Zen Buddhist chaplains offer something to modern healthcare

On my other blog, Live a Beautiful Story, I recently posted an entry about the Zen chaplaincy at Beth Israel Medical Center in New York City. In light of the current national discussion on healthcare reform, perhaps everyone at the table should keep in mind the spiritual dimension as well.

"Good morning, Laser Monks, greetings and peace"

This story in the New York Times shows the overlap of ancient and modern in a religious setting of current-day Wisconsin. The Cistercian monks maintain practices of monastic life--simple work, daily prayer (much in Latin, even) several times a day, and quiet self-dedication.

On the other hand, the monks support themselves in a completely modern way. They (along with two lay women who run the day-to-day operations) sell computer printer ink jet and toner cartridges over the internet.

This past weekend, my aunt and I were discussing the entrepreneurial endeavors of some in the Amish communities of Minnesota. Similar to the monks, some Amish workers have taken up more value-added enterprises to support themselves. Even without computer-based businesses, the Amish enterprises can stretch their simple lifestyles by incorporating electricity, motor vehicles, and telephones to produce high-end furniture or specialty cheeses, for example.

Competing rights against "discrimination"

The Washington Post recently reported on the clash between religious expression and civil rights of gays.

The Post notes, "Faith organizations and individuals who view homosexuality as sinful and refuse to provide services to gay people are losing a growing number of legal battles that they say are costing them their religious freedom."

As one might expect, advocates on both sides are pushing for more legislation to protect their positions. However, with all constitutional rights, no right is absolute, and there are often reasons for any particular right to give way to a greater purpose.

Holy Week and Easter

One of my pet peeves about Holy Week and Easter is the tendency (urge, perhaps?) of some factions of Christians to turn the commemorations of Jesus's last days into dramatic re-enactments. Recently, Slate.com noted the shortcomings of passion plays and similar dramas in conveying the full message of Jesus.

Why aim for verisimilitude in violence but not in other historical points? The typical Passion-play Jesus, grinning warmly in his bright white robe, doesn't tell us much about the first-century Jewish itinerant whose bold, sometimes bewildering stories and proclamations led him to the Passion path.

Churches should also consider other approaches to storytelling. Their ur-story should be not just epic but multiform. To quote writer and preacher Frederick Buechner, the Gospel is "tragedy, comedy, and fairy tale"—it happens on scales that are grand as well as domestic, historic, comic, mythic, realistic.

And there are also other Jesus stories to tell—including the ones Jesus shared. One famous Gospel phrase is (in the Latin Vulgate) compelle intrare, meaning "compel them to come in." The words come from a stirring parable Jesus told about a rich man who sends invitations for a fabulous dinner party, only to have no one accept. So the rich man has his servants round up "the poor and crippled and blind and lame," ending his pronouncement with a rhetorical flourish: "Compel them to come in." (St. Augustine co-opted the phrase, making it a theological basis for state-sponsored acts against heretics.)

It's Easter. Spring is here, though the calendar doesn't quite match the weather in many places. With the fast of Lent over, churches hoping to share their beliefs could take Jesus' parable as a suggestion: Throw a dinner. Make it lavish. "Go out to the highways and the hedges," as the rich man said, and invite the poor, the crippled, the blind, the lame. What kind of story would that tell?

In a related piece, Slate also looked at the history of "Why was Jesus Crucified?"

Common ground among several world religions

Recently, The Atlantic ran a religion piece, "One World, Under God," about how "history suggests a happier outcome" for politics concerning the three world religions that trace their roots back to Abraham--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

For all three Abrahamic faiths, then, tolerance and even amity across ethnic and national bounds have a way of emerging as a product of utility; when you can do well by doing good, doing good can acquire a scriptural foundation. This flexibility is heartening for those who believe that, in a highly globalized and interdependent world, the vast majority of people in all three Abrahamic faiths have more to gain through peaceful coexistence and cooperation than through intolerance and violence. If ancient Abrahamics could pen laudable scriptures that were in their enlightened self-interest, then maybe modern Abrahamics can choose to emphasize those same scriptures when it’s in their interest.

The article takes a notably Christian angle (probably because of that religion's prominence and political influence in America) and does a nice job looking at biblical scholarship about the Gospels and the letters of Paul to trace the "early" message of Christianity.

(Photo by beggs; used by permission.)

Shifts in American Christian identity

In a short essay in Newsweek, Lisa Miller reports that American Christians are looking for new labels for themselves. Denominational names, like Lutheran and Methodist, are old-fashioned. Even, "evangelical" has taken on cultural baggage many want to shed. The new (non-baggage) label seems to be "follower of Jesus." Check out the essay for the pros and cons of the "follower" label.

Remembering a pioneer in "disability theology"

Most of us have not heard of Nancy Eiesland, and I had not until I read her obituary in the New York Times. Her theology sounds fascinating and her life sounds amazing. Here are a couple short excerpts from the Times:

By the time of her death at 44 on March 10 [,2009], Ms. Eiesland had come to believe that God was in fact disabled, a view she articulated in her influential 1994 book, “The Disabled God: Toward a Liberatory Theology of Disability.” She pointed to the scene described in Luke 24:36-39 in which the risen Jesus invites his disciples to touch his wounds.

. . .

Ms. Eiesland’s insights added a religious angle to a new consciousness among the disabled that emerged in the 1960s in the fight for access to public facilities later guaranteed by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The movement progressed into cultural realms as disabled poets, writers and dramatists embraced disability as both cause and identity.

According to her husband, as referenced in the obituary, Ms. Eiesland's death was not caused by her disability.

(Photo by bunnyandcoco; used by permission.)

Church shopping is an American tradition

Slate.com reported that church shopping is very common among Americans, including now the first family. The idea of applying American capitalism to religion is deeply rooted in our country's history, along with the ideas of freedom of religion and individual autonomy. However, the idea of "commercializing" God gives rise to criticism from some.

Church shopping, marketing, and the not-so-sanctified practices that go with them make easy targets for criticism. But competition among churches for worshippers has always been fierce in the United States, to the benefit of American religion and individual churchgoers. The prohibition against establishing an official state religion helped give us the shoppers' paradise that is our religious marketplace.

(Photo by iboy_daniel; used by permission.)

Supreme Court says "no" to an additional monument next to 10 Commandments

Under its analysis of the First Amendment's freedom of speech clause, the U. S. Supreme Court recently ruled that a religious group could not compel a municipality to accept its gift of a religious monument to be displayed in a park along with an existing Ten Commandments monument. Here is the New York Times story on the Court's decision.

Beginning of Lent (AKA day after pancake race)

Yesterday, for Shrove Tuesday, citizens of Liberal, Kansas and of Olney, England raced for the 60th annual Internation Pancake Day race. This year, a member of the Kansas team won. A short news story, from Wichita television station KAKE (I'm not making that up), describes the events history.

A slightly longer news story, from the Wichita Eagle, elaborates on this year's race. An earler Wichita Eagle story explained how last-minute individual donors came to the event's rescue after the long-time donor--a pancake and muffin mix company--chose not to donate the pancake mix for this year's event. By the way, besides the 5,000+ pancakes made for the event (eaten by hungry crowds, I presume), another 100 "super-duper extra tough" pancakes were made for the flipping race.

U. S. Supreme Court to consider religious military memorial

Supreme Court cases involving government and religion are always interesting. Often the outcomes seem to vary depending on the particular facts of a case. Usually that means that the Court is trying to balance expression of religion and the governmental "entanglement" with religion.

In October, the Court will consider a case involving a cross erected as a military memorial in a federal preserve. Here is the L. A. Times story on the case.

Two years ago, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals . . .declared the cross an "impermissible governmental endorsement of religion."

. . .

Bush administration lawyers appealed to the Supreme Court last fall and said the "seriously misguided decision" would require the government "to tear down a cross that has stood without incident for 70 years as a memorial to fallen service members."

. . .

In a friend-of-the-court brief, the VFW, American Legion and other veterans groups said the 9th Circuit's ruling, if allowed to stand, could trigger legal challenges to the display of crosses at Arlington National Cemetery and elsewhere.

As you may recall, the U. S. Constitution does not contain the phrase "separation of church and state."

(Photo by Clearly Ambiguous; used by permission.)