Is Anybody Out There?

During the height of the Trayvon Martin case, there were Christians who were offended that this had received so much publicity.  Making comments such as, “this has become a game...” or “If Jesus got this sort of attention, the world would be a different place.”  The question at hand is, “Is anybody out there?”  K’Naan’s song asks, “Am I alone in this fight?”  Have we, the church, left too many people to fight in this world alone?  Is that what Jesus would do?

Talk is all well and fine, but it’s not transformative.  This is where I believe the church falls short.  We are good at religious rhetoric with no action for justice.  Silent when there needs to be voice for the voiceless, or as I like to call it, “Preaching Jesus but not preach what Jesus preached.”  The bible is replete with the message of justice, yet we fall short.  Justice is a byproduct of love.  Jesus says in Matthew 25:45 NIV, “whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."  What is even more astonishing is the fact that many churches ignore this "major" teaching of justice in relationship to the frequency of the matter in contrast to some the lesser mentioned issues.  Stassen and Gushee state the word justice in the various language contexts by a conservative estimate appears 1,060 times in the bible.  I can't remember the last time I heard a message/sermon of justice, but on the other hand, I've heard messages on sexuality in larger numbers by comparison.  Although, the issue of sexual sin as Stassen and Gushee argues is a lesser issue than this issue of justice.

What I've come to understand is that our approach should model that of Christ.  Justice seeks to aid in the building of community rather finding ways to keeping the oppressed, oppressed, but yielding to establishing a healthy, vibrant community.  It seems to me that justice seeks to place value on the person.  It goes beyond superficial love, but seeks to see the person as God sees the person and care for them in the same manner as the individual would care for themselves.  Going back to the golden rule, "Do unto others as you would have them to do to you" which is only a reflection of the principle of loving your neighbor as you love yourself.  The ethic of love that reflects justice of the marginalized sets us on a trend to develop a society that moves away for a very "anthropocentric", man-centered, way of thinking to one that is very theocentric.  When we practice a theocentric, God-centered, approach to community, we then reflect, “Jesus radical approach to inclusivity,” in viewing the person as being made in the image of God as the primary reason for loving people.

Bass discusses in her book, Practicing Our Faith, that Jesus becomes the central figure to shaping or rather reshaping our communities.  She states, “The shaping of communities is the practice by which we agree to be reliable personally and organizationally.”  I’d like to add with the notion of reliability comes responsibility.  Here is where the church organizationally has drop the ball in that we have not been responsible in relation to our efforts of justice.  But where do we start in the process of being the social conscious of society?  Might I suggest forgiveness? 

Forgiveness operates both internally and externally.  Internally deals with confronting one’s self in being an avenger of harm or unresolved issues.  They say confession is good for the soul, and I had to admit that I was one who perpetuated hate because of hurt that had been done to me.  In releasing the person that caused the hurt, I released myself from the frustration, anger, and hurt of being owed and apology.   But as for the church, we must confront and confess where we have been the perpetrators of hurt in order to become the voice of justice.  Parenthetically, silence is a form of passivity and furthers the cause of hurt when we don’t speak up for the injustices in our society.  We must reclaim our prophetic zeal, and I believe forgiveness opens opportunity and becomes the vehicle in which healing will take place both internally and externally.  If forgiveness is the beginning of justice, I propose a “thirst for righteousness” to advance the call for justice.

How did the society deal with tumultuous times of the 1960s were political and cultural arenas clashed?  When faced with civil rights, voting rights, women’s right, and the resolution of the conflict in Vietnam, our nation had to modify and adjust.  Pastor Stephen Bilynskyj wrote on Christian Ethics and the Ethics of Virtue, “Hauerwas maintains that there is a question which is prior to ‘What shall I do?’ That question deals with the character and history which is the context for ethical decision-making-before we ask what shall we do; he suggests that we ask, ‘What shall I be?’”  Being presents the idea of the essence of the individual.  Thus our nation was confronted with the question, “what kind of country will we be?”  Will this country remain true to the founding principles that all men are created equal and that all men should experience “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?”  If we are not holding true to the spirit of our country, we are faced with the task of change.  I believe the Apostle James would concur with this assessment of talk without action approach.

The letter of James could be summarized in a single sentence, “Don’t just stand there, do something.”  James 2:14a tells us, “What does it profit my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works...”  Although the application is to faith, I believe that we can gain insight to James presentation that our convictions affect our conduct.  Here, James thinks it impossible that someone can genuinely have saving faith with no works.  I then believe that Vice-President Biden and President Obama were confronted with this sort of conviction much like we were back in the 1960s.  Does this policy make ethical sense?  Does it reconcile our doing and being?  Does the policy create conflict between our being and doing?

On a recent episode of Harriet’s Law, there came a challenge of the ban on gay men donating blood even in the most extreme cases where their blood could save a life.  The gay man asks the questions, “What kind of country are we that would exemplify this kind of biased, archaic policy against gay men that was established back in 1977?”  His argument was that if we bias gay men from donating life giving blood, particularly if they’re in a monogamous relationship, then we must be prejudice against blacks that account for 46% of people living with HIV, and while we are at it, let’s ban black women because of the newly infected women, they account for about 2 in 3.  He asks, “Who are we (country) because he doesn’t recognize us (country), anymore?”  What a powerful assessment that led to a court allowing the man to give blood to save his dying brother’s life.  The court was confronted with an incongruent policy that didn’t reflect our country's convictions of equality which led to an action to change policy.  So, confrontation is not the bane of our society but the catalyst for reform.  If we have the ability to change immoralities, inequities and injustices, we must do so to preserve our identity of our being.