The Right Use of Moral Vision and Power

"The church is called to be engaged — to lend voice, moral authority, resources, and organized effort — to resist evil and to reorder our common life in ways that protect the most vulnerable and enhance human dignity for all people."  

- The Rev. Jarrett Kerbel from his blog post on gerrymandering

That is what I believe. What do you believe? Bring that belief to forum this Sunday as we explore the ways our church could be or should be involved in advocacy in the public square.

As a church we have a moral vision. As a church we have power. Most people agree immediately with the first statement and then become hesitant when it comes to the second. As an organized body we have people power, financial power, and spiritual power. Ideally, all three work together to shape our life together into the Body of Christ, and our surrounding community into a place of justice, peace, and flourishing approximating the vision of God for God’s world.

Peter Singer - professor of moral philosophy at Princeton University - uses “the drowning man test” to make us reflect on our power and responsibility. If you are hiking along a lake and you come across a man drowning in the water and you have the ability to swim or at least use your cell phone and yet you do nothing to help him, we would all agree that you are morally blameworthy if he is injured or dies. To observe distress and danger and to do nothing, even when you have the capability - i.e. the power - is to sin by omission, and to incur guilt.

As a church, we have power, a moral vision, and accountability before our God. Learning to exercise our voice and vision in faithful, appropriate action is certainly a learning curve. I would rather risk it than to not have an answer for God when I am asked why my brothers and sisters suffered and I did nothing.

Blessings,

The Rev. Jarrett Kerbel

Rector

Parish Forum on Sunday, March 31:

Clarifying St. Martin’s Community Engagement Causes - Part 2

Led by the Rev. Jarrett Kerbel and the Community Engagement committee
This week the Rev. Kerbel resumes his discussion on the work done by the community engagement committee and the parish to clarify our causes. Jarrett will review the causes named but this time we’ll dig a little deeper. This week we will gauge the range of comfort levels the congregation has to advocate for these causes. What do you think the church should advocate for? Should we limit ourselves to church discussions and/or participate with others? Are you willing to write a letter, lobby an elected official, run for office, march for the cause, get arrested, or like or share a Facebook post? These are a few sample questions that we’ll act on and discuss at this forum. Wear comfy shoes as we walk around the parish hall to find out how willing we are to move for our causes.

The Empty Wagon is the Noisiest

The Rev. Jarrett Kerbel

Nothing rattles quite so loudly as an empty wagon. That folk wisdom came to me through the song “Little America” by REM, my favorite band from 1983 to the present. Much to my frustration, the Christianity I love and depend on for my sanity, sobriety, and hope is too often misrepresented by the loudest, most clamorous and hateful voices today. As a church striving to be faithful to the steadfast way of Jesus Christ, it is appalling that one of our greatest afflictions is the chorus of all those who misrepresent him loudly.

Why is it difficult to pass the faith on to our children? One reason, among others, it that the amplified voice of right-wing Christianity has them convinced that all christians hate LGBTQ people, want women to be subservient, deny climate change, blame the poor for their suffering, and support white supremacy. If your daily media diet is flooded by bullying voices and their often stridently simplistic opponents, then why would you risk the company of Christians in the first place?

So how do we stand up to the playground bullies of Christianity?

The Bible is a good place to start. “If I do not have love I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal,” (1 Cor. 13:2) Apply the love test. Is it love or is it aggression? Is it love or is it the noise of a rear-guard fight against cultural change and the loss of privilege? Yes, some Christian traditions are being discarded and for some that feels like a fearful loss of power and position. For me, I see us discarding oppression and returning our faith to its roots in liberating love. As a white, upper-middle class, cisgender man I find this disconcerting and disorienting. But as a man of faith, I embrace the loss as the way Christ proscribes for me, “You must lose your life to find it.”

The danger of the moment is increased by noisy gongs and clanging cymbals on the liberal Christian side too. It seems to me at times that liberal Christians are so zealous in skepticism and deconstruction of the tradition that they leave us no place to stand and resist. If we destroy our moral source and framework entirely, who are we to challenge any other (supposedly) equally valid point of view? You will never hear me describe myself as “liberal” Christian for this very reason. Our tradition and scripture deconstruct me more than I them.

I certainly do not want to live in a world without the faithful, long-suffering, and steadfast church of Jesus Christ. At our best we are the moral ballast that reins in our worst collective impulses toward greed, revenge, and domination. At our best we propose an alternative world order that resists the amoral gyrations of unrestrained free markets, even when we are not sure how to completely replace capitalism with something more just.

“If it is not about love it is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” says our Presiding Bishop, Michael Curry. Filling our wagons with love is how we end the clanging and rattling and begin to ground our moral positions in their true and trustworthy source, Jesus Christ. What if we spoke about the love that drew us to a position of advocacy before we start to shout?

The Rev. Jarrett Kerbel
Rector

An Unforgiving Culture

The Rev. Jarrett Kerbel

We are living in an unforgiving era of knee-jerk judgment. Conclusions are reached instantly and opinions transmitted without delay in response to a picture, a video, a brief news report, or a rumor. Social media seems to amplify our conflict, tempt us to simplistic judgements, and provides a constant platform for moral posturing and partisanship. What we need is relational healing and mutual problem solving, yet both are not well suited to our new normal of relating.

The printing press was a crucial ingredient in the Protestant Reformation. This technological revolution allowed for unprecedented literacy, independence from traditional authorities like clergy, and the broadcast of theological debates and partisanship across all of Europe. We embrace the freedom of thought encouraged by this technological advance, even while we cringe at some of the side effects. Reformation debate led to religious warfare, toxic skepticism, and a paralyzing inability to acknowledge and stabilize sources of authority.  

Two people reading and typing on smartphones. Image:Pixabay

Technology is once again outracing and distorting our moral commitments. We need to slow down, take a breath, sort through the sources, and insist on credible media. Much like the slow food movement that invited people to decelerate and enjoy a meal and conversation with friends and family, I think we need a slow conversation movement where we take the time needed for the nuance required by the subjects that challenge us.

Stuck on a long car ride the other day, I had such a conversation with a friend about abortion. This is a very difficult and charged topic but we explored it fully with curiosity, patience, and generosity. We agreed that the subject required a nuanced and careful approach. We agreed that real solutions were inhibited by the nature of the debate. I am grateful for this oddball conversation because I needed to ask some questions to clarify my thoughts, and I cannot do that if I am scared of the response.  

Partisanship distorts moral discourse, reducing any concern into a blunt instrument designed to win. It is no wonder that we cannot claw our way back to compromise and mutual problem-solving when we start at the conclusion.  

Spiritually, our culture is deeply concerning to me. If we cannot receive each other and forgive each other or even sacrifice for each other, then community will dissolve and we will be even more alone. Millennials talk about the social media practice of “cancelling” each other. This means blocking or unfriending someone who falls short of your sense of moral decency. Jesus taught us to forgive 7 x 70 times. For the disciple of Jesus there is a tension here. How do we love the neighbor with whom we disagree profoundly? How do we allow someone to regain our trust after they have made us feel unsafe? A forgiving culture risks turning toward each other with the hope that relationship can be restored.

Blessings,

The Rev. Jarrett Kerbel

Rector