Redemption and Character

Ted Kennedy’s death results inevitably in a review of his life—origins and influences, early behavior, and a long public run that rendered him the Lion of the Senate. I reflect on two significant aspects of Mr. Kennedy's life: redemption and character.

There is no denying Mr. Kennedy’s failures and shortcomings that seem rooted in his family’s privilege and ambition. (The family fortune had dubious sources and the patriarch father’s legendary immorality set a bad example.)

Mr. Kennedy bounced from boarding school to boarding school. Harvard expelled him for cheating. As a young senator, he walked away from a tragic accident that resulted in the death of an attractive young woman. By credible anecdotal accounts he long remained an alcoholic and womanizer.

Yet after his unsuccessful insurgent run for president against Jimmy Carter in 1980, Mr. Kennedy was a diligent senator who mastered procedure and reached across the aisle to work/compromise with the opposition party. He was an effective legislator and a leader of the political progressives. Jessie Jackson has judged him “the tallest tree” in the forest of civil rights.

After a much publicized divorce, he settled into a later life marriage that appeared harmonious. (The straight-laced Orrin Hatch was compelled to write a song, "Souls Along the Way," about Teddy and wife Vicky.) For the family he became beloved and revered "Uncle Teddy." Publicly he was considerate, congenial, and charming.

I struggle with my estimation of Ted Kennedy—the balance of his 77 years. My struggle relates to redemption—the cheap grace that so many seek after committing egregious acts. But I also recognize that an examined life can have a positive moral arc, an arc that bends toward better and better character. (Maybe Chappaquiddick and equivalent behavior in Mr. Kennedy’s midlife caused him to reflect and as a result he changed his moral trajectory. Here you might review his 1969 speech regarding Chappaquddick, judged by some to be among the hundred best.)

In the end I affirm that every human life is best understood as a work in progress—a continuing process of examination and adjustment. The moral arc of a life ought to bend toward goodness. Let this be the standard of redemption and character.

Science and Religion, A Rapproachement?

[On Sunday, The New York Times published an article by Robert Wright,“A Grand Bargain Over Evolution." Today, Wednesday, the letters to the editor have half a dozen responses, indicating a lively interest in the contemporary debate. I was late in sending in my letter/response. Here it is.]

Robert Wright’s appeal for a mutual appreciation by Science and Religion has two thick threads: 1) natural selection (evolution or Darwinism) is compatible with a traditional religious outlook that posits God; and 2) a “higher purpose” may be discerned, even by Scientists, as working through nature. For the sake of a greater good, including “world peace,” Mr. Wright calls for rapproachement between the two sides, because there is a significant area of agreement.

I’m pleased that the NY Times publishes such quality discourse. But I find myself arguing with Mr. Wright’s contentions in two significant dimensions.

As a minister who’s sought to heed the revolutionary insight of contemporary science, particularly evolutionary biology and neuroscience, I’ve concluded that in every instance Science trumps Religion. At the very least, Science explains better than ever, if not for the first time, the roots and branches of Religious thinking. Second, there’s a self-serving tendency of Religion to impose an anthropic principle, that human kind is somehow the goal of Nature, an expression of a “higher purpose.”

Mr. Wright’s “grand bargain” strikes me as something of a “half-way covenant.” He finds the story of natural selection compelling but wants to keep the valuable social constructs of religion viable. His “grand bargain” strikes me as no bargain for either side.

I say, let the empirical insights of Science prevail, and let Religion adapt to progressing truths.

In my estimation this is the “more evolved religion” drawing on “an awe inspiring story” Mr. Wright anticipates.

WWJD: Health Care Reform and the Golden Rule

At the Michael Vick/Philadelphia Eagles press conference on August 14, Tony Dungy related that when he first visited MV at Leavenworth, he asked him, “Where was the Lord in all this?”

This set me thinking. Relative to the health care reform debate, “Where is the Lord in all this?”

There has been scant reference to the culture’s dominant Christian ethic from either side of the debate. More to the point, relative to health care reform, WHAT WOULD JESUS DO?

As one who monitors religion and American culture, the absence of Christian ethics in the health care reform debate is resounding, especially in light of a relatively recent rave to wear bracelets inscribed with WWJD—WHAT WOULD JESUS DO?

President Obama, by posing this question, would significantly challenge the anti-reform protestors. Mr. Obama could once again reference the Golden Rule, his favorite ethical rubric.

Christians have long associated the Golden Rule with Jesus’ teachings as well as with Jewish scripture. Luke summarizes Jesus’ proclamation also referenced in Matthew: “And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.” (Seniors who enjoy Medicare might find insight here.)

There are other relevant Christian reference points, too: feeding the multitudes at the Mount; the declaration that “whatever you neglect to do unto one of these, you neglect to do to me;” healing the sick; and even raising the dead, begin an easy list of Jesus’ acts of charity.

In my estimation, at heart, Mr. Obama has time and again revealed himself as a Christian moralist who preaches egalitarianism rather than as a power-craving socialist. He has frequently cited the Golden Rule as a standard for personal behavior and for achieving social justice.

When confronted with responding to the question WHAT WOULD JESUS DO, could the opposition to health care reform persuade a Christian majority that Jesus would have sided with the big insurance or pharmaceutical companies, or have denied coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, or excluded undocumented aliens from coverage, or favored seniors at the expense of the larger population or favored the larger population over seniors, or favored men over women or vice versa…? That would be a hard, if not impossible, sell.

Dominic Crossan, a leading scholar of the Jesus Seminar, has argued persuasively that the historic Jesus was essentially an egalitarian who favored no one group over any other group. Logically, universal health care would be the moral result of applied Christian egalitarianism, where all are treated equally and each respected individually.

This is my modest proposal: Mr. Obama, recast your health care reform initiative. Call it henceforth “Golden Rule Health Care—An Egalitarian Solution.” The Christian majority could claim the Golden Rule as expressing Jesus’ ethic, while a larger community could cite the Golden Rule as a universal principle found throughout world religions and philosophies. And no one would dare speak against social egalitarianism, at least in the sense that "all men are created equal" with natural rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness

Such a recasting of health care reform would fit Mr.Obama’s criterion that faith or belief inform public policy only by appealing to universal principles. In Mr. Obama’s own estimation there is no more universal principle than the Golden Rule.