A Tale of Two Americas

This blog focuses on issues of unity, especially among Christians. We look at how disunity manifests itself along theological, racial, cultural, economic and nationalistic lines in our society.

We want to follow the gospel mandate to repent, repair the damage and offer restitution on the hopeful path toward reconciliation. That is a page from good, old fashioned Christianity! But one giant obstacle in the way is a poor self understanding. We can't do any of this well if we aren't honest about ourselves or the situation. This may require shattering some long-held golden calves. But I believe we can do it.

As the churches following the liturgical calendar move toward commemorating All Saints Day and All Souls Day—and Day of the Dead in Hispanic cultures—and Reformation Sunday in Protestant denominations—it is a good time to ask: Who are we? Where did we come from? What narratives do we tell of our past that define who we are today? Who do we want to be going forward and where do we ultimately want to go?

There are two Americas.

We have a very difficult time admitting it. But in order to be healthy and whole and to become the people we want to be (and think we are), it is necessary to come to terms with this. The truth will set us free.

We have indeed been an experiment in freedom and equality. When the U.S. was founded, we attempted something no other nation in the modern era has ever attempted, at least not on the scale we were attempting. Smaller communities were the model but there was never anything so grandiose. And yes, through the years, very often our stated ideals of freedom and equality have pushed us (often kicking and screaming) to live them out more fully.

However, perhaps more importantly, you could say instead of "freedom and equality for all" what we have instead created a pocket of power and privilege for a few in the guise of freedom and equality for all. As noted evangelical writer Jim Wallis often says, racism is "America's original sin."

There are other words that can accurately describe American society:

Apartheid.

Caste system.

Rigid social hierarchy.

Forced labor camps.

Forced patriotism.

Genocide.

Privilege.

Concentration camps.

Internment camps.

Forced family separation and re-indoctrination of various groups (slaves, natives, migrants, immigrants).
Militaristic empire.
Colonizers (both neocolonialism and good ole fashioned regular colonialism).

All of those are accurate and factual descriptions. 

"We don't like those words! That's what other countries do, not us!" We tell ourselves: "Sure, we've made a few mistakes along the way, but we're not like them!"

But when your idea of freedom and equality for all is to do the following, perhaps we are not being honest with ourselves:

1. "Clear the land" of the first nations people and cultures already here as if they were simply annoying weeds.

2. Kidnap, capture, and import slaves, dehumanize them and write the laws to regard them as property—and then even after slavery to keep them in forced segregation and oppression—perhaps in unconscious fear that if granted true equality and freedom they might do to us what we did to them.

3. Beat down on successive waves of immigrants who might steal the power and privilege we have amassed for ourselves—also perhaps in unconscious fear they might do to us what we did to them.

Different Words for Different Folks

One of the ways we perpetuate these divisions is that we use different words for ourselves than we use for others. The U.S. was populated by migrant workers, immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers. But we don't like those words, so we call ourselves "settlers" instead. How come Mexicans crossing the border today without documents aren't called "settlers"? They meet that definition as well as any European from three centuries ago did.

The U.S. started as genocide toward native people and continued with a string of forced labor camps (what we usually call "plantations" (you know, where slaves were imprisoned)) where the inmates were subject to brutal life sentences and continual torture—and so were their families for generation after generation.

In all this, the U.S. has then maintained a rigid social caste system. On top of the social caste system are white (preferably northern European), Christian (preferably Protestant) heterosexual, cisgender males. There are some anomalies and complexities in this that must be named but that is the overall system.

At Home and Abroad

Whatever freedoms we may legitimately enjoy here, we brutally deny to most everyone else on earth. Seriously, for every place on earth that we hold up as an example that we have genuinely helped become a democratic, freedom-loving society (er... usually by force), there are probably a dozen more where we have installed and supported autocratic regimes—keeping the third world poor and vulnerable so our corporations can exploit the people and land without resistance or interference. It was actually a Catholic Maryknoll missionary priest who played a large role in uncovering these maneuvers.

The refugees and asylum seekers currently at the U.S./Mexico border begging for mercy were driven in no small way by U.S. policies that wrecked their homelands, either directly or indirectly. This includes the drug wars (Colombia), embargoes (Cuba/Venezuela), destructive trade policies (Mexico) and overthrowing democratically elected governments (Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, etc).

We maintain that industrial military complex through forced, obligatory patriotism here in the U.S ("Support the troops" who are "making the world save for democracy.") However, people around the world simply do not universally cheer us as their "liberators." Some do, but many do not. So often, we have betrayed the people who have helped us. We get upset when we hear about how communist and socialist governments have attempted to force their systems onto their people, but when we have "brought democracy" abroad is has generally been through force and military rule.

Despite all this negativity, there are bright lights to report.  For example, we have historically settled permanently more refugees than everywhere else on earth combined (not since Trump's restrictions but previously). Granted, that's only a small fraction of the world's refugees. It must be said that we certainly do not take in the most refugees—not by a long shot. But the ones we have taken in we have granted permanent status. That's the difference. It's still a very good mark for the U.S. Granted, we should also ask how many of those refugees we have created in the first place through our policies and practices.

It must also be said that even though historically the U.S. has been a leader in pushing for freedom and equality for all, we are nowhere near the leaders in world freedom anymore. Lots of studies have been done from lots of groups to measure the relative "freedom" of people all over the earth, and the U.S. does not rank anywhere close to the top of freedoms today. This is especially true in post-9/11 America where all the infrastructure for a police and surveillance state has been quickly and firmly put in place. In addition, there is too much disparity in power and privilege along economic, racial and social lines.

Conclusion

I'm sure folks could point to other areas where we have done an exemplary job and other areas where we have been dismal. But that's the point—both have been true. And this is why democracy in the U.S. is always fragile and that fascism and white nationalism are ongoing threats just around the corner. We have always been dangerously closer to that than we usually care to admit—lynchings, McCarthy "red scare" hearings, Japanese internment, family separation of native peoples and "re-schooling," not to mention slavery and native genocide. The list goes on and on. I believe it was Noam Chomsky who made that point—we have always had the infrastructure for fascism, especially in post 9/11 America. We just haven't had a leader or a populace willing to exploit it to its fullest... yet.

A nation of freedom and equality does not have a military many times the size of the next closet competitor with bases in 150+ nations worldwide. A nation of freedom and equality does not mandate saying the Pledge of Allegiance or standing for the national anthem—those quasi-religious gestures would have been abhorrent to our founders. It's not what you do in a genuinely free society. It's just not. By Definition.

So there you have it. A tale of two Americas. We are not all bad. We have done some great things for freedom and equality in the world, even if most of those gains are historical. But it's time we let go of any paternalistic, comic book fantasies about what our country is. We can do this. We need to first be honest about who we are, what we have done and what we are planning to do. Only then can be actually be the people and nation we aspire to be. We have to quit saying "We're #1 We're the best!" We just not. Let's face it—that's kind of juvenile. Life is more complex than that. Besides, Christians in particular should set their gaze on the Kingdom that Jesus announced rather than wordly things, statuses and titles. But admitting it is the first step on the road toward repentance, restitution and reparations and ultimately reconciliation.

A lot of folks say:  "This can't be true because of such-and-such positive thing about America." But that's it—we have two sides and need to acknowledge—fully—both.

Let's go back to church and learn the 4 R's:

Repentance, Restitution, Reparations and Reconciliation.

Christians at the Southern Border!

Our fellow Catholic, Pentecostal and evangelical Christian
brothers and sisters in need--shut out at the border.
Photo by ABC News.

Christian dis-unity paves the way for the secular world to divide people for power and profit.

I have never once read an article warning about the masses of "Christians at the southern border."

I've been both an advocate and concerned citizen on all issues related to immigration for over 20 years. This includes looking the whole system of immigration as well as concern for migrants of all types: Refugees, asylum seekers and both documented and undocumented immigrants.

By contrast, whenever the United States seems to be stoking the fires for yet another war in the Middle East, I commonly hear about those so-called "Muslim nations."

In this blog serious through "Respect Life" October, we've been looking at how we talk about and encounter each other lays the foundation for how much we respect we have for each other—including respect for each other's lives.

In the gospels, Jesus seems to warn us about getting caught up in the labels society gives to people. Jesus ate with sinners and tax collectors and encountered all manner of people in genuine, respectful dialogue—especially people that his society warned him not to, such as Samaritans and lepers.

It is easy to infer that the reason we never hear about the "Christians at the southern border" is because that would likely increase sympathies for them, and there are forces at work that don't want that to happen. Likewise, those who are itching to go to war throw out the "Muslim" word since that is likely to decrease sympathies based on some egregious misunderstandings about the Islamic faith. Let's not fall for it.

The vast majority—if not the entirety—of immigrants coming to the U.S. from south of the border would virtually all identify as Christian in one form of another—Catholic, Pentecostal or evangelical.

By contrast, the populations of Middle Eastern nations are far more mixed. Each of them has a sizable Christian population, including some of the oldest Christian communities in existence. And few of those nations are "Muslim" in the strict sense of the word referring to a theocratic government.

Doesn't our mutual membership in the same Body of Christ mean anything here?

Do our loyalties to our national identity mean more than our identity through Christ?

Some of Jesus' most astonishing statements recorded in the gospels speak to this.

"Hate Your Father and Mother"

Jesus seems to want us  to deny our tribal bands of loyalties and to embrace the universal family revealed to us through Christ. This is how I understand the challenging verse in Luke 14:25-27 when Jesus says that whoever follows him must "hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters." I don't believe that Jesus is actually telling us to hate anyone —that seems hard to square with the guy who urges us to love one another up to and including our enemies! But I believe he is urging us to see beyond the loyalties based on family, race, religion, national origin, denomination or whatever false divided us and prevents us from seeing the oneness of all.

So when Jesus says "hate your mother" he's not asking us to hate the person but rather the title and the special privileges that come with it. That may be hard to do when it comes to such an important relationship like father and mother, but I get his point. I think of this this way:  Jesus is saying don't love someone less just because they are not a fellow American, a fellow white person, a fellow authorized, documented citizen or a fellow Christian. See past those labels to know—and ultimately love—the people behind them.

Conclusion

I'm not suggesting, of course, that we should reserve sympathies only for Christian immigrants or Christian majority nations. I believe the vision Jesus calls us into reaches far beyond those terms. But our mutual identification as believers who profess Christ, or at the very least searches who follow Jesus, who are baptized into the same Body of Christ, including people who are members of our own particular church or denomination, should count for something. It should count for a whole lot.

Our faith and trust in Jesus' words in the Gospels can help strengthen us to stand firm against the forces that would try to divide us. I'm not sure who people wants to sow division. Underneath it all, it is probably about power and money, as most evil is. Let's approach the world as Christians first and foremost, who care for members of our community and who reach out in genuine respect to those outside our community. Let Christ set the terms of our encounter with others do that we don't let selfish or political interests define, label and demean people for their own selfish gains.

How different of a world it would be if we were regularly reminded of our bonds to one another rather than reminded of our perceived differences. But since the rest of the world can't be counted on to do this, we must commit to doing this ourselves.

***

This is part 5 in a series during October on Respect Life.

Part 1: Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue is a Respect Life Issue

Part 2: Yes, Even "Those People"

Part 3: Dialogue: A Contemplative Practice

Part 4: White People Talking About Racism:  Do It Anyway

White People Talking About Racism: Do It Anyway

Through the month of October, we've been talking about dialogue as the example Jesus modeled for lifting up the dignity of disenfranchised people and for bringing back into community people who have previously been excluded outright or who have been relegated to the margins. In this post, we will talk about a certain type of dialogue in regards to race in America. After all, race is one of the primary ways that society is divided, in particular the Christian community.

***

A lot of white people avoid talking about race in America on general principle.

In some ways, that is understandable. It is seen as a high-risk, low-reward scenario. The risk is high that someone could be offended or that one's personal work or reputation could be jeopardized, and the prospects of making the situation of race any better for anyone seem pretty low.

So it's easy to see why people of goodwill opt out.

I don't think that's the right approach.

I take great solace from the poem Do It Anyway (copied below) (attributed to Mother Thersea but originally written by Dr. Kent Keith): I think it's something we need to do anyway.

If the majority of us who have any sensitivities or empathies around race stay silent, who will do the talking? Surely, white supremacists will show no hesitation. And young people who are vulnerable to this message may not hear a counter narrative.

There is a chance we will be seen as dominating the discussion. That is not something to take lightly. But if we don't talk, the burden will fall on our African-American sisters and brothers who run the risk of re-traumatizing themselves trying to explain race *yet again* to an unsympathetic audience.

There is a chance we will be seen as trying to make the conversation about ourselves, trying to pat ourselves on the back for thinking we are "woke" or for trying to appease our white guilt.

There is a chance we will stay something stupid or at the very least insensitive.

All of these are serious considerations. That is why we must enter the conversation as sensitively as possible and to listen, listen, listen, and then listen again, as one my colleagues frequently says. But enter it we must--knowing we will fail, knowing we will say stupid things and knowing there may be doubts as to our integrity, selfishness or value to the conversation.

If we can allow a bit of grace for each other, when we do air out those unconscious biases and say things that genuinely *are* insensitive, we can lovingly correct each other. If those thoughts are never spoken out loud, they may linger for years and continue to infect our perspectives and decisions. If we speak them out loud, there is a chance they can be challenged.

After all, I remember a time when I was less woke that I am today. And I am hopeful for a future when I am more woke than I am right now. As easy as it is to condemn my fellow white Americans for their insensitivities, I have to remember how easy it is to have them.

I seriously doubt how successfully we can scold people into a change of heart. It can make me feel good in the short term but what good is it if, well, no good comes from it?

After all, God loved the world into existence, Christ loved the world to its redemption and the Holy Spirit continually loves us in the process of sanctification. If that weren't enough, Jesus told us the first and foremost commandment is to love one another, up to an including our very enemies. How could we see anything other than love as the vehicle for change?

All things equal, I do believe it is better to talk about race than not talk about it. Please understand, there absolutely *are* risks in talking about race. We have to continuously take personal inventory and be always consciously on the alert for dominating the conversation. We have to lift up African American voices, as they are the ones directly living with the effects of racism and whose voices have been silenced all too often. But we white folks are the ones who can use our privilege and our relationships to have the tough conversations and make the tough decisions in the personal, private and public spaces that we inhabit.

After all, many African Americans report feeling exhaustion over talking about race, and we've been asked to do use our privilege to make the situation better, and that includes talking about race, especially with other white people. Just be sensitive to how you are doing it, such as making a  priority of listening to the experiences of the black community and avoiding the traps of making it too much about ourselves, but do it we must.

People are often unreasonable, illogical and self-centered;

Forgive them anyway.

If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives;

Be kind anyway.

If you are successful, you will win some false friends and some true enemies;

Succeed anyway.

If you are honest and frank, people may cheat you;

Be honest and frank anyway.

What you spend years building, someone could destroy overnight;

Build anyway

If you find serenity and happiness, they may be jealous;

Be happy anyway.

The good you do today, people will often forget tomorrow;

Do good anyway.

Give the world the best you have, and it may never be enough;

Give the world the best you've got anyway.

You see in the final analysis, it is between you and God;

It was never between you and them anyway.

by Mother Theresa and/or Dr Kent Keith

***

This is part 4 in a series during October on Respect Life.

Part 1: Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue is a Respect Life Issue

Part 2: Yes, Even "Those People"

Part 3:  Dialogue: A Contemplative Practice

Dialogue: A Contemplative Practice

Jesus just kept talking to--and healing--all the people
the rest of his society wanted to stay away from.

Unfortunately, for much of Christianity faith largely became believing things to be true or false (intellectual assent) instead of giving people concrete practices so they could themselves know how to open up (faith), hold on (hope), and allow an infilling from another source (love). Contemplation opens our heads, hearts, and bodies to God’s living presence.

-- Franciscan Catholic priest Fr. Richard Rohr

The above writing by Richard Rohr offers an important challenge to Christians or anyone else concerned about ethics, respecting life and social justice.

Too often, when we hear the phrase "respect life" we immediately think of certain hot-button issues  and we've come to expect the accompanying arguments as to who is "right" and who is "wrong." Christian church traditions have a long history of unpacking the ethical and moral dimensions along these lines.

That's all fair and noble, and I certainly approach these issues this way, too--but it is not the only way to learn how to respect life. Intellectual analysis and agreement are important, but so too are practices that help open our hearts. Behaviors and activities that open our hearts are known as contemplative practices.

The gospels do not record Jesus articulating precise, analytical arguments for or against certain causes. Rather, he modeled a practice of encounter and dialogue. Through that experience, your heart expands, your sensitivities deepen and your empathy blossoms. This method is also very freeing as Jesus rarely tells us how or what to think but rather he gives us to tools to get them ourselves.

The analytical mind can be prone to unhealthy control tendencies. We fear what someone may do with that freedom, so we want to make sure they think a certain way. We want to overwhelm them with astute argumentation. We want to prove them wrong. But we have to be careful, as this can be an affront to the very human dignity we are trying to articulate.

Further, human beings are not objects to be analyzed but rather people to be known. I am not in any way discounting the importance of intellectual inquiry, because there's not enough of that in the world today, either. But when our society is so polarized--and when arguments flare up for or against certain issues--and when our world is so bitterly divided in the culture wars--perhaps we need something more than just one more convincing article or thesis.

Jesus shows another way. What if we were to just sit with someone? What if we were to come face to face with the mystery of who this person is, in all their complexities, absurdities and vulnerabilities? What if we were to look in this person's eyes and see the divine image looking back at us?

After all, it is very rarely good theology that converts people to Christianity but rather a personal experience of Jesus or at the very least, Jesus known through his church. The theology comes later as people try to understand what they have come to know through faith. The same holds true for how we regard our fellow humans. Let's face it: Most of us already know what we believe about certain issues and we look for reasons to bolster that later. So how did that initial opinion form?

Perhaps if we did what Jesus showed, we wouldn't need to read bioethics studies to calculate when indeed life begins. We wouldn't need to consult ethicists to determine the precise moment when they deem violence is justified in a particular situation. Nor would we need social justice advocates reminding us that the lives of a particular group matter.  We would simply move differently in the world. We would respond to attacks on human life as if our very sister or brother were threatened. The ethical arguments have a place but they would come later.

This is what, I believe, Jesus is calling us toward: To respond to attacks on human dignity and life as viscerally and immediately as if it were our very mother or father.

And while this post is not about academic studies, the data does back this up: Those who have the most hostility toward disenfranchised groups are almost always those who have no personal relationships with members of that group. For example, this link shows that many who distrust Muslims often do not know any Muslims. Likewise, I have found that people who have the most hostility toward unauthorized immigrants are those who have never taken the time to hear any of them talk about their lives and why they made the choices they have made. The same is true for racial tensions, LGBTQ+ prejudice, suspicion between Catholics and evangelicals of each other, to name just a few examples.

***

This is part 3 in a series during October on Respect Life.

Part 1: Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue is a Respect Life Issue

Part 2: Yes, Even "Those People"

Yes, Even "Those People"

This is Part 2 in a series during the the month of October focusing on how dialogue and encounter—particularly between Christians of different denominations—is a way that Jesus himself showed us how to respect life.

Part 1:  Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue is a Respect Life Issue

“Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

Mark 2:16

One of the most astounding things about Jesus' earthly ministry 2,000 years ago was how he encountered people.

Jesus loved and talked to anybody and everyone. However, he seemed especially concerned about going directly to those most marginalized by the rest of society. He was always living the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:1-12) by including the excluded and making the last one first.

So for example, if he were approached by two people, and one had a comfortable and established place in society and the other was an outcast, Jesus  probably would go to the outcast first. He loves them both equally, and he goes to the outcast, first.

Today, we have a fancy way of describing that. We call this the preferable option for the poor in the Catholic Church. We are to love everybody, but when we have the option, we prefer the poor (and we always have the option).

It's like saying all people are equal—especially the poor and forgotten. This is a logical conundrum perhaps but it makes sense through the eyes of faith!

If that's confusing, you are not alone. The elder brother in the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32) story had difficulty understanding this, as well. There was such a lavish reception for the return of the younger son that it didn't feel like the love was equal, especially for someone who didn't seem to deserve it, in the eyes of the older son.

There's a modern way of looking at that:  Yes, of course all lives matter, and because all lives matter, that's why we say "black lives matter." It's an example of "the last shall be first." We are lifting up the ones most put down. Like Jesus, we love everyone and we go to the poor first. We anxiously await the healing and wholeness of our society by witnessing to it this way.

Sometimes we make this out to be more difficult than it is. If you are a parent with a son and daughter, I'm sure you love them both equally. But if the son had just fallen and broken his leg, you would drop what you were doing with your daughter to get your son to the hospital.

Our categories have changed somewhat since Biblical times. Our world is not divided between Samaritans, lepers, tax collectors and the "possessed," these days. We just don't understand the world in those terms, anymore. However, those same dividing lines are there, just termed differently. Our world today is one of Muslims, immigrants, black people referred to as "thugs" and LGBTQ+ persons. Just like in Jesus' time, not only are people unfairly excluded by they are blamed on top of it—they are called "sinners" even though they are not necessarily any more sinful than anyone else. But mainstream society wants a way to rationalize their treatment, after all, no one wants to think of themselves as unfair or cruel.

Further, our world is divided is between conservatives and liberals, Christians and atheists, Catholics and evangelicals, the university educated and the street smart, pro-choice and pro-life, you name it. Each side has demonized the other. The less we know of each other, the easier it is to demonize each other.

Who are those that society wants to relegate to a lesser status—a lesser class—a lesser caste? Those seemed to be the groups that Jesus went right toward. After all, the Samaritans, lepers, tax collectors and the possessed were considered the lowest of the low when Jesus walked this earth.

Jesus was constantly witnessing to the God-given dignity of every person and the equality of all. He moved through society as if he didn't recognize at all its labels, statuses, privileges and restrictions on recognizing human dignity. But in a sense he did recognize them, because witnessed against them. He just kept putting the last first, turning tables and shocking everyone. After all, he had developed quite a reputation for hanging around with "sinners and tax collectors" (Matthew 9:10-17,Mark 2:15-22,Luke 5:29-39). He did this to such an extent he became known for associating himself with society's discards.

I can almost hear Jesus saying through his actions:
Jesus: "Yes, even "these people"!"
Bewildered disciples: "Even them??"
Jesus: "Yes, especially them!"

Can you get to know some unpopular, hated group of people to such an extent that you get known as one of them? That you suffer along with them? Eschewing society's labels and getting to know people directly is still as radical and life-affirming today as it was when Jesus walked this earth two millennia ago.

Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue is a Respect Life Issue

Jesus talks to a Samaritan woman.

Have you ever paused to consider that dialogue between people of different Christian and non-Christian religious traditions is actually a way to respect life itself?

Respect Life Month

Every October, the U.S. Catholic Church celebrates Respect Life month.

People of other faith tradition are certainly welcome to join in the prayer, events and simply the focus of attention that such a commemoration brings.

Setting aside a time to reflect deeply on the dignity of life calls us to consider all the ways that human life is disrespected, disregarded and simply ended in our culture. Certainly, we can point to certain key issues where human life is threatened in direct ways, such as abortion, war, the death penalty, assisted suicide and others.

Diagnosis: Throwaway Culture

But the more we reflect, we come to understand what Pope John Paul II so often said: We live in a "culture of death" where life is simply treated like unwanted junk mail that we throwaway without a second thought.

Even those certain issues have their roots in many seemingly benign activities that over time bear really terrible fruit. What I mean is: When someone chooses to cross the line and do an extreme action such as killing another human being, that action did not simply happen in isolation. There were undoubtedly many years of slow and steady dehumanizing words, inferences and actions that paved the way, unfortunately, for this terrible action. 

A person who ends another person's life crosses a line, but all of society should reflect on ways we all may have some responsibility for what we did to take that person right up to the line, so to speak. Yes, every individual is responsible for her or his own actions--but none of us lives in a vacuum. We are constantly being influenced by those around us, and this is especially true for the youth. Advertisers and political propagandists bombard us constantly with images and ideas, and it does affect what we do. Otherwise, there would be no advertising industry and political campaigns would focus on issues rather than images, but we see that's not the case.

Virtually every Christian tradition affirms that all human life is created by God with God-given dignity--that means all life, all the time, everywhere. That message is bursting forth on nearly every page of the Bible (this link has some choice passages to consider). Yet, in our fallen world we humans put dividers where God has not put any.

Both consciously and unconsciously, we humans start deciding that some people are more important than others and that only certain people deserve special consideration. We convince ourselves there are reasons for this (using inaccurate generalizations) even when our faith informs us that this is not the case.

Treatment:  Dialogue, A Necessary Tonic

One of the best ways to resist the throwaway culture that disregards life is to dialogue with other people. And by "dialogue" I do not mean just a random conversation, however nice that may be. I mean to truly encounter the person in a relationship of equality, respect and peace.  It means taking a genuine interest in another person and being truly open to what another person has to offer.

Real dialogue with another person is a profound act of defiance of our culture of death. To truly dialogue with someone that means you respect this person in her or his full God-given dignity. It is an attempt to understand the person on his or her own terms--to get to know them as they truly are, not based on what others have said about them. It is a way to get past the labels and to encounter the true person. It is a way to ultimately establish peace.

Labels

Labels enforce the throwaway culture. We have all heard comments such as these:

"Oh, that person is just a criminal, so I don't have to respect him."

"They are just a bunch of Muslims, so we should be afraid of them."

"That (African-American) kid is just a thug, keep him at a distance."

"They are just a bunch of liberals (or conservatives)--not worth our time hearing what they have to say."

"People are mistreated in detention? They are just illegals, so they must deserve it."

Any time the word "just" is used to describe a group of people, you know the throwaway culture is in full operation, i.e. "they are just Muslims."

On top of that, we often attach other descriptors that are unfair, such as "terrorist Muslims" or "criminal immigrants" or "thug" when we are referring to African-American males, but almost always those broad-based descriptors are neither fair nor accurate.

Encounter: The Way of Jesus

To truly encounter another person in her or his full humanity is to do what Jesus did time and time again throughout his earthly ministry as reported in the Gospels. He continued to treat every single person with full respect, including--and perhaps especially--those that the rest of society wanted to disregard: The hated Samaritans... the unwed mother... the adulterer... the diseased or mentally ill... even the slimy tax collector. People often asked Jesus "Why are you bothering with such-and-such a person?" Jesus always went past their imaginary walls and encountered the person.

In doing this, Jesus gave us a model to follow.

In Their Own Words

Jesus did not always agree with every single thing that every person did--and neither should we. We can and should maintain our principles. But that should never stop us from truly encountering another person as respectfully as Jesus did. We should hear their perspective in their own words before we decide that we disagree with them. Let people tell their own story. Honor that. Let them describe themselves and assign their own labels for themselves. Let us truly value each and every person and what they have to say.

I would go as far as to say we should never judge the actions of a group of people until we have worked hard to get to know its members and hear them describe their circumstances in their own words. That includes immigrants, Muslims, Middle Easterners, criminals, unwed mothers, everyone.

And then in a relationship of true equality, let us share our story with them.

The Use, Misuse and Non-Use of Religious Labels

Religious labels are very often used to cause this division and misunderstandings. What comes to mind when you hear the following words: Muslims, Jews, Catholics, evangelicals, pagans.... with each of those terms, I bet we immediately have images, definitions and even fears that immediately pop into our minds. These imagines impact the decisions we make when our nation chooses to go to war with certain nations. It impacts the decisions voters make in regards to our criminal justice system, in particular the death penalty.

In the case of the Islamic and Jewish faiths, religious labels are often used to justify violence. You see actions of terrorism when Jewish synagogues have been attacked here in the U.S. by hate groups or individuals and when our nation goes to war with a "Muslim nation."

Violence is also justified by refusing to acknowledge the religious faith of people. For example, I do not recall a single news article that tells us about the "Christians at the southern border." NEVER. I have been following the news on immigration for many years and I never have I seen this stated boldly or directly.

Yet, virtually every immigrant, refugee and asylum seeker at the southern border--who is being cruelly detained and their families separated by current border enforcement methods--can all be described as evangelical, Pentecostal or Catholic Christians. Calling them "Christians" would increase sympathy for them which is no doubt why we ever hear them described this way.

But when it comes time to wage war with a Middle Eastern country, suddenly all we hear is that this is a "Muslim nation." That is because the public has been programmed to attach negative connotations to Muslims which decrease empathy for them.

Conclusion

Whenever I have set labels aside and have truly tried to imitate Jesus and encounter people on their own terms, I have immediately discovered that these labels were unfair, incomplete and often downright wrong. By talking to a Muslim man and hearing his story, I am re-affirming my faith in the God of all who created everyone with dignity. I am taking back control of my life and my thoughts from the forces of marketing, propaganda and prejudice. I am making my own decisions rather than being swayed by clever spin campaigns. I am re-affirming that my faith comes first and my politics come second--always. And perhaps most importantly: I am respecting life.

Earth Matters: Unity on and with the Earth

In celebration of the Ecumenical Season of Creation this year, we have been exploring themes of life, death, decay and rebirth on this blog. The first article focused on production, consumption and waste in general and the second was on natural burial.  We continue these themes here with a theological view of oneness and unity:

***

All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return.

Ecclesiastes 3:20 (NIV)

The article Humanity and nature are not separate – we must see them as one to fix the climate crisis has been both fascinating me and haunting me lately.

It has a good thesis:  We humans used to see ourselves as part of nature but rarely do so anymore. A more accurate understanding of this would help us address climate issues better.

However, I'm skeptical that we have lost this sense of oneness due to the Judeo-Christian tradition, as the article suggests. That being said, I believe we (I'll speak primarily of Christians here) have a lot of work to do to make a more ecologically-supportive theology more well-known and activated.

There are many theological beliefs in play around these issues. But certainly we can all agree that we are indeed a part of nature in so many basic ways. After all, we breathe in and exhale the same air that was produced by plant respiration. We drink the same water that fish live in. The very cells in our body are formed by the minerals found in the soil. Our food is comprised of other plants and animals. We are literally part of nature as understood this way. 

So not only do the materials in our body come directly from nature, but we are part of the same cycles of water use, respiration, birth, rebirth, decay and recycling/composting as everything else in nature.

Some in the Judeo-Christian tradition would say, however, that humans are ontologically distinct from the rest of nature. Others would say that our souls give us a life beyond this world, regardless of what the material reality. Other theologians remind us that a core Christian conviction is the resurrection of the body. Meaning: It's not just that we have detached souls that will live on in Heaven forever, but that there will be an ultimate redemption of the social order. "On earth as it is in heaven" is a description of the Kingdom that Jesus calls us to and asks us to pray for.

In Genesis 3:19, Adam is told that "for you are dust and to dust you shall return." All too often, Christians understand that the redemption through Christ will remove us from this cycle of life and death which doomed Adam and his descendants. 

Is there where we got off track? One interpretation of that would imply that we are only a part of the earth's rhythms and natural cycles of death and decay until we experience the redemption through Christ.  However, I would caution us in this. We need to understand this using the Lord's Prayer for help: Yes, Christ redeems but that redemption does not totally pull us away from earth but rather makes it so that the earth is like it is in Heaven. See Colossians 1:9-20 and the redemption of all things.

Again, there are many beliefs here. But regardless of what happens after this life, we are here now and so are our descendants. We are still a part of nature and its processes. When the earth gets hot in the summer, we get hot, too. When the earth cools in the winter, we cool, too. When the earth has prolific growing seasons, our food is more available and cheaper. When it doesn't, famine is not far away.

I'm not convinced that the reason for this break is the influence of the Judeo-Christian tradition, as the above article suggests.

I see degradation of ecosystems all over the world, not just where the Judeo-Christian footprint is most apparent. The atheistic Soviet Union, Buddhist China and Muslim Indonesia all have terrible ecological footprints. Of course, it is always possible to say this is a consequence of European colonization and a Christian worldview. Perhaps, but it should be pointed out that when the Europeans (and their religion) were kicked out, few bothered to reinstall a different ecological consciousness.

But on the other hand, we Christians haven't spent a whole lot of attention focusing on the relationship between humans and the rest of the earth. The environment is just that--it's there as a backdrop. We can certainly tease out a theology of the environment. I'm part of groups doing that very work today. But it hasn't been emphasized or developed the way theology around other issues has been over the centuries.

Theologically speaking, there are three primary ways of viewing the relationship of humans to God and the rest of nature:  

1. The first is pantheism. This means that humans, nature and God are understood as enmeshed together. Everything is part of the same oneness, even if we take on different forms and appear distinct. Most pagan religions and even perhaps some Eastern religions tend to be in this camp.

2. The second is the polar opposite, depravity: Creation is generally seen as a depraved place, meaning completely absent the presence of God and thus absent all goodness.  Calvinism is one of the most well-known and extreme versions of this brand of theology, but it is common in varying degrees throughout Christianity, most especially in Protestantism. God may appear in certain forms (such as the person of Jesus) or send his Bible or angels from time to time, but otherwise creation is distinct from God entirely and absent all grace.

3. The third is panentheism. This sees creation as infused and pulsating with the presence of God.  Creation is distinct from God and thus is technically speaking depraved, but we understand that God is present with us. God is with us. We are always in relationship with God and grace can be found here. The sacramental imagination of Catholics, Orthodox and Anglicans lends itself to this brand of theology.

Is there something about the Judeo-Christian tradition--or just Christianity more specifically--that lends itself to division? Is our fractured view of our relationship with nature just another symptom of a deeper fracture that gives rise to denominational divisions or the devaluing of life in our social issues? I disagree with the linked article which suggests we need a break from the Judeo-Christian influence and a return to the pantheism of Pagan or Eastern traditions in order to sustainably live on this world.

I believe Christianity has a tremendous unifying message. But I do admit that in the Christian tradition we haven't focused on that enough. Perhaps it is because we don't spend enough time contemplating the mystical, cosmic dimensions of the oneness Jesus calls us into.  To paraphrase Pope Francis, we keep putting walls when Christ has put a bridge.

Yes, that linked article oversimplifies the relationship of Christianity and the environment. But it does raise a fair challenge:  Can every Christian--whether you are a devotee of Calvin, a sacramentally-inclined Catholic or a member of some other theological tradition--articulate and describe your faith in such a way that includes an environmentally sustainable future for humanity?

Whatever our theological traditions, one thing is certain:  We need a theology that can express our relationship to grace while also helping us live responsibly on the earth. 

Natural Burial

Blessed are those who mourn, 

for they will be comforted.

Matthew 5:4

I had the privilege of hearing this powerful testimony below about natural burial. This man buried his wife and lovingly took care of her remains. This is at Narrow Ridge Earth Literacy Center in eastern Tennessee. They host a natural burial preserve on site.

[This was an emotional testimony. Minor edits have been made for readability, but we tried not to tamper with it to much.]

If I may just tell a short story of Alice…  My name is Grant, and I’d like to tell a short story of how this came about.  

My wife was a hospice nurse for 15 years.  She knew the process and helped many families walk through this journey.  And she had actually researched out and found this place here.  We had been to South Carolina to research natural burial, as well.  

This is something that she wanted—she had a favorite quilt of her grandmother’s that she wanted to be wrapped in.  

At the start of this whole process, I knew some of it and I didn’t know some of it—cause as a husband and wife we were married for 27 years, she does things and I do things and I don’t know everything that she does. And so, when she passed away, I was like, "Uh oh!”  Here’s some information, I knew basic stuff, but I didn’t know the whole story. That following week after she passed I found the whole story.  

So in general, we knew how she was going to be buried. We knew it was going to be here. I knew the contacts to call to organize. Ok, Alice has passed away, and what was going to happen, then I had six friends of mine that I had employed to come with me. I would call Mitzy or Bill [from Narrow Ridge], and they would have had the backhoe operator to dig the hole, and we would have brought her up that day or the next day and placed her in the ground and buried her. 

Well, God may have had a little alternate plan there, because it was January 6^th and if you go back and look at the calendar, that day this major… I’m sure God’s up there saying, "You don’t have a clue what you’re doing, we’re going to have to slow this thing down!"  What was that thing called? A polar vortex that came down… Cold! And it was like 2 degrees and there were 6 inches of snow on the ground, and so instead of bringing Alice directly up here, from home, I had to call the funeral home. I said, "I just need you to come by to pick her up and take her to your place, don’t do anything to her. Then we’ll figure it out as the week goes on."   

So, I didn’t really know anything beyond just wrapping her up and bringing her here and burying her, and it was a Monday morning early, and so somewhere around Tuesday evening I started. I got on Google and I started Googling “green burials” and “home funerals” and different things like that and I found this YouTube series of videos about people that cared for their loved ones in a deeper way rather than the business model that we have today where the funeral home takes them, they prepare them, and they do everything and you don’t do anything except show up to the funeral home and stand beside the casket for a few minutes and then go to the graveyard.  So, I … so this was Tuesday evening, so Wednesday, I went to the funeral home and I said, "I want to dress her, I want to prepare her for burial, and I said, ‘Can I do that?’ and they say, ‘Why, sure.’" And it was just real candid.  

And so on Thursday, I had a few of my friends to go with me to the funeral home.  I brought her grandmother’s blanket, her quilt. And so, I had the funeral people, they brought her into this room, and we left the room, and I said, "Just place her on that… and put a sheet over her, and let me have 20 minutes, 30 minutes, with her by myself, and then I’ll get my friends to come in." 

So you know, I just… one of the things that is so powerful about what took place, there’s no doubt that doing this process was one of the most meaningful things that I’ve ever done in my life, and I can’t imagine doing anything that’ll be any more meaningful but to serve and to take care of my wife during this time. 

And so, I just… I brushed her hair, I wiped her, I cleaned her off, I had some clothes picked out that some of the ladies at church… I took several things and I said okay, "I want this skirt, what goes with it?" so you know, and I got them involved and helped them make a decision.  And so I dressed her, in the YouTube video I had learned how you dress a deceased body, and I dressed her and I got her all in general clothes and I brought all my buddies in and they helped me to tuck her in and make her real nice.

And so, the most meaningful thing that took place in this whole process was she was dressed, she was fresh, she was clean, she was all (whole) in excellent…, you know, I was ready to start closing up the blanket, and so I thought I had made a mistake, because the way I had folded the quilt, when it came to, it just came like this, and I thought, oh no, it’s not going to stay like this…. And the funeral lady said, I got a big needle and some thick thread and so we started down there and we came up just made little stitches so it was just really cozy and really nice and just, it just looked right. 

And so when we got to right here [pointing], when we sewed up right here, all of a sudden I realized this is a moment in my life that will be like no other because whenever… it was time for me to close her face.  And out of everybody in the world that could be the person to do that, who better to do that than her husband, the man who loved her for 27 years?  And it was just a beautiful thing.  It was hard to do.  It was a beautiful thing, it was the most meaningful thing I have ever done. And I kissed her, and I brushed her hair, and I closed her eyes, and we finished.  And then they had a shroud that we had and we finished tying it up and so we stayed there and we talked for about 30 more minutes, and I told my friends, "Okay, I’m at peace. We can do now."  This was Thursday, and then we buried her Friday.

And so, I was totally at peace with serving my wife in this way.

And so we left, went home, and then Friday we came up here, the hole was dug, and we just had a few friends and family, said some proper things, and one of the things that Alice and I did in life our mantra was, we will be participants in this life, not spectators… this is not a spectator sport, it’s full contact. And so I want to be involved in everything that was part of it.  So when it came time to let her down into where the hole was dug, I jumped down in there, I said, "Ok anybody freak out cause I’m jumping in" and all that was around her was the blanket and the shroud, and I knew that, and there was a big pile of dirt right here, and I had my friends, they all brought shovels, and I said, "Don’t wear your good clothes, because we’re gonna work."  And I want to serve her in one last way here.  So I jumped down in that hole and then they brought her over and set her down real gentle.  And I had brought a 5-gallon bucket with me, because I was thinking you know when you start digging in the dirt, I don’t want this dirt to go down and hit her body hard.  And so they filled up this 5-gallon bucket and I would pour it out and I would smooth it out and you know, it probably took around 12, 15 buckets, and then I was like, "Ok, we’re there, can do this," so they helped me out and we filled in the rest of the hole. 

I came up for the first couple of months twice a week. I could not stay away,I had to come up.  I came up and there wasn’t grass growing then, but I would pick around in the dirt, helped to smooth it out, cause it and I got it settled in good.. and when it came time for mowing I asked, "Who mows this?" And they said, "Whoever’s available."  And so I said for the year 2014 I want to volunteer to do that.

And so I’ve mowed it… I let it go, I let it get too high… well, it rained!

Just being part of here, I planted the wildflowers, I mow around Jack in front of her, he’s the recipient of some of these wildflowers, I’m like "Here Jack, here’s a few for you."

That’s the story of what took place.

The takeaway from this that I want to say is that having the opportunity to do this here opened up new avenues for me to express my love to her.  And the emotional and spiritual benefit of taking care of her in that way is the most meaningful… I cannot imagine doing anything this meaningful ever again.

[This was the end of Grant's testimony, but some questions were asked.]

Do you have to work through a funeral director to at least get transportation?

Mine was that way because I had several days involved, when she passed away the weather was pretty ferocious. You can just move from death to burial.  From your house or a hospital pickup, go home.

The funeral home takes care of so many things, death certificate and all that, and you just have to do that yourself?

I need her picked up and kept and then delivered to the burial site, but we’ll figure out the days as the weather changes.  Early Monday morning she passed away and Friday we buried her.  It cost me $1850 to pick her up and bring her here, and they did the death certificate, and had that had not taken place with the weather . . .

Quite frankly, the weather was a good thing, because it slowed me down to think and to do that part that I needed to do.

It is not required that a funeral home be involved.  Once the coroner comes in and pronounces someone dead, and gets that little bit of paperwork started… you get the death certificate, you have to have that.  But you do not have to use a funeral home for anything.

It’s an ongoing educational endeavor of Narrow Ridge, because hospitals are a little reluctant to hand over a body, even if you have the death certificate.  It’s their practice and custom to hand it over to a funeral director, but that’s not required by law to do that.

There are people who will say it’s the law to do this, but these are assumed laws…and some of those people are saying it in good faith.

Narrow Ridge did offer a home burial workshop and have connections with people who know how to do that and would be glad to share information.

[End of Q & A]

***

What are your thoughts on this testimony?

How important is it how we treat others in death as well as in life?

This post is a continuation of the Ecumenical Season of Creation. We previously explored themes of decay and rebrith, and a natural burial is another way to interface with these themes.

A natural burial may seem strange to our modern society, but it was once a regular part of life. After reading this testimony, it makes me pause to think:  Has our modern society divorced us too much from natural rhythms? Have we lost something important in the grief process by outsourcing the burial process to strangers? Have we become too fractured and disconnected? After all, Jesus tells us to turn toward our grief and mourning, and he never suggests we do anything to diminish it.

This piece focuses on the emotional and spiritual aspects of natural burial, but there are others:  There are environmental benefits as well as financial benefits. It is also a witness of simplicity. There are differences between a natural burial and a green burial.  See this link for explanation.

Ecumenism of Hate?

It's not every day that the Roman Catholic pope suggests magazine articles for the faithful to read.

But that's just what Pope Francis did during a recent meeting with Jesuits in Mozambique and Madagascar.

In this blog post, I'm looking at the section subtitled "Fundamentalist Ecumenism" in one of those articles. It appears in Evangelical Fundamentalism and Catholic Integralism: A Surprising Ecumenism.

The authors are Antonio Spadaro, a Jesuit Catholic priest, and Marcelo Figueroa, a Presbyterian pastor from Argentina who is a close associate of the pope.

Their core argument is fascinating and thought-provoking:  In the USA, there are religious groups who have no interest in an ecumenical relationship with each other but who still join together to advocate for common causes. The groups mentioned in this article are those on the conservative right--that includes some Catholics integralists as well as some Evangelicals, Pentecostals and Protestants on the religious right.

Overall, both groups are cold at best--and hostile at worst--to ecumenism. Yet, here they are working together.

The expression given to this kind of relationship:  Ecumenism of hatred.

At first, I thought this was an extreme description. After all, "hatred" is a pretty extreme word! Further, I have known many Catholics and evangelicals who have grown to respect each other through this work, even if they didn't begin that way. Is that a fair way to describe them?

It is an ecumenism of hate because, well, technically speaking, these groups hate each other.

That is indeed a strong word. What I mean is:  They "hate" each other in the sense that neither thinks the other has anything of value, at least nothing that the other side doesn't already have. Neither is really interested in getting to know the other.  Both sides hold that they--and only they--have the truth in a singular way. They have no interest in getting to know the other on one's own terms.  The only valuable conversation between them would be for the purposes of proselytizing in order to destroy what is unique about the other and mold them into our version of ourselves. These groups are for all practical purposes competitors. Despite this, they are willing to work together to pursue this common vision, even though their common vision ultimately excludes each other! If either side were to dominate they would gladly snuff out the other. Despite this, the Catholics have adopted an evangelical world view and visa versa. It's a very strange set-up if you look at it this way.

By contrast, a true relationship of traditional ecumenism is about "inclusion, peace, encounter and bridges" to use language from the article. In a truly ecumenical relationship, both sides are open to the other. Each would be receptive to what the other may bring to the table. You make room for each other. There is respect for each other. There is a hope and a sense that another group brings something of value, perhaps something that both may need. Perhaps another groups just shows the vastness of God in new, unimagined ways.

However, this ecumenical approach is seen as problematic if you already believe you have it all so nearly contained in a particular box so that no further dialogue is necessary. The only communication left in this scenario is to proselytize--in other words, to get the other to leave their box and enter your box.  The only goal here is to obliterate the other. Again, that may also seem like a strong word, but if the only goal is mold the other into what you want for them, then it truly is a fair description. Ecumenism, on the other hand, is a way to grow in awe and wonder and to respect each other as we already are.  We can and will still certainly disagree on some things while still being open to one another.

That kind of thinking is not possible when groups believe that the totality of truth is contained in their locked sphere to such an extent that they determine there is nothing of value in the other.

Is Ecumenism Incompatible with Religious Conviction?

Some people worry that ecumenism and having religious convictions are incompatible. They worry that ecumenism just leads to a watering down or a denial of the truth of a particular religious tradition. The worry that ecumenism presents a zero sum formula: The more we affirm the value in another denomination the more we are reducing the value of our own.

Not so.

I see ecumenism not in zero sum terms but more like a rising tide that lift all boats. It is a way to grow in awe and wonder. Personally speaking, my ecumenical relationship have only deepened my own relationship with my own faith tradition. Many other ecumenists have said very similar things.

One can still hold convictions while still respecting the gifts that others bring and can still be open to new insights and new ways that God is working in others. But mostly an ecumenical relationship just means being open to and interested in others and entering into a dialogue as equals from the standpoint of true respect.

More Catholic than the Pope?

It used to be that no one questioned the Catholicity of the Catholic pope, but in these days of internet conspiracies little is surprising in that regard, anymore. Nevertheless, all reasonable people should agree that the pope is one of the most Catholic people there is, if not the most.

In light of that, it is worth mentioning that all recent Catholic popes have been strong ecumenists. Their openness to truly encounter another person on their own terms did not threaten their Catholic standing. If even the most Catholic of all the Catholics can be ecumenical without becoming less Catholic, then we should all be able to move forward into ecumenical relationships without fear!

Left vs Right?

"Ecumenism of hate" is not necessarily a commentary on the specific causes that these groups are advocating for, such as abortion, religious freedom, etc. However, the article does exercise cautions in approaches that would blend the church and state in theocratic ways--that is partly due to the fact that religious groups so often get manipulated by political forces even when they think they are the ones doing the influencing. However, this commentary is less about the validity of right vs left as it is about the approach. The concern is when people join forces with others absent a true spirit of ecumenical cooperation.

Even though certain conservative culture warriors are the examples given in the article, it is worth asking if other groups also fall into these same tendencies. Or is this a tendency seen more on the right? In general, ecumenism is far less popular with conservatives of all denominations. However, that doesn't exclude moderates and those on the left from also having "put a wall where a bridge should be", to paraphrase the pope. It may be a constant challenge for each of us to critically reflect on all the ways we dismiss the other and avoid true encounter with one another and ultimate with God.

Ecumenism = Necessary

The #1 takeaway I have from this article is that ecumenism is necessary. 

If we don't engage each other in true respect, openness, dialogue and peace, then logically speaking, we otherwise dismiss their value and are engaged with them in a witness of mutual elimination, exclusion and overt competition. We run the risk of falling into a narrow fundamentalism that doesn't permit the light of wisdom to enter and does not honor the space for the Holy Spirit to work. In this way, ecumenism is simply not optional. It is a challenge and part of the "permanent mission of the Church," as other Catholic popes have articulated. We can never stop being open to each other and engaging each other in true dialogue and respect.  If we don't, we are not neutral but rather hostile to one another by the very fact that we deny the presence of any value in the other. This is the challenge before us!

Ecumenical Season of Creation: Patterns of Use, Re-Use, Decay and Re-Birth.

We are right in the middle of the Season of Creation: September 1st through October 4th.

While it is critically important year round, this is specifically a time when churches all over the Christian spectrum have decided to come together in a common witness to care for the home we all share together—the planet earth.

September 1st is the start of the new year in the Orthodox calendar, and October 4th is the Feast day for St. Francis of Assisi, patron saint of animals and all things related to the environment. Francis is recognized in the Catholic Church but is one of those universal figures who is beloved most everywhere. Denominations all across the Christian spectrum are partners in this effort.

***

This ecumenical season of creation makes me stop and think about how seasons come and go: They cycle and repeat throughout our lives in an unfolding spiral as time presses forward. It makes me realize that God has given us a model of how we ought to utilize the materials on this earth. We should model our use of the earth's resources according to the cycle of seasons that the earth has shown us.

Pete Seeger shows us a way forward:

“If it can’t be . . . 

reduced, reused, repaired, rebuilt, refurbished, refinished, resold, recycled or composted,

then it should be . . . 

restricted, redesigned or removed from production.”

—Pete Seeger

As you can see from the list, Pete Seeger's recommendations make good sense. The item that gives us the biggest bang for our buck is to "reduce." Simply do not use excess materials in the first place. For example, when it comes to clothing, reduce the amount of clothing you buy. For the clothing you do own, reduce unnecessary washing. Both of these options save on money, chemical pollution, energy usage and your time which could be better spent elsewhere. "Recycling" is a wonderful thing, and I am an avid recycler myself. But recycling is what we do when all else fails. This is even more true lately when there is such a poor market for recycled materials at the present moment.

I believe that Seeger is trying to get us to think about patterns of consumption, decay and rebirth. Everything needs to be part of a sustainable, ongoing cycle. If we have created items that only have a single use and have not devised a way to either re-use them or return them back to the ecosystems from which they came, then we should not be producing those items. Humans have always been part of a sustainable relationship with the earth, but in recent decades our consumption has far outpaced the earth's ability to absorb and mask our impact. Looming global climate change is the most egregious consequence of this, and the predictions are dire.

Pope Francis articulated a similar thought this way:

But our industrial system, at the end of its cycle of production and consumption, has not developed the capacity to absorb and reuse waste and by-products. We have not yet managed to adopt a circular model of production capable of preserving resources for present and future generations, while limiting as much as possible the use of non-renewable resources, moderating their consumption, maximizing their efficient use, reusing and recycling them. moved from production.”

Pope Francis, Laudato Si, Chapter 1, Paragraph 22

Any farmer can tell you that whatever comes out of the earth will eventually go back to it. A farmer is wise to take care of the soil, air and water so that farming can be sustainable. If you don't build up the soil after harvesting your crops, it won't be long before the soil is depleted and will not yield nutritious, healthy crops, anymore.

Yet, much of our industrial economy is unbalanced—too focused on producing new items. It has given far too little thought to disposal, re-use and recycling of them. I'm sometimes amazed given all the technological advances of our modern society that we have not come up with a better way of handling our trash than simply putting it all in a giant hole in the ground and covering it up. Seriously, that's what a landfill is! At some point, logic dictates that we will run out of land for this, run out of important materials or simply toxify everything. All that waste sitting in those landfills came from somewhere. It shouldn't be "waste" forever but rather allowed to be recycled or returned to the earth. That would match the patterns God has shown for how we are to be a part of nature and care for it.