Loraxian Theology

When I studied theology in seminary I was impressed by the variety of “liberation theologies.” Liberation theology started as a movement in Central America among impoverished and oppressed people. They read the Bible for themselves (due to a shortage of priests to interpret it for them) and saw, particularly in the Exodus story, what they came to call God’s preferential option for the poor. Like the American slaves of a century before them, they found hope in relating to the plight of God’s people who were regularly suffering under oppression and in exile. Even the New Testament church was a group that knew suffering, so indeed it is a logical point of view from which to view our faith story.

Other groups followed this theological path, most prominently African-Americans and feminists. As I was ministering among impoverished Americans, this theology fit well. Granted, I was not a part of the group myself, but I could relate to the words of Isaiah, read by Jesus, that the Spirit of God was upon me to proclaim good news to the poor. I found other theological bolstering in a movement called the Social Gospel. This early 20^th century movement was the work of influential “empowered” religious leaders on behalf of working class and poor people. So all of this influences my thinking, and as you all can attest by now, my preaching.

But I have long realized that I am preaching not to the underprivileged, but to the privileged (and that I am among them). What liberation do we need? It is one thing, albeit a critically important thing, to preach to the privileged that they/we have an obligation to the underprivileged, oppressed and poor people on our doorstep and around the world, but what liberation do we need? What oppresses White, middle and upper class Americans? Some churches on the right wing of American Christianity have argued that believers are an oppressed minority (or perhaps a majority oppressing itself by its silence) in the culture wars. I find this sort of “against-ness” a somewhat weak attempt to create an identity with the oppressed people of God found in the Bible. In other words, I think it is a way to preach the obvious message of liberation found in scripture to a people who don’t realize they need liberation, so the first job is create the need by pointing to the allegedly oppressive forces of secularism.

While I reject the basis of those claims, I do think that there is an oppression from which we privileged need liberation. That oppression is self-inflicted. Call it the rat race, or keeping up with the Joneses, but it is a pressure that few of us are free from. It takes a powerful act of will and a willingness to be a bit of a social pariah to be truly liberated from these social pressures. I have longed to find a way to frame this theology and think that I may have recently stumbled on a possibility. The school of theological thought that I am proposing is based on the message of the Dr. Seuss story, The Lorax. You may need to re-read it to see what I mean, but I’ll offer a brief summation of my point.

In the story, the Once-ler has obliterated the landscape and sits in his dwelling forlorn. At the end of telling his tale he offers to the listener one single seed, the last seed of the Truffula tree. The entire future hope, including the hoped-for return of the Lorax rests on the cultivation of this single seed. He also completes the thought the Lorax began at his departure. The Lorax was lifted through the smog of the industrial disaster the Once-ler had created. All that was left behind at this ascension was a rock that read “Unless…” The Once-ler says that he now realizes that the message is “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot nothing’s going to get better. It’s not.” This strikes me as the message of liberation that we need. We can be liberated from ourselves if we can start cultivating this seed of hope and decide to care a whole awful lot.

During Lent we will be focusing specifically on the personal impact each of us can have on tending to and saving this planet that has been entrusted to our stewardship. I think that the underlying theology is the message of the Lorax. I hope you will commit yourself to an active participation in our Lenten activities and in so doing help me explore the beginning of Loraxian Theology.

Do You Solemnly Swear or Affirm?

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick was sworn in this week using an historical Bible that has a connection to the United Church of Christ. Here is the story as reported in the Patriot Ledger.

It was a striking and appropriate symbol of what is great about our nation. Slavery was sad mark against the grand vision of our nation. Yet it was that very idealism that led to the correction. And today we continue to progress toward claiming the high ideal of equality for all. One ironic connection to that on-going story today is the flap over the inauguration of the first Muslim member of Congress, Keith Ellison of Minnesota. He chose to have a Koran be the book on which he placed his hand in the symbolic pictures following his official swearing in. To his credit, he chose to borrow a significant Koran for this use. The book he used once belonged to Thomas Jefferson. What a splendid way to remind all of us of the way our government was designed to include people of all faiths and creeds. I think the Founding Fathers would be smiling.

To add to the irony of this alleged controversy, it is noteworthy that Rep. Ellison was not the first member of Congress to forgo a Bible at his swearing in. Debbie Wasserman Schultz took her oath in 2005 on a Tanakh, a Hebrew Bible. Not only that, but a number of presidents have deviated from this tradition as well. Theodore Roosevelt did not use a Bible in taking his first oath in 1901 (although he did use one in 1905). Herbert Hoover, citing his Quaker beliefs, chose to affirm, not swear his oath. Franklin Pierce also chose to affirm. And to top off the irony, John Quincy Adams in 1825 chose not the Bible, but a legal volume in taking his own oath of office.

Maybe we can all look beyond the petty issues that divide, to instead celebrate the grand vision that unites all of us.

The Year in Religion

Sadly, there is clearly an unhealthy fascination with sex and violence in our culture. I was reminded of this all too obvious point as I recalled the most prominent religious news of 2006. Some of the stories were noteworthy for the controversy they raised. Our cultural obsession with partisan bickering was seen in the debate over the Da Vinci Code. There was no great challenge to religious orthodoxy in the fictional musings of Dan Brown, but there was no shortage of outraged Christians willing to make a spectacle decrying the suggestion that Jesus may have been a father. Remember the flap over the Gospel of Judas? I didn’t think so. Even in the theological academy there has been sustained buzz. The reason is that it was not really something new. There have been a number of narratives about Jesus that were not seen as gospel by the Church. It is an issue long settled with a history known to theological students. Difference of opinion is something that has yet to end Christianity, although it has created plenty of schisms over the years.

One piece of news this year was about yet another schism. This time it was a portion of the American Episcopal Church breaking from their communion to seek the leadership of a conservative Nigerian bishop because of their refusal to accept the ordination of homosexuals. In what seemed to be a related bit of Episcopal news, the American church elected its first female national bishop, Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori. Sadly, progressive moves to include diversity in sex and sexuality carry with them the threat of rupture.

Of course, one of the most shocking religious stories of the year was the fall of Rev. Ted Haggard. Again the issue of sexual preference caused a painful experience in the church. As leader of the National Association of Evangelicals, there was no way Rev. Haggard could have come out as a gay man and remained in the position. But the painful division went even deeper as he revealed his inner struggle to fight against his desires.

Two of the major religious stories focused on violence. One was the pope’s maneuvering in relation to Islam in explaining how he wasn’t really saying that it was a religion of violence after reading a quote stating just that. Regardless of his intent, he damaged interfaith dialogue in these already perilous times. As a remarkable counterpoint, we saw an Amish community in Pennsylvania offer forgiveness to the very sick man who tragically killed innocent children. In response to the popular question “what would Jesus do?” I hope we would agree that he would definitely have done what the Amish did and likely not what the pope did.

Finally, one of the stories that got little attention but ironically caused me both to despair and hope is the rejection of the Christian Coalition of their newly elected president, Rev. Joel Hunter. Rev. Hunter wanted the Christian Coalition to expand its focus to address the issues of poverty and stewardship of the environment. It is sad that the fear of being labeled a liberal (Hunter’s assessment) caused some Evangelicals to reject this move. On the other hand, there are signs that a number of Christians on the right such as Hunter and Jim Wallis of Sojourners are pushing for a more progressive social agenda in the name of Christianity. 2007 could prove to be a very interesting year for Christians in society if we can agree to this broader vision of Christian ethics.