Diana Butler Bass: August 2009 Archives

I can't say that I always loved Ted Kennedy.  For years, I have agreed with the issues he fought for--especially regarding his concern for the sick, the poor, and the elderly.  But, I confess, Senator Kennedy's personal behavior often proved embarrassing and sometimes appalling to those who agreed with his policies.  Like all three Kennedy brothers, there has been a disconcerting tension between the public servant and the private self. 

When I was a bit younger--and much more theologically puritanical--I thought that private behavior diminished public good.   That the inner and outer selves must be connected for acts of goodness to have real integrity and social impact.  The death of Senator Kennedy, however, points to a richer tradition of Christian theology, indeed of Catholic theology:  Even a sinful leader may accomplish God's will for the public good.  Personal perfection is not a prerequisite for ruling well.

That, of course, is profoundly good news.  The Christian tradition has insisted--since about the fourth century or so--that human sinfulness in no way diminishes acts of grace, mercy, and justice.  But it is also not an excuse to continue sinning.  Indeed, some public figures seem to think that their position is license to do what they like in private, as long as they continue to serve the people in their work.  "Should we sin," the Apostle Paul once wrote, "that grace may abound?"  No, the church has responded.  We will sin, and flawed humans will continue to do the good.   But Christian spirituality insists that if one is truly on a journey of faith, that goodness will eventually overtake weakness and the inner life and outward service will come into harmony.  Life is a progress toward such harmony, the symphony of faith in God.

Ted Kennedy's theological legacy may well be the demonstration of the progressive harmony of goodness.  For, unlike his brothers who did not live long enough to complete the journey of faith, Ted Kennedy did.  In recent years, he admirably and publicly overcame a host of private demons and became the kind of leader who walked his talk.  The tributes of family, friends, and foes increasingly praised his kindness, wisdom, and authenticity--all marks of Christian maturity.  His outer passion for the "least of these" aligned with the inner life. 

And, in the end, Ted Kennedy died well.  Through long months of preparation and witness--a gift never given to his brothers--he met God.  He believed in progressive causes.  But, more importantly, he showed us that all of life is spiritual progress--a journey of hands and heart--toward the One who loves the poor.  Even a rich man can get to heaven.  Well done, good and faithful servant.  

Yesterday, Ed Schultz posed a question on both his radio program and his MSNBC show:  Where is the religious community on health care? 

Ed, a Christian who admits he is not a regular churchgoer, sees the issue in pretty simple terms.  Jesus healed the sick.  For free.  Period.  Why aren't churches out on the front lines arguing for a compassionate government that will care for the infirm, ill, and dying?  After all, don't these same people understand that America is somehow a Christian nation?

Hey, Ed, I'm a fan.  And since I was driving to the beach, I listened to you for two hours get more and more heated--and take some pretty heated calls--on the issue.  I was with you, buddy.  But I think you missed a thing or two.  Let me help you get the religion story straight.

First, many mainline and liberal churches are on the front lines with this issue.  For example, the Episcopal Church's policy office issued an alert to Episcopalians to contact their members of Congress and has tried to answer questions regarding the current legislation.  And they aren't the only ones.  Most American mainline denominations have policy offices working on this issue (and some have for quite a number of years now, around SCHIP and other health concerns).  In addition to denominational efforts, on August 10, cooperating groups across a theological spectrum kicked off "40 Days of Health Care Reform" campaign to rally faith communities to support new health care policies.   There are lots of Christians--mainstream, mainline, moderate, liberal, emergent, and progressive ones--who care about healing as a social and spiritual issue.

Second, and I say this quite ruefully to you, Ed:  mainstream religion is of little interest to most of the media.  Ed, while you may be quite supportive of the Episcopal Church or the 40 Days Campaign, you really wanted to know where James Dobson, Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, and Franklin Graham stood on health care.  Ed, you wanted to know about the leaders of the conservative evangelical community--the big TV preachers and religious right political types.

I can tell you where they are.  They are hiding.  Some people think that evangelical opposition to abortion is keeping them away from the health care bill (the abortion issue is a factor worrying some Roman Catholics).  But I think that many conservative evangelicals are using abortion as a way to duck addressing the issue.  In Washington, religious leaders know that abortion is pretty much off the table in regards to the health care bill.  The Hyde Amendment will keep the government from paying for abortion (as long as the Hyde Amendment remains in force) and private insurance companies will--or will not--pay for abortion as their policies dictate.  As you rightly pointed out, Ed, abortion stays status quo in the current discussion.

The real thing keeping these leaders from speaking out is that large segments of their audiences suspect that President Obama is the Antichrist, the long-predicted evil political leader who will usher in a universal socialist state, complete with a false religion that will doom untold millions to eternal damnation with "666" stamped on our foreheads.  "Becoming Russia" is code language for these fears--whether overtly or intuitively understood.

In other words, Ed, this isn't a health care debate.  This is the Apocalypse.

The most chilling aspect of the apocalyptic fever gripping the Bible Belt right now?  I can't think of a time when American fundamentalists believed that the Antichrist was the President of the United States.  Typically, fundamentalists have identified the Antichrist as someone outside the United States--Hitler, Stalin, Gorbachev, or Saddam Hussein to name a few recent candidates.  A few fundamentalists thought Bill Clinton might be the Antichrist, but he was more often seen as the "forerunner" the real bad guy, a kind of wicked John the Baptist-type preparing the way for the big apocalyptic show.   And for whatever perverse reason, Barack Obama is seen as the real thing.  Some Christians have turned inward for the Antichrist; President Obama is the darkness (and I mean "dark") within.  

In other words, Ed, don't expect any sort of rational discussion--or even biblical argument about a compassionate Jesus--to convince these folks.  This isn't rational and sophisticated theology is out of the question.  This is pretty much the worst kind of religion that can be imagined--apocalyptic fervor and biblical literalism stoked by the fears of racism and xenophobia--the sort of stuff that makes me think that the neo-atheists have a point.  Wonder why the town halls are so heated?  It isn't that religion isn't in the room.  Bad religion--and lots of it--is present in the room.  It just isn't the sort of religion that you or I approve of Ed.  It isn't about healing the sick; it isn't about caring for the least of these.   It isn't really about Jesus.  It is about wide-eyed fear over the end of the world as some people know it.

And the only thing that can possibly speak to it is sane religion, the simple teachings of Jesus:  Heal the sick, care for the poor.