Should your actions represent your asserted principles? More appropriately, is it a necessity?
If I pick out a specific group for an example, there is a reason.
Christians. Yes, there will be theology to discuss, but there is a moral and ethical point I'm after here.
In American politics, we often hear much about Christianity. Strangely, however, it is very tough to figure out what Christians actually believe. It is such that many people feel no point in discussing issues with "Christians": after banging their head against the wall in one conversation, one finds that the "Christian" theology they object to has mysteriously transformed to be and mean something else. For instance, an acquaintance of mine is an intolerant but well-meaning fool. It is unwise to discuss theology or even respond to his attempts to initiate discussions about religion because no matter what Christian told you what whenever, you're misguided and have the wrong impression. Of course, he's better at telling people what's wrong than what's right, but there's no point in asking any question because he won't answer it, but rather tell you why the question is wrong, and how Seventh-Day Adventists are the only people who are diligent about their faith, which point is supposed to imply that you should believe him when he says you're wrong, even though he can't tell you what the correct concept is.
Set that one aside, though. Today's issue is more direct. We consider what Christians believe, because it is hard to figure the morals and theology involved in the April 19, 2007 protest of Mike Daisey's presentation of Invincible Summer. Click here for video and blog entry.
The short summary is simply this: eighty-seven Christians walked out of his show in an organized protest, pausing only to vandalize the handwritten original script outline--effectively destroying it--and attempting to leave without any other comment.
What I'm wondering, however, is how we reconcile an organized vandal protest by eighty-seven Christians with the sales pitches, political arguments, and other espousals by our American corpus Christi that disagree with such belligerence and vandalism, that decry such acts as morally corrupt, that condemn lesser demonstrations by others?
And that's the thing. If we pay attention to what we are told by Christians, we hear one set of principles. And then we witness all manner of depravity in actions: mock executions of the Easter Bunny, bombing campaigns against doctors' offices, blaming the actions of foreign terrorists on domestic women and homosexuals. In Australia once, Christians attempted to menace and vandalize a gallery where Serrano's "Piss Christ" was on display. And then there's this latest incident, and you'll notice I'm not going to call out the Catholic abuse scandal, sexually-corrupt polygamist structures in some Mormon towns, or other such large-ticket issues. Those are beside the point. I mean, in Seattle, we've got a guy who apparently went abroad under false credentials as a White House envoy, and though he claims proof that he was an envoy, he refuses to release it. Come on, it's these little things. They're pervasive.
But the thing is that what I see as a huge conflict between principle and action may be nothing at all. That's where theology is bound to enter the discussion.
So the place to start is the question of judging words and actions. Beyond that, I suppose, is how deeply does this apply? Because we cannot--and need not even attempt to--claim that these hypocrites represent all of Christianity. We cannot because it is inappropriate, and we need not because given time the Christians will prove that point themselves.
And there's the ethical and moral issue: If you claim to be something, should you not act as if you are actually that something? Look, I know we're all human and imperfect, but shouldn't we at least try?
The Stranger's Brendan Kiley notes: "Back in 1918, H.L. Mencken wrote in Damn!: 'He’d be a much nicer fellow if he had a good swear now and then.' Obviously, Mencken’s wisdom stands."
In the end, this demonstration just doesn't seem like the "Christian" thing to do. But who am I to say? There are plenty of Christians, I'm sure, who can tell me why there is no discord between Christian principle and Christian action such as this.
And, of course, Christian principles are exceptionally difficult; for instance, despite the tremendous Christian influence in the United States, our response to the 9/11 bombing has been anything but. I don't wonder about that--("Thank God" for the First Amendment)--although I do wonder about the number of Christians on the war-wagon. That's a tougher issue, though, and I'm not willing to officially call it out here. After all, we are human.
But, really: Doesn't it cheapen a demonstration to have it violative of the idea you're promoting or defending thereby?
If I pick out a specific group for an example, there is a reason.
Christians. Yes, there will be theology to discuss, but there is a moral and ethical point I'm after here.
In American politics, we often hear much about Christianity. Strangely, however, it is very tough to figure out what Christians actually believe. It is such that many people feel no point in discussing issues with "Christians": after banging their head against the wall in one conversation, one finds that the "Christian" theology they object to has mysteriously transformed to be and mean something else. For instance, an acquaintance of mine is an intolerant but well-meaning fool. It is unwise to discuss theology or even respond to his attempts to initiate discussions about religion because no matter what Christian told you what whenever, you're misguided and have the wrong impression. Of course, he's better at telling people what's wrong than what's right, but there's no point in asking any question because he won't answer it, but rather tell you why the question is wrong, and how Seventh-Day Adventists are the only people who are diligent about their faith, which point is supposed to imply that you should believe him when he says you're wrong, even though he can't tell you what the correct concept is.
Set that one aside, though. Today's issue is more direct. We consider what Christians believe, because it is hard to figure the morals and theology involved in the April 19, 2007 protest of Mike Daisey's presentation of Invincible Summer. Click here for video and blog entry.
The short summary is simply this: eighty-seven Christians walked out of his show in an organized protest, pausing only to vandalize the handwritten original script outline--effectively destroying it--and attempting to leave without any other comment.
What I'm wondering, however, is how we reconcile an organized vandal protest by eighty-seven Christians with the sales pitches, political arguments, and other espousals by our American corpus Christi that disagree with such belligerence and vandalism, that decry such acts as morally corrupt, that condemn lesser demonstrations by others?
And that's the thing. If we pay attention to what we are told by Christians, we hear one set of principles. And then we witness all manner of depravity in actions: mock executions of the Easter Bunny, bombing campaigns against doctors' offices, blaming the actions of foreign terrorists on domestic women and homosexuals. In Australia once, Christians attempted to menace and vandalize a gallery where Serrano's "Piss Christ" was on display. And then there's this latest incident, and you'll notice I'm not going to call out the Catholic abuse scandal, sexually-corrupt polygamist structures in some Mormon towns, or other such large-ticket issues. Those are beside the point. I mean, in Seattle, we've got a guy who apparently went abroad under false credentials as a White House envoy, and though he claims proof that he was an envoy, he refuses to release it. Come on, it's these little things. They're pervasive.
But the thing is that what I see as a huge conflict between principle and action may be nothing at all. That's where theology is bound to enter the discussion.
So the place to start is the question of judging words and actions. Beyond that, I suppose, is how deeply does this apply? Because we cannot--and need not even attempt to--claim that these hypocrites represent all of Christianity. We cannot because it is inappropriate, and we need not because given time the Christians will prove that point themselves.
And there's the ethical and moral issue: If you claim to be something, should you not act as if you are actually that something? Look, I know we're all human and imperfect, but shouldn't we at least try?
I sat behind the table, looking up in his face with shock. My job onstage is to be as open as possible, to weave the show without a script as it comes, and this leaves me very emotionally available--and vulnerable, if an audience chooses to abuse that trust. I doubt I will ever forget the look in his face as he defaced the only original of the handwritten show outline--it was a look of hatred, and disgust, and utter and consuming pride.
It is a face I have seen in Riefenstahl's work, and in my dreams, but never on another human face, never an arm's length from me--never directed at me, hating me, hating my words and the story that I've chosen to tell. That face is not Christian, by any definition Christ would be proud to call his own--its naked righteousness and contempt have nothing to do with the godhead, and everything to do with pathetic human pride at its very worst ....
.... I tried to engage with the group as they fled, but they ran out like cowards, and not one of them would stand and discuss with me what they'd done. That cowardice still takes my breath away--that they wouldn't stand and speak like men and women and tell me in their voices their grievances .... I fought to the end to get a single voice to speak and reckon with me, but they ran and didn't look back. (Mike Daisey)
It is a face I have seen in Riefenstahl's work, and in my dreams, but never on another human face, never an arm's length from me--never directed at me, hating me, hating my words and the story that I've chosen to tell. That face is not Christian, by any definition Christ would be proud to call his own--its naked righteousness and contempt have nothing to do with the godhead, and everything to do with pathetic human pride at its very worst ....
.... I tried to engage with the group as they fled, but they ran out like cowards, and not one of them would stand and discuss with me what they'd done. That cowardice still takes my breath away--that they wouldn't stand and speak like men and women and tell me in their voices their grievances .... I fought to the end to get a single voice to speak and reckon with me, but they ran and didn't look back. (Mike Daisey)
The Stranger's Brendan Kiley notes: "Back in 1918, H.L. Mencken wrote in Damn!: 'He’d be a much nicer fellow if he had a good swear now and then.' Obviously, Mencken’s wisdom stands."
In the end, this demonstration just doesn't seem like the "Christian" thing to do. But who am I to say? There are plenty of Christians, I'm sure, who can tell me why there is no discord between Christian principle and Christian action such as this.
And, of course, Christian principles are exceptionally difficult; for instance, despite the tremendous Christian influence in the United States, our response to the 9/11 bombing has been anything but. I don't wonder about that--("Thank God" for the First Amendment)--although I do wonder about the number of Christians on the war-wagon. That's a tougher issue, though, and I'm not willing to officially call it out here. After all, we are human.
But, really: Doesn't it cheapen a demonstration to have it violative of the idea you're promoting or defending thereby?