Facebook.com/TedCarnahan
LinkedIn.com/in/TedCarnahan
Twitter.com/TedCarnahan
Christian Ethics and the Right to Vote
The issues of abortion, euthanasia, the war, and political and economic justice place myself and many other people in a trap between the two major political parties in the United States. Often times people like me have been derided as “single issue voters,” though that has never been true for me. The choices involved, presented from a Roman Catholic perspective but holding universal application, are well presented in this article from the First Things blog.
Certainly, a Catholic elected to public office must make prudential judgments on how to best advance the rights and the dignity of the human person. There are many issues, in fact most issues, where Catholic politicians may disagree and adopt different policy positions—a just immigration policy, for example, or public-assistance programs for the poor, or health-care policy, or military engagement, or taxation policies.
At the same time, there are circumstances where to support a particular policy involves approval of an intrinsic evil.
Rural church internet
I was chatting with one of my professors today, and she mentioned a high-tech savvy Wartburg graduate a few years ago who went on internship to a rural congregation. By rural, she meant “no high speed internet.” We went on to have a lovely conversation about how backwards the church often can be with regards to technology.
My conclusion: You can send me anywhere, but pretty please let there be hot and cold running internet! Otherwise I’ll have to drag said congregation kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
I wikis
MeanDean of HealYourChurchWebsite posted about how wikis are great for content management on the cheap. I LOVE wikis!
At IdeaWorks, we use Trac, an open source wiki with bug tracker and source code viewer built in. Jennifer and I also use MediaWiki to organize information about daily life – projects, todo lists, grocery shopping, you-name-it. The free-form organization means that you can constantly re-factor your information, and since you can go back and look at pages’ revisions, you never lose any data.
I think I’m going to try to talk my church into using a wiki for projecty stuff here soon.
Giving Up
Luke 5:1-11: The Calling of the First Disciples
One day as Jesus was standing by the Lake of Gennesaret, with the people crowding around him and listening to the word of God, he saw at the water’s edge two boats, left there by the fishermen, who were washing their nets. He got into one of the boats, the one belonging to Simon, and asked him to put out a little from shore. Then he sat down and taught the people from the boat.
When he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, “Put out into deep water, and let down the nets for a catch.”
Simon answered, “Master, we’ve worked hard all night and haven’t caught anything. But because you say so, I will let down the nets.”
When they had done so, they caught such a large number of fish that their nets began to break. So they signaled their partners in the other boat to come and help them, and they came and filled both boats so full that they began to sink.
When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus’ knees and said, “Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!” For he and all his companions were astonished at the catch of fish they had taken, and so were James and John, the sons of Zebedee, Simon’s partners.
Then Jesus said to Simon, “Don’t be afraid; from now on you will catch men.” So they pulled their boats up on shore, left everything and followed him.
As Jennifer and I listened to the Gospel Reading this Sunday morning, we both thought of it in a new way:
These fishermen were men who worked hard to accomplish their goals, but often times their lives were still difficult and their futures still uncertain. After a long, frustrating night, Jesus tells them to try one last time – and when they do, they are rewarded with success beyond what they could possibly imagine.
The story doesn’t end there, though.
Their reaction is to realize that Jesus was the source of their earthly success, that their fulfillment was in him, not in what they could ever do for themselves, and they left the fish on the beach. Jesus had shown that he had power to give them what they needed most, but instead of clinging to the stuff he had given them, they clung to the Giver.
Jennifer and I see that in our lives. Jennifer was given admission to medical school and the intellectual ability to finish, even despite her medical difficulties, if she had so desired. I’ve had a short but successful career in computer science. We recognize that both of these things are fulfillment of long-held dreams, but we are turning and following the Fulfiller. I’ll take an uncertain future with a faithful God who has already given me satisfaction and purpose over any life I plan for myself – even if that means I have to leave everything on the beach.
Atheism considered harmful
Dinesh D’Souza has an article in the Christian Science Monitor (which, to quote some of my opponents in debate rounds in high school, are biased neither towards Christians, Scientists, or Monitors) entitled Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history. Too many people blame religion for the problems of the world, when in reality the secular impulse and the rejection of God from politics and social life has, in the past few decades, caused more bloodshed than religion has in the past 2000 years. From the article:
Whatever the motives for atheist bloodthirstiness, the indisputable fact is that all the religions of the world put together have in 2,000 years not managed to kill as many people as have been killed in the name of atheism in the past few decades.
It’s time to abandon the mindlessly repeated mantra that religious belief has been the greatest source of human conflict and violence. Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history.
People who separate their moral views from their political action are surely separating the source of all human rights from the forum in which human rights are deliberated and protected. The secular world is screaming that religion is responsible for the world’s problems, particularly the worst and most intractable problems, and by failing to assert our viewpoints in the public square, the church is agreeing enthusiastically. While it is still the church’s responsibility to renounce the violence that has been (and in a few places continues to be) done in Jesus’ name, I’m really sick of all of the self-flaggellation. The truth preached by the Church is Christ crucified – and that is the hope of the world. It’s time we start remembering that.
Maybe I’m not a political mutt afterall
In the aftermath of the Republican meltdown this week, I was even more sure that I’m a political mutt, but I think that I’ve found a category that suits me better: Christian Democracy. The wikipedia article outlines the “typical” Chrisian Democrat viewpoints:
* In common with liberalism, an emphasis on human rights and individual initiative.
* In contrast to liberalism, a rejection of secularism, and an emphasis on the fact that the individual is part of a community and has duties towards it.
* In common with conservatism, conservative moral values (i.e. on issues such as marriage, divorce, abortion etc.), a view of the evolutionary development of society, an emphasis on law and order, and a rejection of communism.
* In contrast to conservatism, open to change (e.g. in the structure of society) and not necessarily supportive of the social status quo.
* In common with socialism, a strong emphasis on social solidarity (i.e. the welfare state, prioritising alleviation of poverty, high taxes on the wealthy, etc.) and a willingness to restrain market forces.
* In contrast to socialism, supports capitalism and a market economy, does not advocate class struggle, and unlike revolutionary socialism, rejects violence as a means to achieve social change.
That would be me, with the exception that I have less in common with socialism, I oppose the “welfare state” because non-profit and faith-based organizations do a way better job of taking care of needy people with the money they are given, and I tend to think that restraining market forces is a last resort.
Missional Congregations
A short blurb from an interesting article I stumbled across about the difference between Maintainance and Missional Congregations. The that reminded me most of something I’d seen before was #10:
10. When thinking about growth, the maintenance congregations asks, “How many Lutherans live within a twenty-minute drive of this church?” The mission congregation asks, “How many unchurched people live within a twenty-minute drive of this church?”
I think that churches are called to be community to one another (derisively called “Maintenance” in the article) and to reach out into the community to spread the Gospel (“Missional”). But Percy is right – too often our attitudes turn inward, and as we get caught up in our own internal issues, we lose sight of our mission in the community. It doesn’t have to be that way.
On arbitrary definitions of human life
The definition of human life is not without controversy, and especially with the arguments surrounding the proposed Constitutional Amendment 2 in Missouri, it’s important to examine.
Definitions of human life or personhood proposed in this debate can be categorized into particular deadlines (e.g. implantation, a certain fetal age, fetal viability outside the womb), collectively Time, particular circumstances (e.g. actually living outside the womb or not), collectively Location, or particular abilities (e.g. ability to breath without assistance, ability to have a heart beat), collectively Abilities. All of these definitions suffer from one fallacy: arbitrariness.
First, time. Impassioned arguments can be made for personhood beginning at conception, beginning within a few weeks with the beginning of embryonic heart or brain activity, at the point where the fetus is viable, at the moment of birth). But if personhood is based upon (always someone else’s) standard of time, what abuses do we see? We see late term abortion, where healthy, viable babies are delivered halfway, then murdered with scissors before they take their first breath. We see euthanasia, where families sue each other to decide whether an elderly family member should live or die. Time is an arbitrary standard, always defined chiefly in terms of someone else’s convenience.
Next, circumstances. What can be more arbitrary than the location of the baby? If a baby is partly in the womb when it is killed, it is legal abortion, but if the baby is completely out of the womb, it is illegal murder. Mere inches – and absolutely nothing else – span the gap between one and the other.
Finally, and most sinister, is the standard of abilities. What abilities make a person? Who gets to decide? What happens when someone grows old and doesn’t have the same abilities – whether that is being able to clean their house or being able to breath without assistance? One of the first eugenics programs run by the Nazis used this standard to justify killing the insane, the chronically ill, and the elderly. Unfortunately this story isn’t often told. For more information, I recommend the book Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation by former President Ronald Reagan (interestingly, this book is the only book ever published by a US President while in office).
I am strongly pro-life based upon two standards. First, the Christian view of life is that all human life is created in God’s image, and therefore all human life is to be protected. Second, I think the most responsible response to the arbitrariness of the foregoing standards is to err on the side of the protection of life (the “principle of maximal life”). If there is any doubt as to the reliability of any standard, be it Time, Location, Ability, or anything else, then the most responsible choice is to choose the version of each standard which protects life the most. Therefore, we should treat human life as sacred, no matter how young or old, no matter where it is (in uterus or in hospice), no matter what it can do (breath or cry or feed itself).
The greatest risk that arbitrary standards for personhood run is that there will be a time when human life deserving personhood will not be given dignity and justice. Whether or not you agree that human life is created imago Dei (in the image of God), the priniciple of maximal life is still the principle most likely to grant personhood to everything which is actually a person, and therefore it is the most just standard we can ever apply.
Copyright 2006-2010 Ted Carnahan. Except where noted, the content of this site is licensed under CC-SA-BY.