FaithWriter

It happened 40 years ago. But I can still feel the knot in my heart when I recall learning that Tommy Bennett had been killed in Vietnam. Suddenly, a distant war that had been an impersonal news event became searingly personal.

With the Nov. 5 massacre at Fort Hood, Texas, a distant war once again was brought home. And, just like 40 years ago, I was reminded of Tommy Bennett.

Some explaining is in order. Tommy Bennett and I attended high school together. Well-liked by everyone, Tommy was one of those people that always smiled wherever you saw him — in the hallway, on the practice field, in the cafeteria. It wasn’t a phony smile, either. In the image-conscious, façade-conducive world of high school, Tommy was a real person, a breath of fresh West Virginia air. The numbing news that he had drawn his last breath on the killing fields of Vietnam buckled my knees.

I couldn’t have known it that day, of course, but the story of Tommy Bennett was not over. Rather, a year later, on April 7, 1970 –– his 23rd birthday –– President Nixon presented Tommy’s parents with the Medal of Honor. It was awarded to him posthumously for “conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity.” Serving as a noncombatant medic, Tommy had shown extraordinary courage by rescuing wounded comrades under heavy fire before he himself was mortally wounded. Later, I learned he was only the second conscientious objector ever to receive the Medal of Honor.

After that, Tommy’s legacy as an authentic American hero was secure. His name is invoked with pride by his hometown and state. On its web site, our high school lists him as one of its “accomplished” alumni. And, in 2002, the W. Va. state legislature named a sizeable bridge across the Monongahela River in Tommy’s honor, marked by an impressive plaque that I rejoice to see whenever I get a chance to visit our hometown.

Now, Tommy’s name and (I’d like to think) his spirit have reappeared in the midst of another misbegotten war, albeit this time as irony. It happened as I was researching Major Nidal Hasan’s deadly rampage last month at Fort Hood. In the process of looking for clues, I stumbled across the existence of a primary-care clinic at Fort Hood; it’s part of the medical facility where Major Hasan worked as a psychiatrist. Its name: The Bennett Health Clinic. Could it be, I wondered? Sure enough, the clinic is a memorial, dedicated in Tommy’s name when it opened in 1997. And it happens to be located just down the street from where Major Hasan cruelly killed 13 people and wounded 30 more.

No doubt, a memorial of some sort will permanently mark the spot of the Hasan massacre just as the Bennett Clinic memorializes its moral opposite, an act of remarkable courage and selflessness. Honestly, though, I’m not sure what to make of the surprising juxtaposition of such morally disparate events and the individuals that gave rise to them.

In case you’re thinking it, “coincidence” won’t fly. Aside from being no explanation at all, an assumption of randomness in the Hasan-Bennett dyad trivializes the mystery of good and evil. Surely, we can do better than that at a time when despair is rampant and hope is in short supply. We owe it to ourselves to seek trajectories in unlikely and perplexing events that can provide on-ramps to a more promising future.

Lessons, though, exist in the pairing of these two events and the men behind them.

First, the obvious: the rippling costs of war through time, in broken societies, broken bodies and — quite plausibly in Major Hasan’s case — broken minds, far, far exceed even their horrendous price tags when measured in dollars and cents. To end this greatest of human follies, we don’t need better leaders. We need better citizens. Until you and I demand that war be renounced as a tool for resolving conflict, we will continue to breed conditions that fuel the Nidal Hasans and destroy the Tommy Bennetts of this world.

Second, the not-so-obvious: the rippling power through time of one good life, however brief, cannot be measured. Consider this: As a conscientious objector, Tommy Bennett did not have to be inducted into the military. Instead, he volunteered to serve as a medic but refused to use weapons. He gave his life trying to save those who did. Serving at the front lines, he worked himself to death to pull his comrades back, literally, from the brink of war’s hell. His sacrifice gave us a metaphor for how war itself can be ended: It will take the life-risking valor of people of conscience to drag us back from its gaping abyss.

Barack Obama, please take note as you seize ownership of the godforsaken war in Afghanistan. Tommy Bennett did his part. Now, in the name of all that’s good, do yours: pull us back from the damnation of war. If you do, you might lose your job; that’s politics. But, in exchange, you will have restored the audacity to hope for a better world. What’s more, I’ll bet we could get a clinic named for  you.

Theologian Delwin Brown’s recent too-soon death has saddened his many friends and admirers, including me (to get a glimpse of Del’s very productive life and accomplishments, see my colleague Cynthia Astle’s fine “Passage” report on page 23).

Del and I became acquainted with each other late in our professional lives. But, our numerous email exchanges during the last several years challenged me and led to some useful publishing collaborations.  My last e-mail, sent just days before he died, went unanswered – not surprising considering the extent to which his cancer had progressed:

Dear Del,

Kim gave us a sobering update today. As I told her in response, you’ve been rather intensely on my mind for the last few days. I claim no special standing in your psychic world, but do wonder at the mystery of relationships. So, when I tell you that you are ‘on my mind,’ it’s not a cliche! In any event, I’m distressed to learn that the going has gotten rougher in recent weeks. For the moment, this is just to let you know that a) I hope to hear from you, at any length that is helpful to you, and b) you are at the top of my prayer list. I’ll remain in touch and ever receptive to your thoughts, reflections and requests.

Warm regards,

Steve

On that embarrassingly banal note, Del’s and my conversation ended. Selfishly, I wish I could have seen just one more of his clever, punny replies pop up in my inbox. With process theologians–he was one of the best–you just don’t anticipate things ever stopping!

Brief though our relationship was in duration, it was sufficiently substantive for me to appreciate the rich contributions Del made, and was still making, to the Christian community. His most recent book, which TPC was privileged to help publish, should be required seminary and church study group reading (What Does a Progressive Christian Believe? A Guide for the Searching, the Open, and the Curious, Seabury Books, 2008).

More to the point of the present discussion, his much-too-early departure provokes a painful disappointment regarding a matter about which I know he, along with many others of us, cared deeply. That would be the unfinished business of consolidating and strengthening the influence of progressive Christians, particularly in relationship to the disproportionate and distorting influence of right-wing Christianity in American public life. Del did not live to see anything like a unified progressive Christian presence in the public square. Sadly, despite his substantial efforts, there is little to suggest that the paucity of its impact will change any time soon.

In one of his last published pieces, Del helpfully described two important strands in the progressive Christian world, the “purists” and the “accommodators.” The former cast themselves in the classic prophetic mode that keeps an uncompromising, bracing vision of biblical social justice at the forefront of its agenda for society. The latter share that vision but work to expand the base for achieving it by seeking common ground on specific issues, even with those who, in other respects, they might disagree with or regard as less than progressive (see “Will the Real Progressive Christians Please Stand Up?”, religiondispatches.org, April 16, 2009).

Del did not appear to believe that the existence of these two major strands in the progressive Christian community was inherently divisive. Rather, through more intentional efforts to work in concert, progressive Christians, purists and accommodators alike, could be joined, as he saw it, and empowered to make an impact on public policy and the culture itself while countering the corrupting effects of the religious right.

Unfortunately, this does not appear to be happening. Progressive Christians, for the most part, are repeating the history of their liberal forebears in their inability to organize around shared values and to focus their vision in common cause. Lack of support from like-minded philanthropists, in contrast with the largesse of right-winger funders, is clearly part of the problem. So, too, is a lack of demonstrated will to do anything about it.

In any event, we as progressive Christians are wasting a moment in history. Everything that we can see in the breakdown of our society, from the loss of trust in institutions to the lack of civility in public behavior, cries out for values that progressive Christians proclaim: justice, truth-telling, responsibility and compassion, to name only a few.

To his credit, Del Brown never gave up on the progressive Christian vision, and neither should we. It’s part of the “mystery of relationships” that I mentioned in my final email to him that the good we experience in someone else’s life can be “caught” by another life, even many other lives. The benevolent contagion of a liberating intellect, a redemptive spirit and a generous heart – all traits of Delwin Brown – is undeniable.

Thanks to Del, many today recognize and regard themselves as progressive Christians. If they and others of us who share a similar vision can some day overcome our unruliness and make common cause in pursuit of God’s reign, as he fervently hoped, who knows? We might actually give birth to something our progeny in centuries to come will call Progressive Christianity.

TOM WATSON I’M NOT. ALTHOUGH I once enjoyed the infernal game, my golfing days were long ago and conspicuously uncelebrated. I wasn’t identifying with Mr. Watson, therefore, as he nearly pulled off one of sports’ most astonishing feats this summer. At age 59, he led Britain’s Open Championship almost from wire to wire, only to lose at the very end to a fellow American, the much younger Stewart Cink, in a four-hole playoff.

But, when Mr. Watson missed a makeable putt on the last hole of regular play that would have sealed a historic victory, I was purely crushed.  I really, really, really wanted that win, darn it – but not just for Tom Watson, as I’m sure he would have understood. He had to know what countless men of similar seniority were thinking as he riveted the sports world for four fairy-dusted days in July: “Win it for the Boomer Boys, Tom! Do it one more time, for all of us!”

That was the deal, you see, the one that wasn’t reported on TV as we watched the drama unfold: Tom Watson bore on his shoulders the fantasy of a whole generation. It was the fantasy that we Baby Boomers can still “do it” no matter that our age might tell us otherwise. Vicariously through him, we would sink that final putt, banish Time’s curse and exalt once more in the fragrant, forever-vigorous flower of our youth. He missed the putt, of course, and I’m sure he felt bad about it. To have the prospect of youth reborn snatched from your golf bag surely is not the high point of a guy’s day.

But, enough about Mr. Watson. Here it is, weeks later, and I’m still wistful for my generation. When that last putt went wide right, all of us lost a chance at revived respect, recertification of our street creds, resuscitation of our props – call it what you will. When Tom tunked the Titleist, Elvis left the room. Ouch! Maybe we can’t “do it” any longer.

OK, we can stop right there. We know the last statement is not true. But, we had to play out the fantasy to dramatize the silliness of old assumptions about aging. Sports Illustrated already has declared Tom Watson’s British Open saga one of the 10 most remarkable performances ever by older athletes. Given inexorable advances in training, nutrition, medical care, and equipment, however, experts say we can expect even more such moments in the future, perhaps by people well beyond Mr. Watson’s age.

An era of exceptional older athletes may be dawning, in fact, and it will have nothing to do with steroids or artificial performance enhancers. Rather, it will represent the continuing upward migration of human vitality and productivity – in the industrial world, at least – into what once was assumed to be our “declining” years. To speak these days about the 50s being the “new 40s” and the 60s being the “new 50s” is not fantasy or a form of denial about aging. It’s real, and it’s now.

Beyond the realm of sports, however, the fact of extended human vitality poses a challenge: Can we tap into and channel the often extraordinary abilities of an aging population in ways that benefit the common good? The economic crisis already is making us re-think our understanding of retirement and the prudence, let alone the feasibility, of simply ceasing to engage in gainful employment as we grow older.

Might the current crisis be asking us to think much more comprehensively about how we utilize the strengths of every generation – young and old – to sustain a society and a way of life more congenial to the survival of Earth itself?

What we need to cultivate and benefit from are the civic-minded Tom Watsons out there – older citizens, church leaders, retired professionals and the like that are capable of excelling in a younger person’s game. These are people whose abilities as community leaders, teachers, artists, thinkers and so on could substantially help us address the crisis at hand. They can be found in every church. Identifying and “activating” them would be a gesture of responsible stewardship by pastors and church leaders.

We have a precedent for all this, a small group that calls itself The Elders, that may be showing us the way by holding up an inspiring image of geriatric productivity. Former world leaders Jimmy Carter, Nelson Mandela, Mikhail Gorbachev and others have committed themselves to thinking and working, together and separately, on behalf of world peace and the survival of the Earth. In truth, they are reclaiming the indispensible role of elders in traditional societies and their honored place as repositories of wisdom.

Like Tom Watson swinging a golf club, The Elders exhibit a mastery of their vocation that often exceeds that of us younger guys. Even if they don’t always win the day, the fact that they still perform at a championship level is cause for celebration and emulation.

As for dear Mr. Watson, next year’s British Open is all but in the bag. That’s no fantasy. After all, he’ll only be 60.

Copyright © The Progressive Christian® (Summer Two Issue, 2009). Used by permission.

HERE’S A RECENT off-the-record challenge: “So, hey man, where’s the ‘faith’ in FaithWriter? I don’t see much faith in your stuff.”

Fair enough. Allow me to explain.

Writing about one’s faith, or about faith itself, and writing from a faith-informed perspective are, in my opinion, related but different enterprises. FaithWriter does some of the former but mostly the latter, which I suspect explains the challenge in the first place. My challenger would welcome more explicit faith talk than FaithWriter typically serves up.

Making a distinction between the two forms of expression, perhaps even genres, might be helpful.

Writing about faith can take a variety of forms ranging from personal testimony to interpretation to descriptive discourse. In any event, the common factor is the inclusion of explicit language that conveys whatever one means by the word “faith.” Mostly, but not always (as in attacks on religion), explicit faith talk seeks to convey a convincing and/or favorable image of one’s faith or of faith itself.

Such writing is the sartorial equivalent of wearing a crucifix or yarmulke. As a visible part of one’s attire, it signifies an unmistakable religious identity. The equivalent for a writer is the inclusion of language that draws attention to the writer’s identity as a person of faith. This style of writing is particularly suited to  conversation within the community of faith, in which the words and symbolism are readily understood and welcomed as a sign that the writer is “one of us.” Deployed outside the community of faith, it acquires a different purpose, perhaps to convert or to interpret the symbols of faith to the world beyond.

By contrast, writing from a faith-informed perspective chooses not to display the author’s identity as part of the purpose for writing; it chooses not to wear a crucifix or yarmulke, so to speak. Rather, its purpose is to write in a way that is consistent with one’s identity as a person of faith but not necessarily to convey in so many words that one is a person of faith. Its intent is not to put faith on exhibit, but, rather, to convey the fruits of faith. It is faith-at-work as opposed to faith-on-display.

For example, I regard myself as a follower of Jesus. As such, I try to write in a way that is consistent with what I believe to be the values of one who follows Jesus:  truth, fairness, integrity, and so on. These values are not unique to a Christian, of course, but that’s part of the reason for not making a special effort to appear to be a “Christian writer.” One can be a Christian writer or “faith writer” by adhering to the highest values and ideals of the human spirit – which happen to be the values of a follower of Jesus.

But, writing from a faith-informed perspective implies more than the embodiment of generic virtues. It also suggests a willingness to tackle life’s great problems in a manner that reflects the varied and complex interactions of life against life that religion addresses. Simple things can take care of themselves; it isn’t necessary, for example,  to call upon one’s faith to describe a pleasant day at the beach (although there’s nothing wrong with regarding the experience as a gift from God!). To write from a faith-informed perspective, however, is to be willing to “go deep,” to probe the core of life’s struggle and meaning and find in a day at the beach a revelatory or even transcendent experience that, conceivably, may not refer to God at all.

To go deep, a person of faith can draw upon the legacy of faith – i.e., the wisdom of a particular spiritual tradition – to confront life’s vicissitudes and mystery. In doing so, one who writes from a faith-informed perspective will exhibit the fruits of that legacy’s deepest loyalties and commitments – for example, love of justice, showing kindness to others and walking humbly with one’s God.  Again, these traits are not the unique possession of the faith writer or even the faith tradition itself.  Rather, they are signs that the writer’s loyalties and commitments are grounded in something eternal, that which abides in an unfolding, ever-changing universe.

To write from a faith-informed perspective, therefore, is to participate in a spirit – not necessarily by an overt display of words of faith and its symbols, but by being attentive to that to which faith is attentive: human need and human suffering, the mystery of life and the fate of the universe.  Faith-informed writing, shaped as it is by one’s deepest commitments, conveys both the attending spirit and the spirit of attentiveness to the concerns and challenges of being human.

A good example of the latter can be found in a recent posting by Paul Rauschenbush calling for “Christianizing” the health care debate:

“Christianizing the health care debate means applying the inspiring power of religion to promote self sacrifice and compassion in one of the most pressing issues of our time. Christians should join with people of compassion from all religious traditions including secular ones and put pressure on our elected officials to serve the needs of those whom Jesus loved best and who are the most vulnerable of our society.”

Exactly. Mr. Rauschenbush could as handily have called for “Buddha-izing” or “Islam-izing” the health care debate and made the same valid point.

FaithWriter is certainly not reluctant to employ the symbols of faith when they help to illuminate and enrich the conversation with the wider world, which is his primary arena of interest. Otherwise, he chooses to use the vernacular to the best of his ability as a writer who happens to be a follower of Jesus – with all that implies as explained above. All that he does and writes, evident or not, is shaped by that fact of his existence.

UNTIL THE POLITICIANS GET AROUND to addressing the central question in the health care debate, we’re stuck with our existing dysfunctional system regardless of whatever “reforms” are proposed or adopted. Unfortunately, President Obama isn’t helping matters. Although he has announced his intent to put health care reform at the top of the legislative agenda, he has done little to raise the level of debate beyond the usual horse-trading that occurs when multiple interests are at stake. The result to date is not just confusing; it’s a mess.

The reason it’s a mess is that no one, not even Mr. Obama, is acknowledging the elephant in the room: health care as a basic human right. The rest of the world is well ahead of the United States in acknowledging that reasonable access to quality health care is in the same category as police protection, fire departments, public highways and free public education. Each is an essential component of civil society that we rightly assume should be supported by public funding – each, that is, except for health care in the United States.

Here, almost alone among the world’s industrialized nations, the health care “system” is in bondage to wealth-generating entities – especially insurance and pharmaceutical companies  – for whom any mention of health care as a right is anathema. No one speaks of “socialized police protection” or “socialized education” as a blight on the human race. But, merely whisper “socialized medicine” – a synonym for health care as a right – and hear the voices of Big Expensive Health Care roar with rafter-rattling indignation! The only “right” these guys care about is one that guarantees them unfettered access to the wallets of American consumers.

So, don’t be fooled about the current “debate” regarding health care. It is not about reform in the sense of fundamentally changing what we already have: an industry that’s jerry-rigged to benefit the bottom line of Big Health and only incidentally structured to take care of sick and injured people. Until our policy makers get serious and start talking about health care as a human right, they’re little more than quacks dispensing placebos instead of real medicine.

SINCE THE PREVIOUS COLUMN went to press, President Barack Obama signed an executive memorandum extending limited benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. This is good news. It shows among other things that the issue is still on Mr. Obama’s screen, a matter of some concern among gay rights activists. Until now, the president had not taken any action or made any substantive statement since taking office regarding civil rights for same-sex couples.

The bad news, of course, is that his recent memorandum does not go nearly far enough. It leaves untouched some of the most basic issues of discrimination against same-sex partners, e.g., the right to each other’s Social Security benefits. The point of my previous column remains in force: only repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), to which Mr. Obama pledged himself as a candidate, can undo this flagrantly discriminatory injustice. Repeal of DOMA won’t resolve every gay civil rights issue, of course. But, it will remove the single greatest legal obstacle to across-the-board fair treatment of same-sex couples in this country.

I may not be sufficiently skeptical of Mr. Obama’s intent in this regard, but I believe that his pre-election denunciation of DOMA reflects his core values on the matter. DOMA must go, and he knows it. I also believe the old adage that “justice delayed is justice denied.” It serves no constructive purpose, however, for gay rights activists to insist that Mr. Obama expend the huge amounts of his political capital it would require to repeal DOMA by next week. The fact is, he will not allow that single issue, committed though he may be to it, to derail his larger agenda, including reforming health care and reviving the economy.

For now, however, Mr. Obama has given a meaningful if modest gesture of encouragement to gay rights supporters to keep the ball rolling toward legal equality for same-sex couples. We should see to it that we do; there are hints from the Administration itself that a push will be made in this regard prior to the 2010 congressional elections. That is not that far off, and efforts on the ground to let candidates for political office know we’re serious should be already underway.

But it is, after all, the voice of the people that has carried the struggle this far, not the leadership of a single individual. It was this voice to which Mr. Obama himself responded and added his own powerful rhetoric as a morally eloquent candidate for president. Full-throated and fully engaged with the political process to influence actual votes and legislation, that same voice – our collective voice – one day will bring the struggle for equality home.

Mr. Obama’s critics notwithstanding, remarkable progress has been made. The repeal of DOMA during his administration is politically within reach. Accordingly, we intend to hold him to his pledge and to beat the drum for congress to extend full civil rights and equality under the law to our nation’s same-sex couples.

SHOULD WE be concerned?

This question is on the fevered minds of growing numbers of Obamanauts, particularly those of us who took seriously Mr. Obama’s campaign statements regarding same-sex marriage. As politics eventually must, the matter boils down to specific legislation, in this case the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (or DOMA, as it’s known in federal acronymese).

In some respects, despite the kerfuffle when a state takes action regarding same-sex marriage, as California recently did to uphold Proposition 8 banning it, the repeal of DOMA is actually the Holy Grail for gay rights advocates. That’s because the law––hastily passed by Congress with bi-partisan support and signed by President Clinton just before the 1996 elections––does two things that, taken together, hugely retard the quest for nationally-enforced equality for the LBGT community.

First, DOMA permits states to not recognize same-sex marriage even if a relationship is considered a marriage in another state. Second, it prohibits the federal government from treating same-sex relationships as marriage “for any purpose,” even if recognized as such by one or more states.

At a practical level, committed gay couples, even if legally married in, say, Massachusetts, cannot avail themselves of rights routinely accorded heterosexual couples. These include social security and other economic benefits –– totaling more than 1,100  –– tied to marriage, defined by federal law as the union of a man and a woman. The couples’ problems multiply if they move to a state that doesn’t recognize their marriage in the first place.

As long as DOMA remains in place, in other words, homosexual couples are our only citizens that, as a group, are legally discriminated against solely on the basis of identity.

During his presidential campaign, Mr. Obama unflinchingly supported DOMA’s repeal:

“I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act 
– a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal
only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not
discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does.”

So, after this and similar statements, one wonders why Mr. Obama has since gone conspicuously silent on the issue. Indeed, Mr. Obama has given no indication since the election that he intends to push for DOMA’s repeal anytime in the foreseeable future. As a result, LBGT and other progressive troops that supported his change-based candidacy are getting nervous. As Evan Wolfson, executive director of the advocacy group Freedom to Marry, summarized it: “This is a civil rights moment, and Obama has not yet risen to it.”

OK, fair enough. It’s time, however, for all of us to ponder anew the difference between moral leadership and political leadership. To paraphrase a Stephen Covey metaphor, moral leadership shows us which wall to lean our ladder against. Political leadership shows us how to climb the ladder, rung by rung. Rarely, however, do the two co-exist comfortably in the tailored suit of high elected office. Mr. Obama is no exception.

Obama the candidate, not yet saddled with the actual job of governing, came as close as anyone in recent memory to conducting an election campaign that bordered on moral leadership. In nearly every instance that matters, he showed us the right wall to set our ladder against: end the Iraq war, reform health care, ban torture, secure gay civil rights, and more. As Candidate Obama, he performed a vitally needed service to our country following the debacle of the Bush years: he gave us back a vision of our best selves, of a nation grounded in ideals, not one ground to a halt by its fears. He showed us the walls needing to be climbed, and, inspired by his vision, we elected him to show us how.

Perhaps, as it applies to the full inclusion of gay and lesbian couples in our society, he already has shown us how. Don’t get me wrong. We should not for a moment let President Obama forget the vision of gay civil rights that Candidate Obama articulated so clearly: rid the nation of all impediments to equal treatment under the law. In fact, as poll after poll during the last five years has shown, approval for gay marriage has snowballed; among younger voters, it’s virtually a non-issue. The eventual outcome seems inevitable.

But, Obama the Moral Leader and Obama the Political Leader are not the same. If the latter is to prevail on this issue, the driving passion to repeal DOMA now must come from those of us whose representatives in Congress are the political rungs on the ladder to equality. After all, they make the laws, not the president. And they need to hear, repeatedly, that our vote in November for Obama the Moral leader empowers––indeed, compels––them to do the right thing under Obama the Political Leader. This is the civil rights struggle of our time.

Arrivederci, DOMA. It’s time for us to part.

Copyright © The Progressive Christian® (Summer One Issue, 2009). Used by permission.