Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!know!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: draft of Identity Task Force statement Message-ID: Date: 6 Nov 90 08:13:04 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia Lines: 271 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Louie Crew) writes: > I am on an Identity Task Force of the Diocese of Newark and have agreed > to write a draft of the portion of our Identity statement that deals with > our own mission. What is this "Identity statement" *for*? It reads a lot like the manifesto of a political party. > This will follow a much longer section in which we > try to define the Church, and specifically "the Episcopal Church," as we > understand them. This really puzzles me. Why is it your task to define the Church? What kind of definition do you want? Isn't "the Episcopal Church" something like "the community of Christians led by bishops in communion with the Archbishopric of Canterbury"? Or "the collection of people who honestly hold to the 39 articles"? Or something like that? > Understanding our community as called to love the world radically, > we define ourselves not as monument-makers but as tent-dwellers, > focused on a new Jerusalem, a holy city, in Newark's fair and pleasant > land. Is the COMMUNITY called to love the world? That sounds like a cop-out. Is the community called to love the WORLD? I don't think so. Surely "each and every one of God's slaves is commanded to love his or her neighbours; people loving people, _this_ saint regarding _that_ beggar as one of the Lord's 'brothers'". "We define ourselves not as monument-makers but as tent-dwellers" is all very poetic, but what on earth does it _mean_? Does it mean that you move around a lot? Does it mean that you observe Sukkoth? > We on this Task Force call upon our Diocese steadfastly to commit > ourselves--our time, our talents, and our dollars--to ministries of > justice and compassion, not just towards other Episcopalians and not > just towards other Christians, but toward the full human community > for whom Christ died. Pay greater attention to your pronouns. If you on the task force want _yourselves_ to be committed thus, what is to prevent you? If you want the Diocese as an organisation to be committed, say so. If you want the members of the Diocese to be committed say that. What do you mean by "justice" here? Why only "dollars"? If I have some of my money in pounds or Deutchmarks, is that exempt? "full human community"? I'm perturbed by the suggestion that justice and compassion should be directed at communities rather than people. Why not say "We on this Task Force call on everyone in this Diocese to commit his or her own time, talents, and money to practical ministries of mercy and charity towards all our neighbours, not just our fellow Christians". > We take seriously the bidding to let God's > countenance be seen in our own. That's inspiring. Could you give me the reference? > We worship neither a dead Jesus > nor a dead book but the Word Made Flesh. This is potentially misleading. I'm sure a Unitarian would agree whole-heartedly with it. How about "The Jesus we worship is not dead, the Book which instructs us is not lifeless, but Jesus the Expression of God made Human is alive today." > As did Jesus, we must not only feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, > clothe the naked, and visit those who are alone, neglected, sick or in > prison, but must also vigorously advocate systemic changes. Um. Which "systemic changes" did Jesus "virorously advocate"? I fully agree that the hyperindustrial system is at best seriously flawed and hospitable to evil, but seeing moral responsibility in terms of systems acting on systems is one of the characteristic modes of thought of that very system. > Why should we in New Jersey and the United States allow so many to be > homeless and hungry? I don't know. Why _do_ you? Maybe you expect the political system of New Jersey or the United States to take over your responsibilities? A visiting minister who recently spoke in the church I go to here said that if people come to their church and ask for money, the first question is "have you got a job?" and if the answer is "no", the next thing they say is "let's go find you one", and they _do_ it. Perhaps the answer is that we need free employment agencies operated by Christians. > How can we reverse patterns of greed and violence in our society? This is all so incredibly fuzzy. What counts as YOUR society? Is there a high level of greed and violence amongst Episcopalians in Newark? In that case, the answer is "get the beam out of your own eye first". If there isn't (and I don't for a moment suppose that there is), in precisely what sense is the society with the patterns of greed and violence YOURS? Isn't the real question something like "We find ourselves aliens and sojourners in a society based on greed and full of violence. What can we do to change it?" Seen from _that_ perspective, the answer has to be "End it! Rescue people out of it until these patterns are unable to sustain themselves." Remember, hyperindustrial society starts from presuppositions which are radically opposed to Biblical presuppositions. You _can't_ change that society if you leave its presuppositions intact. It really is vital to avoid the mistake of thinking of hyperindustrial society as yours, lest you make the mistake of thinking that it must be preserved. > Our society says to many young people in Newark: Either sweep at a > fast-food outlet, or take out a dealership in crack cocaine. Genera- > tion of Vipers! We call upon our leaders to provide better choices. Again, why are the Episcopalians in Newark doing this? And if they aren't, why do you call it YOUR society? And HOW DARE YOU take away the dignity of people who sweep at a fast-food outlet? (Some of the people I admire most clean houses.) Again, it's important to be clear. When you say "OUR leaders", are you saying that the Church in Newark should be doing something to find work for these young people? If that's so, GREAT! (Something I would like to see Christians doing is finding families that are about to buckle under the strain of debt, paying off their debt, and replacing it by an interest-free loan. Why not just pay off the debt? Two reasons: for the benefit of the debtors, and so that the money can be used again for someone else. Why interest-free? Because usury is wrong.) > How can we unite rich and poor? We must promote more dialogue, > more sharing, a more equitable distribution of our own resources, > cultural as well as economic. It is ridiculous to dream of living in > heaven with people whom we avoid on earth. I'm sorry. I'm really sorry. I know what you're getting at here, and I like the sentiment. But when you say "promote more dialogue" it's hard to stop giggling. What does it _mean_? "ah, hi. What's it like being poor?" "Oh, you get used to it. What's it like being rich?" "It's worry, worry all the time. You're better of as you are." When you say "OUR OWN resources", what do you mean? Are you asking the members of the Church in Newark to share their worldly goods with those poor people they voluntarily choose to help, or are you asking for the Government to expropriate some people's wealth and give it to others? (To a certain degree I approve of both. I firmly believe that a National Health system is a Good Thing. They're demonstrably more efficient than the US system, and the freedom to shop which is required for a market to be free is absent in emergency health care. I approve of graduated tax, and don't mind paying it.) The point is, it is important to be CLEAR about what you're asking. As for the last sentence there, we are called to _love_ people, not _like_ them. I avoid smokers. They smell so bad that it physically brings tears to my eyes. Does that mean I can't love them? Beware of cultural imperialism. When you talk about "a more equitable distribution of our own resources, cultural as well as economic", if you mean "let's have more free public libraries, let's have cheap adult education available for all", great, but it _sounds_ like "the poor haven't got any worthwhile culture of their own, we'll have to share ours with them." What _do_ you mean by "cultural resources", anyway? > As the Diocese of Newark has built schools, hospitals, hospices, AIDS > ministries, oases for lesbians and gays, we call upon it to continue to > manifest itself as a radical lover of the world in fresh ways: It sounds as though the Diocese of Newark is already doing lots of things. I would like to express some anger, though. In my own country, asthma kills a lot more people than AIDS ever has or is ever likely to. Yet far more government money goes on treating one of the world's most avoidable diseases (AIDS) than on something which you _can't_ catch and is a worse killer (asthma). I cannot regard this as just. Where are the asthma ministries? Where are the ministries for teaching parents that it's a good idea to have your baby sleep in your bed, as that not only _greatly_ reduces deaths from SID but has many desirable social consequences? (Let's agree to leave to one side the fact that current research on AIDS vaccines is racist. The AIDS strain that's killing African heterosexuals hasn't got the protein fragment that Western researchers are basing their vaccines on.) What is an "oasis for lesbians and/or n'nagms?" People who act out a preference for the same sex enjoy special status in today's society, _dare_ to mention that the Bible forbids the activity and you are jumped on and accused of all sorts of things. If you help people who want to have sex with people of the same sex find other people with the same wish, why aren't you providing help for people who want to steal? I am often tempted to steal. Why is there no-one providing "oases" for people like me? > Create a Task Force of Prophecy, charged with monitoring > social justice issues within the diocese. Why call it prophecy? Why the proliferation of NewSpeak? If you want a "Social Justice Monitoring Group", be honest about it. I am seriously perturbed that the recommendation is to set up a group of people whose task is to talk and to criticise other people, rather than to devote the people and money involved to actually _doing_ things. > The Task Force will > coordinate responses at the parochial, convocational, and > diocesan levels. The Task Force will plan and coordinate at > least two major public forums annually to bring together citi- > zens, elected officials, civil servants, economists, and other > advisors to dialogue about issues of social justice. When did the English language acquire a verb "to dialogue"? What does it mean? What's wrong with "talk about", "discuss", "debate"? (Excuse me for a minute while I giggle about the economists. Have you _no_ scepticism in your souls? Accountants who can tell you how much money there _is_, where it came from, and where it has been going, by all means include them. Book-keeping is honest and important work. But economists? Economics is _not_ a predictive science.) Why are you so concerned to have _other_ people (elected officials &c) _talking_ about things rather than having _yourselves_ _DOING_ things? We've _had_ a century or more of people talking about what other people should do! > At least > one of these events will be set in the community of the poor. I don't understand this. Is a "community" a _place_? Do you mean "let's have an army of talk-gooders show their faces in a ghetto once a year"? Why not do something really practical, like "all of these events will use office staff, caterers, cleaners, &c &c who are at the time out of work, so that they may receive money proudly"? > The Task Force will also develop a human resources list of > persons in the diocese willing to witness for Diocesan concerns > in various secular forums. Again, I am very seriously perturbed that your solution seems to be "let's have the middle class _talk_ about the problems of the poor". (English again: why "persons" rather than "people"? What does saying "a human resources list" buy you? Why only think about witnessing in secular fora? Why not say "The Monitors will also draw up a list of local people willing and able to explain Diocesan concerns about social justice." At every turn, the language you use betrays the thought- patterns of hyperindustrial society.) > Assign an officer of the diocese to bring together in one place > for dialogue and mutual building up of the community, people > from parishes diverse economically and culturally. What does this mean? Do you mean that people will only be accepted from parish X if parish X is economically and culturally diverse? That's what it _sounds_ like. Do you mean that each meeting should be in one place (but that meetings about parishes Y and Z might take place in parishes Y and Z, one place each) or that there should be one place for all such meetings. What in the name of plain speech do you mean by "dialogue and mutual building up of the community"? (If there is one community, what is it mutual with?) What are these people supposed to talk about? How does having a small elite group talking talking talking help to "mutually build up the community"? (The Maaori people have a saying "talk is the food of chiefs".) Why not organise burial clubs? (Burying the dead _is_ historically one of the 7 acts of mercy. It's also a mitzvoh.) I mean this in all seriousness: funerals and burials are very expensive. Joining together to reduce this burden is a practical thing to do, and if rich and poor were to receive the same kind of burial, that would be one way of demonstrating (if you have anything resembling a community as formerly understood) that rich and poor are alike to you. This "Identity statement" has the form of a political manifesto whose chief concern is to build up a new bureaucracy. It is painfully predictable that the effect of doing this will be to spend money on talking bureaucrats rather than actually accomplishing things. I beg you to think about paying some of the poor people you want to help to find work for other poor people. I beg you to think about giving loans to poor people who want to start their own businesses. I beg you to think about financing local nurses. Anything but bureaucrats. -- The problem about real life is that moving one's knight to QB3 may always be replied to with a lob across the net. --Alasdair Macintyre.