practice one’s religion as one sees fit, and on the other hand, the right not to be discriminated against because of who you are.

But are these really competing moral claims? I don’t think so, not if we’re actually committed to honoring both. Yet, in order to honor both we must first acknowledge what’s happening. There are those who aren’t being honest about their real agenda. Some pushing for the religious freedom laws really do want to discriminate against gay and lesbian persons because they believe such person’s sexuality is against God’s law. But they feel they can’t get what they want if they present it that way, so they seek the cover of such laws. Then there are some who oppose these religious freedom laws because they really don’t want to protect religious beliefs with which they disagree. Laws that protect such religious belief, in their mind, will simply further legitimize that belief. But they, too, don’t feel they can get what they want if they present it that way.

Democracy is messy. Laws help sort through this messiness, but laws alone can never make us respect the dignity of all persons. Laws can make us behave within certain boundaries, but enacting laws will never be able to change our hearts and minds so mutual respect can flourish. Learning to honor the dignity of others, even those with whom we disagree, is the necessary first step. Otherwise people on the extremes will prevail. That means religious believers who are opposed to gay and lesbian person’s sexuality must insist that gay and lesbian persons won’t have their dignity abused by discrimination. Likewise gay and lesbian persons must respect people’s religious beliefs that lead them to oppose homosexuality. That means not calling such persons bigots or suing them when they won’t provide a service. Rather they should support the huge and growing number of service providers who will gladly provide that service.

People on the extremes will oppose this. Depending on their views, what I’ve proposed will lack either a religious or a justice backbone. Both extreme positions demand complete purity and total fealty to their way of seeing the world. They are the Pharisees of the extremes. There’s a way forward that doesn’t capitulate to such Pharisees. It’ll require a critical mass on all sides of this issue to exercise genuine humility and to show remarkable restraint. This will lead us all toward an empathic compassion for those who disagree with us. Such humility, restraint, and compassion will invite us to recognize that each of us has a common human dignity imprinted with the image of God. God’s image is even present with those who we might find objectionable or offensive.

+Scott

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

The Moral Bankruptcy of Violence (eCrozier #245)

On January 9, 2015, in evil, Facts, fear, Grief, Justice, media, morality, news, politics, by bishopbenhase

As we all heard the news of the mass shootings at the Parisian satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, it was natural for us to be horrified by such violence, which is so often fueled by perceived political or religious anger and grievance. This news from Paris comes at the same time as the lone surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings begins to have his day in court. In the midst of such violent news, we may lose our perspective, and thus the big picture and the larger trajectory humankind appears to be on, at least based on the real data we have. More on that in a moment.

Mass murder, such as we just witnessed in Paris this week, has almost always been born out of people’s twisted response to their anger and grievance (at least in their own minds) over some great wrong being done to them or to their “tribe” or to their “people.” Timothy McVeigh was motivated by such anger and grievance when he set off a deadly bomb in Oklahoma City in 1995. In the same state 74 years earlier, hundreds of white citizens in Tulsa systematically murdered as many as 300 black residents in a part of town known as the “Black Wall Street,” which at the time was the wealthiest African-American community in the United States. In Wilmington, North Carolina there was the so-called Massacre of 1898, which was actually a coup d’etat of the elected government. No one knows the full extent of the massacre since many of the bodies of the African-Americans killed were dumped in the Cape Fear River and never recovered.

In each of these instances, as we will probably discover with the one this week in Paris, the deranged actors all justified their murderous act or rampage on settling some score or righting some wrong. In their own warped sense of logic (engaging in an evil for an alleged evil), they were right to do what they did. The actions of others, they claim, led them to do what they did. That leads inevitably to the old “ends justifies the means” argument, which is always morally bankrupt.

But we should also know, even as the horrendous act in Paris sinks in, that such actions are actually fewer in number and less frequent than at other times in human history. It may be hard for us to believe because of the media available today, but war and other forms of political violence (like the examples above) are declining. As Steven Pinker illustrates in his book, The Better Angels of Our Nature, deaths related to such political violence are falling. This coincides with a steady decline worldwide of extreme poverty, child mortality, and hunger as well as the continued growth, since the fall of the Berlin Wall 25 years ago, of the number of countries that are democracies.

Of course, such perspective doesn’t help those who mourn now for their murdered loved ones and fellow citizens. For now, we should just grieve with them and share their outrage and sadness, while also reminding ourselves about the historical moral bankruptcy of responding to evil with more evil. But I do hope it helps us all take a step back and see the arc of history better. As Dr. Martin Luther King said in 1967, Jr. (paraphrasing the words of the Reverend Theodore Parker a century before): “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice”.

+Scott

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Alright Guy & Election Day (eCrozier #238)

On October 31, 2014, in culture, evil, politics, sin, by bishopbenhase

I think I’m am alright guy, I just want to live until I’ve gotta die
I know I ain’t perfect, but God knows I try, I think I’m an alright guy
–         Alright Guy by Todd Snider & The Nervous Wrecks

The Nervous Wrecks is a great name for a band, isn’t it? And Snider’s song is quite perceptive about human nature. In the song, he catalogues a list of his own sins, but then ends each stanza with the above chorus. The song is a satirical expose of people who have forgotten how to blush and who have become indifferent to their own sin. Their sin is never the problem because they can always spin it to make it look otherwise or at least contend that it’s not as bad as other people’s sin. More often than we care to admit, we all fall into this category of Alright Guys. There are always worse sinners around than us, right? But I hope we know that’s not the point, is it?

Take King David for example. Now there was a sinner. At the height of his power and popularity, King David decides to steal another man’s wife, have that man murdered, and then lie about it afterward. Later, Nathan, his national security advisor, confronts him with the evil he’s done and David admits his sin. But why did he do it when he had everything? The answer the Bible gives us is that he did it because he could. A century later in Israel’s history, King Ahab sees a vineyard that he wants for his own, but the owner, Naboth, doesn’t want to sell it. So, Ahab plots to falsely accuse him of cursing God. For this trumped up charge, Naboth was stoned to death and Ahab got his vineyard. What made Ahab do such a thing? The Bible says he did it because he was the king and he could. A century and half later, King Manesseh was so notorious in his zeal to wield brutal power that the Bible says he shed so much innocent blood that “it filled Jerusalem from one end to another.” Manessah assumed he was impervious to judgment because he had the power and the authority as king.

These kings of the Bible thought their status gave them currency to do as they pleased. I’m sure that none of us have sins that rival Israel’s kings. We see our sins as small potatoes compared to the sins of the powerful. And for most of us they are smaller potatoes, but only in size and scope. Sin is still sin. And that’s true whether it’s done by a king, a nation, a church, or by the likes of you and me.

This Tuesday is Election Day when we elect our own “kings” to govern us. The people standing for election exhibit, at least in part, some Sniderly tendencies (Hey, they know they ain’t perfect, but God knows they try). Yet, they’re quick to blame their opponents, the President, or any other convenient target (but never we the voters because we’re all smart, good looking, and above average!). And they never seem to hold themselves to account. So, we’re stuck with the Alright Guys we elect. Why don’t we have candidates who can be honest about their own faults, be humble in their own use of power, and who aren’t always ready to blame everyone else for the challenges we face as a people? Must we settle for “the lesser of two evils” (or, “the evil of two lessers”)? We get the political leaders we elect, whether we deserve them or not. I’m still hopeful we can do better.

+Scott

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

The Widow Atwater, Karma, and the Gospel of Jesus (eCrozier #227)

On June 27, 2014, in culture, gospel, politics, by bishopbenhase

Jesus said to him, ‘Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.’ – Matthew 26:52

The above quote from Jesus might seem to confirm what adherents to a different religious tradition call karma. As I understand it, karma implies that if you engage in a certain behavior, then that same behavior will come back upon you, or maybe stated more simply: “what goes around, comes around.” Jesus puts it in a more complete way in Luke 6:37-38: ‘Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you…for the measure you give will be the measure you get back.’

Such a “measure,” some say, was recently given back. According to a report this week in the Charleston, SC City Paper: “The day before the June 24 Republican primary runoff, S.C. superintendent of education candidate Sally Atwater is facing a lawsuit that claims she assaulted a special needs student in her elementary school classroom. The lawsuit was filed in a Colleton County court on June 19, nine days after Atwater took a close second in the Republican primary and five days before she faces Molly Spearman in a runoff. In a written statement, Atwater campaign spokesman Luke Byars called the lawsuit ‘baseless and frivolous’ and ‘one of the lowest political hit jobs I have witnessed in 25 years of South Carolina politics’.”

You may know that Ms. Atwater is the widow of the late Lee Atwater, who as a political operative engaged in even meaner “political hit jobs.” To his eternal credit, as he was dying of cancer, he lamented his vicious behavior and sought forgiveness. Now, his widow seems to have been on the receiving end of an “Atwater-type” political attack. If so, it appears to have worked as Ms. Atwater did lose the election. So now some people are exercising their usual, gleeful schadenfreude claiming Ms. Atwater got “karmic payback” for her late husband’s onerous behavior. Other people are saying: “when you live by the sword of political hit jobs, then you’ll die by them as well.” You see, they’re even quoting Jesus to back up their version of wisdom to live by.

But that “wisdom” assumes Jesus was endorsing such outcomes as good things. He wasn’t. He was merely observing how the world works when we don’t live by the Godly virtues of compassion, mercy, and forgiveness. Jesus says that when we judge and condemn others, when we don’t forgive, we set lose a pattern of behavior that’ll always come back upon us. But, Jesus says, when we put away our sword of condemnation, when we don’t place ourselves on His judgment seat, when we incarnate forgiveness in our lives, then we set loose a different spiritual pattern in the world, a pattern that abounds in grace and infects with mercy, which we’ll receive back in full measure beginning now and forever. That’s the Gospel truth and not mere karma.

+Scott

The eCrozier will be on holiday for six weeks or so in the hot, humid jungles of Mozambique. The eCrozier will resume sometime in August.

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

The Virtues and Blind Spots of the Left and the Right (eCrozier #218)

On April 25, 2014, in politics, by bishopbenhase

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. – James Madison

Well, we’re not angels, in case you haven’t noticed. Neither the political Left nor the political Right in our culture truly takes this into account in their moral approaches to making policy. The work of moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt and his colleagues has shown quite compellingly that the same basic moral foundations shape both the Left and Right. It’s just that they assign greater or lesser importance to some rather than others. Haidt contends that the Left values compassion and fairness over the Right’s higher concern for loyalty and purity. This doesn’t mean that the Right doesn’t care about compassion and fairness. Clearly they do. It’s just that they care more about loyalty and purity. Equally, it doesn’t mean that the Left doesn’t care about loyalty and purity. They do, but just not as much as the Right does. In other words, when faced with making policy, the Left and Right tend to lean on their preferred moral foundations.

We can find this enormously helpful as way to avoid demonizing people who disagree with us. Compassion, fairness, loyalty, and purity are wonderful virtues we’d all hope everyone inculcated. It’s just that some of us prioritize them differently. With all this in mind, I believe both the political Left and the political Right fail miserably in their anthropological assumptions. Neither take into adequate consideration that we humans are not angels. Differently put, neither provides an intelligible account for the human propensity to mess up things up, which the Bible simply calls “sin.”

Each gets it half right. The Left has a higher view of human sin when it comes to individual abuses of wealth and power in the private sector. They’re wary of deregulated markets and lax environmental regulation, because they believe that left to the their own devices, people’s greed will trump the common good. The Right believes that when humans are left to their own devices, the invisible hand of the market will help them act virtuously, so little regulation is needed. Experience proves that the Left is correct.

The Right has a higher view of human sin when it comes to the abuses of government in relationship to the liberties of individuals. They’re justifiably concerned with what happens when human beings act in large groups, like governments, with diminished concern for how the individual’s rights are affected. The Left assumes that government, since it is “by the people,” will act virtuously. Experience proves the Right is correct.

The Left and the Right could both learn from each other’s flawed understanding of human nature. If Haidt is correct, and I believe he is, the Left and Right will usually revert to their preferred moral foundations, while discounting, but not rejecting their less preferred foundations. Good public policy, then, would take into account the assumptions proceeding from the preferred moral foundations of both the Left and the Right. It would also need to take into account the blind spots of both when it comes to their unbalanced account of the human propensity to mess things up. Don’t hold your breath until the Left and the Right admit this to one another, because you’ll pass out.

+Scott

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Seeing Poor People First Through The Gospel Lens (eCrozier #203)

On January 10, 2014, in discipleship, gospel, Haiti, politics, by bishopbenhase

Among our tasks as witnesses to the love of Christ is that of giving a voice to the cry of the poor. – Pope Francis addressing, Justin, Archbishop of Canterbury

I get a lot of emails telling me how to be a better bishop, why I’m wrong about this or that issue, or how I’d be acceptable to the writer if I just did what they want. And then there are my favorite emails, ones beginning with something like: “How dare you…” If I followed each directive of my correspondents, then I’d be more of a mess than I am and I’d probably end up on the floor mumbling incoherently in a straight jacket.

I recently received some emails criticizing our Church’s work rebuilding our cathedral in Haiti, the one that was destroyed by the earthquake in January 2010. Some of these folks told me that with the deep poverty in Haiti, it was just wrong for us to raise millions of dollars to rebuild our cathedral there. Such money should go to poverty relief. Other emails came at it from a different direction: the Haitian people were corrupt and simply incapable of managing anything by themselves. They would just waste whatever we gave them and nothing would change.

These two criticisms might be characterized respectively as first a liberal one, and second, as a conservative one. What both of these criticisms have in common is that they approach their position first through a secular, socio-political lens. Sadly, I see this a lot from disciples of Jesus. For example, when I read Facebook postings from Christians, their critique of an issue often seems to come a priori from their socio-political outlook. Then they often try to find a way to fit in the Gospel to justify their position. Shouldn’t it be the other way around with our politics being shaped by the Gospel?

Whether it be the proper role of government in the U.S., or addressing the scandal of hungry children in our communities, or how best to help the Haitian people, we must begin with the lens of the Gospel of Jesus. At times that will make disciples of Jesus seem liberal and at other times it’ll make us look conservative to the larger world. And sometimes it’ll make us just appear crazy to those not shaped by the radical grace of the Good News of Jesus. Too many of us are hung up on trying to be consistently liberal or unswervingly conservative rather than constantly faithful to the teachings of Jesus. That means our politics shape our discipleship. And it should be the other way around.

This isn’t to suggest that there are clear programmatic answers found in the teachings of Jesus on how to alleviate poverty or the related issue of “income inequality.” But it’s to suggest that if we aren’t working hard to help the poor, then we’re plainly ignoring Jesus. Poor people should haunt every disciple of Jesus. I hear some Christians blame poor people for being poor as if it were some sort of “just dessert.” I hear others who think that if we just had the right government program, then it would absolve them from any direct responsibility. Both are shaping their respective responses through the wrong lens. We’re never going to get this completely right this side of heaven, but all our efforts should proceed directly from the grace incarnated in the Gospel of Jesus.

+Scott

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

St Francis, the Government Shutdown, and the Virtues of Americans (eCrozier #192)

On October 4, 2013, in culture, politics, by bishopbenhase

When I first reflected on what the Holy Spirit might be prompting me to write today, I felt drawn to offer a reflection about Blessed Francis on his Feast Day. But I also felt a nudge to offer some commentary on the reality TV show that our current federal government has become. Right now we’re witnessing the lust for political power overtaking serving the common good, the desire for political advantage trumping basic common sense. It’s like watching middle school boys on the playground when one of them has their emerging manhood ridiculed by another. Backing down isn’t an option when that much testosterone is so fresh in the bloodstream. As we watch that proverbial playground we know it won’t end well no matter who’ll claim victory afterward.

But as I continued to pray about this, I realized that if I allowed these “middle school boys” to determine what I was going to write, then, as the saying goes, I’d “allow the terrorists to win.” I won’t give them that power. The Blessed Saint of Assisi is too important a witness to the Truth not to write about. Anyway, maybe if we all just ignore the political middle schoolers in Washington and stop stoking their egos, then they’ll end this WWE Smackdown and behave themselves. I found from experience that such a strategy actually does work with middle school boys. They want attention. If you don’t react to them, they often calm down all by themselves. Worth a try, at least.

But back to Francis. I think the Holy Spirit working through Francis probably saved the Church from itself. By the early 13th Century when Francis came of age, the Church that had begun as a mass movement of following Jesus, the incarnate, crucified God, had become something akin to a large leaky barge of an institution taking on water but still afloat. The Church had morphed into a political power broker with little resemblance to the Church of the Acts of the Apostles. It was hawking the Crusades (the 4th Crusade was ending and they were planning, believe it or not, a 5th one) and through raw political power the Church was bending the will of various princes forcing them to accept Papal control. You can read all about it in the annals of the Fourth Lateran Council, much of that Council being the Papal reaction to those same princes who 35 years before had installed antipopes to rival the popes they didn’t like.

On to this scene comes Giovanni di Pietro di Bernardone, nicknamed Francesco, who left the luxury of his father’s estate and profitable silk business to live among the poor. He preached a simple message: “follow the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ and walk in his footsteps.” And he didn’t mean that metaphorically. Soon he had some brothers join him and later sisters with St Clare. Together they all kept alive the path of following Jesus and laid the groundwork for the Reformation centuries later. The Church is still learning and relearning the indispensable truth of Francis’ virtuous witness.

Come to think of it, maybe there is a connection between honoring what St Francis did for God’s mission and the lunacy in Washington? Maybe we will be blessed to have a secular St Francis rise up and remind Congress of the virtues of compassion and generosity that Americans have always had?

+Scott

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

« Previous Entries
Go To Top »