Monday, May 18, 2009

Of the Holy Spirit and Hospitality

I was going to write on this subject yesterday, but I decided instead to wait until Gil had posted his sermon...I'm rather shamelessly riffing off of it.

Yesterday's Lectionary reading came from Acts10:44-48:
44While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.46For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered,47"Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?"48And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days. (NASB)

Gil's sermon, wonderful in it's own right, highlights two theological implications of the expanded version of the story above.
"First, the Holy Spirit fetches us into the sacred space of the sacramental. In other words, God draws us into the Presence of the Holy.

The Holy Spirit is not confined by the rules of the Church. God was teaching Peter that the rules and laws of the Church would not confine God. Somehow the Church is still in the process of trying to learn that concept.

The Church seems to be able to find countless ways to keep people away from the sacrament of God’s Presence. I cannot find any reason to prevent someone from being baptized nor from receiving communion. God is the One who is doing the fetching; the Church is the one that should be dancing in ecstasy with anyone who is hearing the Spirit.

Second, hospitality is critical to community. The last line in the story is, “They invited him (Peter) to stay for several days.” Why? So they could get to know one another, to hear one another’s stories. Holy listening forms community (Sr. Joan Chittister).

Holy listening creates holy transformation. Transformation will create space for God to form, shape and call the people into the work of the Community of God. God’s calling will create transition. Our parish is a university parish. A parish that is called to pray, discern and provide hospitality. When we go about doing this holy spiritual and mystical work of God, holy transitions will happen. God is breaking down the barriers of the religious to liberate the work of the Spirit. We are experiencing the work of the Spirit in our congregation. We are currently sponsoring five discernment committees who are doing the work of holy listening. With that much holy listening going on we can expect God to be calling – calling more than just those in discernment. God is calling all of us into holy transformation."

I specifically want to expand on the notion of an open table. The House of Bishops' Theology Committee of the EC is working on a theological study of open communion right now, I think the results are expected in 2010. What has been going on recently is that congregations in the Episcopal Church, perhaps other denominations, have not been restricting communion to only baptized Christians. This directly contradicts the canons of the Church. To not restrict the sacrament is where the phrase "open table" comes from. All Saints' in Mobile is open, St. Augustine's in Tempe is open.

Open tables strike me as the right thing to do. To get back to the Bible story, the Holy Spirit moved first, to which Peter (the Church) was deft enough to react. The Holy Spirit continues to do her work in the world, which I believe involves calling people into Communion with God through the sacraments that the Church administers. What the Church has been doing is creating a sense of exclusivity where the Holy Spirit calls people to attend and commune (no Baptisms in Lent, no non-Catholics at the Catholic table, no non-Christians at the tables other denominations). Churches then become obstacles to God in the name of legalistic formalities. If one comes into a Church and feels moved enough to sense that something profound has occurred at the table, that God has called them together and they feel compelled to participate in this communion, who is the Church to require a membership card?

Some say that open tables cheapen the sacrament. I disagree; Something can be "special" without being exclusive and to welcome the stranger into our midst is the essence of the radical hospitality that is the root of the best of the Christian tradition. Some say the uninitiated do not understand what happens at the table. I'm not sure anyone really knows, so that strikes me as a silly reason to keep someone away. This is particularly true of the Episcopal Church, which enforces no doctrinal belief in what is thought to happen at epiclesis...and that is assuming one believes something actually happens as opposed to a simple memorial.

But regardless of the theological spats through history, I do think Communion holds power....radical hospitality...a tangible expression that the Church and God are open to all and imparts a sliver of the peace and love of God which passes all human understanding. Never underestimate the power of a shared meal, especially the Eucharist.
Posted by at 2 comments:

Tuesday, May 5, 2009

On Utilitarianism and Torture

NPR's All Things Considered had a military psychologist on today to defend torture, or rather to present "the other side of the debate." It turns out that the interrogator, Bryce Lefever, doesn't like the way that they are being portrayed. In the interview, he argues that the psychologists' charge to do no harm does not apply to those captured in the formerly named "war on terror." He instead considers America to be his corporate customer and that he must do what is best for the "good of all." What's more, the techniques work. Further, if you are going to complain about the techniques, you better offer an alternative from your "ivory-tower" level of criticism or STFU.

The interview reminded me of this exchange.

Lefever offers a classic case of political realism...Machiavellian...free of moral trappings except for what is deemed to be in the national interest. He invites us to understand the environment after 9/11, and I do. I can understand and grieve the choice made to torture then, with the proviso that it should have been acknowledged as our worst hour in the face of our fear of a new and dangerous enemy. What is unconscionable is the creation and maintenance of a torture regime in a Western democracy that prides itself in its defense of the rights of individuals and has signed treaties attempting to ban exactly what Bush allowed to creep back into Western Civilization. It is a far cry from Reagan's signing of the international ban on torture.

The interview ends with Lefever having no second thoughts about what he was a party to. I'd like to offer a few utilitarian answers to his utilitarian argument.
  • Torture works in getting people to talk; what they say is less reliable though, and bad information kills soldiers and/or civilian Americans just as readily as no information.
  • Torture requires absolute secrecy, which is impossible in today's media enriched world. It follows that public opinion will be influenced by the news that America now operates torture chambers while its rhetoric calls for others to respect human rights.
  • On a related note, rapport-building techniques work just as readily and do not shock the conscience of the global community. See the work of Matthew Alexander (his book entitled How to Break a Terrorist) and Malcom Nance, both former interrogators.
  • The bad publicity we have gotten as a result of resorting to torture have made for recruiting fodder for our enemies. Whatever dubious information we receive from coercive interrogation is canceled out by the creation of additional enemies to fight. More Americans may die.
  • In the end, Lefever's cost-benefit analysis is lacking because he is too short-sighted to see that torture has ramifications that do not end after the end of the torture session.
But I'm glad he gave the interview. It's important to look into the mindset that justifies torturing other human beings. But I'm ultimately unconvinced that coercive interrogation is worth the trouble. In any case, I'll side with international laws that the U.S. has signed.

Today, I also received my copy of "Sightings" which is put out by Martin Marty (Lutheran theologian) and like-minded folks from Chicago's Divinity School. I'll let him explain the next part:

If I were Czar of Catechetics, unlikelily appointed to help set the agenda for instruction and discussion among adult church-goers in America, I’d assign the topic of torture.

Try this: "Church-Goers Like Torture More," which comes our way via an Atlantic electronic clip. It refers to a Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life survey, just released, which reveals that the more church-going you are, the more likely you are to like torture. We don’t have space for reporting the statistics, but they are easy to summarize: The never-goers-to-church disapprove of torture most; mainline Protestants and non-Hispanic Catholics like it least, and evangelical weekly attenders clearly favor it.

Where have the churches been on this subject? Most of them, through their leaders, are clearly on record against our using torture as an offense against human dignity, a contradiction of our nation’s most cherished traditions, et cetera. A statement issued by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2006 and signed by leaders of many Orthodox and Protestant denominations was condemnatory. We hope that one day evangelical leadership will step forward. We may no longer justify the use of torture as a policy, but the soul-damaging effect of approving it remains.

Some justify our use of violence because the biblical God and God’s people acted violently and the book of Revelation has a visionary line about it. Others say that the more fearful you are, the more likely you justify an instrument which Mr. Cheney (no documentation provided or permitted, he says) says helped us prevent 9/11 repeats. They don’t say why church-going of some sorts inspires fear and ignites fury, while staying home puts one at relative ease. Most of all, as we read the detailed horror-stories of what we allowed and/or practiced, one wonders why some other theological themes don’t get examined more. "Human dignity?" The affirmation that humans are made in the image of God and, for Christians, that one is to see the Christ in others should carry some weight. We are told that we tortured only to get information, not for retribution. Read the defenses of torture and one will find witness to "our" hatred of those "others" with whom we deal. We at least ought to be discussing what church leaders have been saying. - Martin E. Marty

I'm able to say that the vast majority of my denomination is firmly against torture but it is interesting that those who are more "evangelical" are for it. I remember a survey from 2008 that found that a majority of southern evangelicals were okay with torture, but some would change their mind when confronted with the Golden Rule.

Lefever called for us to get out of the ivory tower in order to criticize him. I wanted to offer a critique from the pews instead, but the problem is that some of the institutions that should have been denouncing the practice from the beginning are instead either complacent or complicit. It seems that most mainstream Protestants and secularists have a common ground.

Update:
I forgot to mention that during the interview Lefever noted the similarity between the tactic of exploiting phobias in torturing someone and civilian therapy in order to overcome a phobia. This was a reference to the technique of putting a bug in a small confined space with a prisoner that has a severe phobia of bugs; the prisoner is led to believe that the bug is poisonous. Anyway, Lefever tries to make the torture tactic and civilian treatment of phobias equivalent. There is only one similarity: exposure to that which provokes fear. What he has no interest explaining, though, is there are substantial differences between the treatment given to a civilian pysch client and a prisoner for the two are not comparable. Clients freely come to a counselor, prisoners do not. There is a gradual build-up to the exposure to what induces phobia for the civilian client; a prisoner has no such warning. The intent of a civilian counselor is to help the client overcome the phobia. Military psychologists and interrogators DO NOT WANT the prisoner to overcome the phobia; that would make the tactic less effective. Counselors of civilians try to be reassuring, even as they are intentionally applying mental stress to their clients by making them face their fears, prisoners recieve no such attention.

As Lefever says, he has no interest in the mental health of the prisoners. But he is then able to say that the methods used are the same...There are at least three levels in every story told, this strikes me as the story that he tells himself in order to justify his behavior. It strikes me as trying to maintain a connection to the profession which has roundly condemned his work.

I have no problem using the word torture in this post because Lefever does not either: ""You know, the tough nut to crack, if you keep him awake for a week, you torture him, you tie his arms behind him, you have him on the ground — anyone can be brought beyond their ability to resist," says Lefever."
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)