THEODICY

Over 55 years ago one of the first patients I visited as a CPE student at the old Augustana Hospital in Chicago began our interview cursing out "your god"! A friend of his – a "good man" – had been killed when a piece of concrete dislodged from a building and fell on his head. "What sort of god allows such evil?"

That same question – in multiple formats – was asked repeatedly throughout those years of ministry. It has also spawned numerous articles and books – including the oft referenced "Why do bad things happen to good people" by Rabbi Kushner.

Currently a one act play at the Mercury Theatre in Chicago focuses attention on that – as well as other issues concerning belief in god. Freud's Last Session focuses attention on a "supposed" dialogue between Sigmund Freud and C.S. Lewis, occurring just weeks before Freud's death by suicide. Freud was battling terminal oral cancer; C.S. Lewis has recently experienced a "Damascus-like" experience resulting in his conversion to Christianity; and the world was poised at the beginning of World War II. [The play runs until early June, is reasonably priced, and would be an excellent trip for any group to take!] The play is written by Mark St. Germain and is based on a book by Dr. Armand M. Nicholl Jr., The Question of God: C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex, and the Meaning of Life [2002].

Watching it recently reminded me of all the many ways I had wrestled with the same questions – both professionally while ministering to countless patients – and personally while wrestling with the many challenges that confront each of us throughout life: Many ways – all of which came to the same lack of acceptable finality as experienced by Freud, Lewis, Kushner and many others.

Certainly one might find some "comfort" behind in these words from Isaiah [as translated by Eugene Peterson in The Message Bible]: "Who could ever have told God what to do or taught him his business? What expert would he have gone to for advice, what school would he attend to learn justice? What god do you suppose might have taught him what he knows, showed him how things work?"[Isaiah 40:13-40]

One might – but, also, one might not!

• First, it suggests a challenge to develop sufficient "smarts" so as to discover an answer.
  
• Second, if one might be able to achieve that challenge, then one is really toying with the idea that a human can be at the same level as God.
  
• Third, and no less easy to accept – Might it not be arrogant to demand that there be a specific answer to all and any of life experiences - answers that place responsibility beyond any human causality to some "divine" purpose.
  

Answers to the questions of "Why?" are usually available!

• My first patient's friend was killed because either mortar crumbles with age or a stone mason did a crappy job!
  
• Kushner's child had a fatal genetic disease because human genes are imperfect and can develop in fatal manners!
  
• Cancers develop because society has been irresponsible with carcinogens!
  
• Sickness and handicaps and death are all integral to life – because human life as we know it is not immortal!
  

"Bad" or "uncomfortable" or "painful" things are not de facto proofs that we have sinned; they are not signs that we lack the Creator's love. They occur because we are human and, as is true in all creation, perfection does not exist.

Someone once said – "Maturity is when we stop blaming our parents for what they did to us!"

It seems equally reasonable to suggest – "Maturity is when we stop blaming god for what happens in our life!"

That strengthens the message of Jesus that WE are responsible to be incarnate servants to each other – to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to visit the sick, to comfort the dying, to minister to prisoners.

What a wonderful gift – God choses us to be her/his co-creators!

Reflections at an Ordination

On All Saints Day 2009 an Ordination Service was celebrated by the Northern Illinois Synod, E.L.C.A. at First Lutheran Church in Rockford, Illinois. It was a joyous occasion as Ordinands, families and friends, members of the congregations being served by these new Pastors, and colleagues in ministry gathered to observe and affirm their responses to the Call!

Sitting in that historic sanctuary there were many thoughts and feelings. One was to recall my own ordination back in 1957 – and to recall the admonition of our preacher that “one cannot be a good pastor and a poor father or a poor husband!” The only change needed in 2009 would be “or a poor mother or a poor wife”. One cannot use ministry as an excuse from the responsibilities that go with marriage and parenting.

There were at least two other thoughts which drew me to reflecting.

The First Lutheran Congregation and Edifice.
The First Lutheran Church confronts one with its awesomeness even from the parking lot. Twin bell towers stand at her entrance and the sanctuary, offices and parking lot occupy almost 2 city blocks! This sense of awe continues when you enter the Nave. Deep, dark wood, a surrounding balcony, and a center altar and pulpit help create an inner peace and a sense of security.

The congregation dates back 155 years, while the sanctuary dates back 140 years! While reflecting on that history I became aware that these men and women did not come as immigrants to “do” church – they came to “be” the church. “Church“ is not something one does one day a week. The beliefs and values and priorities were lived seven days a week. Their hard work built a community in which manufacturing enabled families to grow and flourish. Their sense of “communion” started a bank so as to enable folks to buy homes, get through tough times, and finance creative inventiveness. Their sense of “call” kept them true to their values in the work place as well. Profits were important – but profit at the expense of one’s neighbors was wrong. Re-investing those profits in parks and other community ventures was the “value” – not greed!

And one further thought on how they “are” church – they continue to minister even though the neighborhood and the community have vastly changed! At that Ordination Service a Children’s Choir sang and instrumentalists joined with the organ to lead the worshippers “lift up their voices”.

The Presence of Colleagues in Ministry.
Approximately 30 brothers and sisters in ministry wore their robes and joined the occasion as witnesses. Lutherans, United Church in Christ, Episcopal, Clergy and Associates in Ministry led the procession into the Sanctuary! Together they represented more than 500 years of experience!

The 17th verse of Luke 10 [the chosen Gospel] reminds us that after the 70 labored in the “towns and places where Jesus had intended to go” – they returned as a group!

The Presence of so many “colleagues in ministry” testifies to an important lesson for all in ministry. We do not serve as Lone Rangers! We are there for each other - to study together, to share ideas, to support each other when the going gets rough, and, even, to correct each other when our ministries stray off track.

I hope Carrie, Theresa and Sarah will keep these reflections in their memory banks as they begin ministry as “ordained” clergy. That they are part of a wonderful and mighty historic legacy – and that they are not sent as lonely warriors, but as disciples who are many and to whom they can turn.

A Time for Dithering

Perhaps the Philosopher, author of Ecclesiastes, would add a new dyad to the verses in chapter 3. He begins with the powerful observation: “Everything that happens in this world happens at the time God chooses.” What follows are the words familiar to many. Then, I suggest the addition of this verse:
“He sets the time for dithering and the time for impetuosity.”

Former Vice President Cheney, and his supporters, accuse President Obama of “dithering” relative to a decision regarding the depth of our involvement in Afghanistan. “Send more troops” appears to be their desire! While entitled to their opinion, I am very pleased that President Obama is taking time about putting any more of our men and women in harm’s way.

Regardless of the choice made, “dither” is hardly an appropriate word! The dictionary offers these definitions:
Ø As a noun “dither” means an excited state of agitation!
Ø As a verb “dither” means to be nervously irresolute re: acting or doing!

The media reports suggest President Obama is being very resolute in his approach: talking with military advisors in the Pentagon, with Secretary of State, with elected members of Congress, and others who are knowledgeable about the issues in Afghanistan. There are no reports of his being “agitated”.

On the other hand, it might be an appropriate word for Mr. Cheney et al!

In Praise Of Doubt

Women and men in many significantly different denominations struggle to balance the “ancient Wisdom” passed down through generations and the “modern scientific knowledge” that is so much a part of our age.
* Intelligent Design or Evolution?
* Is homosexuality a sin or is it a sexual identity with its genesis in many aspects of life?
* Abortion – choice or killing?
* Living in harmony with neighbors of other faiths or still sending missionaries?

The list could go on – and, it seems, the challenge inherent in the struggle gets harder. Friends who were present at the most recent E.L.C.A. Assembly report they felt almost torn apart as they listened to the discussions. Whether or not the speakers was at a Red microphone or a Green microphone, my friends sensed that these were people of integrity, but for whom there was no resolution.

One friend in particular went home angry at the dilemma he felt. This is a devout person, well read, and active in the local parish. He is aware that our awareness of and about homosexuality in the 21st century is light years different from the time of Leviticus or the time of Paul. He is also aware of the important role of the Bible in our lives as Christians.

He resents having to choose between Relativism or Absolutism. He believes [and, I think he is correct] that such a choice results in personal and communal loss regardless of the decision!

Peter L. Berger [sociologist at Boston U.] and Anton C. Zijderveld [sociologist & philosopher at Erasmus University] have written a book which could be helpful to those bothered by such a stark choice. The title of their book is In Praise Of Doubt and the sub-title is “How to have convictions without becoming a fanatic”.

I strongly recommend the book. It is especially written with a concern for the religious and political challenges of this 21st century. They also have a concern that society needs a strong and vibrant religious and political life for survival.

Their descriptions of how “doubt” – not a “doubt” that keeps one from action because all is relative – reminded me of what Paul Tillich once wrote in a paper on Pastoral Care. Tillich believed that all pastoral care is directed towards acceptance of three important factors in life: mortality [we are all going to die], guilt [we can never pull off perfection] and doubt [our knowledge can only go so far and then faith has to step in].

The book is only 166 pages in length and it is published by HarperOne. It lists for $23.99 – but Amazon will get it to you cheaper.

What are we so busy doing?

These thoughts are a follow up to the comment by Wendi Gordon (9/29/09) re: the comments titled “Where have all the clergy gone?” My thanks to Wendi Gordon for helping move this issue further along.
Ms Gordon adds another factor interfering with today’s clergy having time is this reality: “..most clergy today are consistently working at least 50 hours a week and simply don’t have the time to add another meeting….”
Her point about long hours appears to be true from my observations. Clergy do work many hours a week and, often, at times that significantly interfere with their obligations to families and selves!
However, it seems that has always been the case. Surveys from the 1960s and 1970s indicate clergy were putting in greater than 60 hours a week – and these figures were often cited as de facto evidence of their dedication to ministry.
That raises the question – What are we so busy doing?
That question reminded me of an article, I believe it was by Robert Leslie that addressed the mental health of clergy. [It was included in Wayne Oates’ book on The Minister’s Own Mental Health.] Leslie identified five roles that clergy must perform: Pastor, Priest, Counselor, Educator and Administrator. A survey of clergy asked for ranking by 3 questions:
Which roles are most important?
Which roles are most enjoyable for you?
How do these roles occupy your time?
The answers to the first: Pastor, Educator, Priest, Counselor, Administrator.
The answers to the second: Pastor, Counselor, Educator, Priest, Administrator.
The answers to the third: Administrator, Priest, Educator, Counselor, Pastor.
Is it any different in 2009?
What really drives our “busyness”. [An old joke tells of a young priest who, one day, sees Jesus at the window. He wants to know what to do and searches for help. His calls are passed along up the line: Monsignor, Bishop, Cardinal and then the Pope. The Pope answers – “Look busy.”]
Are we reading our members correctly as to how our time is prioritized?
And, if the answers to question # 3 are still so completely different than # 1 and # 2, might this be some clue as to the cause of so much depression amongst the clergy?
I look forward to your reactions.

WHAT MUST I DO TO INHERIT ETERNAL LIFE?

This could be an important lesson in these weeks following the 2009 E.L.C.A. Assembly. The young man’s questions – and Jesus’ answer – are strong reminders of the concerns at the beginnings of Christianity.
Being a follower of Jesus involved doing and not intellectual assent!
In this 21st century there are almost countless concerns at which our energies ought to be addressed.
Hunger is a national concern.
Many who are sick are unable to afford care, thereby suffering a higher rate of death.
Violence in our streets is killing our children.
Folks continue to lose homes as mortgages are foreclosed.

“How hard it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God.” [Mark 10:23]

Jesus did not say “How hard it will be for those who don’t believe correctly to enter the kingdom of God.”

Maybe we might all take time these next 6-10 months to:
Take deep breaths – often!
Tithe!
Identify the poor in our areas – and make a commitment to serve them!

Just a thought.

Random Thoughts re: Health Care Reform - 1

As one who began working in hospitals 61 years ago, the current national debate about “health care re-form” greatly interests me. Indeed, the public debate often replicates the inner debate which has engaged me for years. Those of us who have spent years involved in the care of the sick have long recognized that there were/are problems.
Certainly the lack of insurance has been, and remains, an issue.
Certainly the amount of reimbursement for services, as well as its tardiness, is an issue.
Certainly the many agents that come between patient and physician – be that agent an insurer or a government bureaucrat, is an increasing issue.
Certainly the vast disparities of qualities of care across our nation are an embarrassment.
Certainly . . . . well, you can insert your own list of problems.

One activity of my own inner debate would involve lengthy periods of time wrestling with the question:
If given unlimited power and money, what would I do to “fix” the system?
The time spent in that wrestling, over decades, has increased my understanding of (and sympathy for) those leaders who have, seemingly, been unable to develop their own fix! “Power” [such legislation, licensing, etc.] and “financing” will not solve our many problems involved in the care of the sick. Indeed, one is even able to make a strong argument that they are among the causes of the problems.

However, the over six decades of involvement with the care of the sick plus the hundreds of hours spent in internal debate on ways to improve such care have given me ideas which often seem not to receive sufficient consideration. Those ideas will be the focus of this presentation [and, subsequent ones].

A. What’s in a name?

Whenever I was involved in purchasing a house in which to live my realtors almost always gave the same advice – “Location, location, location!” Everything else desired to make the home a more desirable residence could be added or re-modeled. But – you could do nothing about ‘location’.

A similar mantra ought to be attached to attempts at “health care reform” – Diagnosis, diagnosis, diagnosis! Unless we properly diagnose the problem, no “cures” will work.

The first concern for diagnosis in this process we have labeled “health care reform” is that very name!

Up until the 1960s our major institutions for the care of the sick were known as hospitals. They were places of refuge to which the sick and infirm could retreat. They were places of hospitality, in which the sick could feel secure as s/he sought healing and restoration. They were places that had either been started by religious groups or by community governments in recognition of the moral imperative to care “for even the least among us”.

Gradually throughout the 1960s and into the 1970s these institutions began shifting away from being “hospitals” to be Medical Centers. Certainly there were reasons for such a shift. Services other than caring for the sick were initiated! Many of these represented different “costing centers”. And, quite frankly, “Medical Center” sounded more prestigious than “Hospital”.

Then, in the late 1970s and 1980s another shift in name occurred. “Medical Centers” became “Health Centers”. Proponents of a “wholistic” approach to the care of the sick [or is it “holistic”] often felt constrained by words such as “hospital” or “medical center”. But Health Center – now there is a theme around which we can all rally!

Ahh, but wait a moment stated many of those who cared for the sick! We take care of the “sick” – and there are years of experience that help define shat “sick” means. What, though, do you mean by “health”? The nurses and doctors and therapists and technicians are trained in caring for the sick – trained, licensed; accredited and experienced.

But there is almost no universal agreement on the definition for “health”! None. Nada.
One issue has to do with our understanding of what disease means.
- Is disease the result of forces external to the self? Bugs, Germs, Physical traumas.
- Is disease the response of the self to those external forces?
Another issue would involve problems of social or behavioral concerns:
- Are wrinkles in one’s skin a “health” issue?
- Are smaller breast sizes or erectile dysfunction “health” issues?
- Are arguments between spouses a “health” issue?
- Is depression a “health” issue or a natural response to loss?
Also, we have the issue of death!
- Is death the antithesis to health and to be fought at all cost?
- Is death the ultimate in the process of homeostasis – the “final” solution?
- Is the “naturalness” of death to be determined by age? I.Q.? Social status? Wealth?
- Is the “naturalness” of death to be determined by theologies? Is anything less than all-out treatment an abomination before God? Or, as an act of love for others should death be welcomed – even sought?

There are studies which suggest the need for adequate diagnosis also exists in treatment approaches. The reliance on technologies has greatly hampered the process of diagnosis because it almost solely only looks at externals. Decades ago the act of diagnosis involved anamnesis – “out of the memory”. Patients were asked to tell/narrate the story of their sickness – and, almost always, that story revealed important criteria for treatment:
- Placement of a cardiac stent was complemented with help with stress, diet, etc.
- High blood pressure also involved styles of living.
- Obesity was not just a consequence of food additives.
- Etc.

And, because my involvement in the care of the sick was as a response to my vocation, what of the religious factors in the care of the sick?
Factors that can be positive assets for health as well as factors that can mitigate against health?
Are there any “meanings” for sickness? [How often do religious folk exclaim that such and such is God’s will?]
Is the role of the religious institution limited to times when medicine cannot treat and/or death occurs?
How do the religious institutions foster “healthier” [or, less dangerous] activities?

This is enough for the first installment. Hopefully the 2nd will come shortly.