“To Be or Not to Be, that is the question…”
This partial quote from the soliloquy spoken by Prince Hamlet in Act III, Scene 1 of the play Hamlet by William Shakespeare came to mind this morning while I was at the gym and listening to the February 3, 2017 On Being podcast. This morning the podcast was a replay of an April 17, 208 conversation with the late Charles Colson, Greg Boyd and Shane Claiborne discussing what it might mean to be a Christian citizen. The opening lines of the Prince Hamlet’s soliloquy are:
“To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them: to die, to sleep …”
These lines came to mind because in this season of the body politic of the United States and, in fact, the world, we are, once again, questioning what it might mean to live one’s faith as we go about the everyday tasks of living. As is true for many others who come from a Christian framework I have been mystified by the support of President Trump by Christian leaders when I often experience him as mean spirited and disrespectful of those who act and think differently than he does. I am sure that there are many from other religious or philosophical frameworks that are very supportive of President Trump but I most familiar with the supporters who label themselves as Christian. In my mind, being mean spirited and disrespectful is not consistent with the teaching of Jesus.
Daily I get invitations to sign a petition or align myself with a group of those who are searching for a way to respond to this seemingly mean spirited and disrespectful approach to national and international issues. So far I have declined most of them although I was supportive of the women’s rallies in DC and many other cities. It seemed to me that those I knew participating in those rallies were offering positive alternatives and did not, for the most part, resort to name calling or focusing on what they were against.
Since the beginning of recorded history, the role of religious groups in the body politic has been passionately debated. In the politics of the United States the religious beliefs and affiliations of Presidents such as Jimmy Carter and John Kennedy have been especially evident. Groups such as the moral majority, the religious right, “the liberals” and all white have assumed a prominent role in the election of public officials. Single issues such as GLBT rights, abortion, fracking, mountain top mining and historically, the Third Reich, the slave trade and others have, for some determined the selection of leaders of the body politic.
The selection of the leaders of the body politic is also affected in the modern age by such factors as access to money, how effectively one uses social media and other communication techniques as well as the extent to which radio, television and another news media act and react.
In the On Being program there are many opinions expressed by the participants but no answers offered. In an atmosphere of mutual respect and love there is an exploration of various approaches to living out our lives as part of the body politic and as part of the religious family/community.
If the basis of one’s religion or spiritual beliefs is love, then how we treat each other in our search for what it means to be a present, active citizen of the body politic has to form the basis of those relationships. In the On-Being conversation, I earlier referenced Mr. Boyd who often made the point that if one’s primary allegiance is to one’s moral values then one cannot have one’s primary allegiance to a particular country or body politic. He uses the example of having a flag in a church. He finds that very confusing and contradictory. I, too, get confused by being asked to pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States in a church. This does not mean that one ignores one’s responsibility to one’s neighbor or community. In fact, Mr. Boyd is very concerned about how we, as a community, are addressing issues such as poverty which may have a significant impact on the moral choices available to many.
I think it was timely for On Being to rebroadcast the 2008 conversation this morning. It seems to me that it demonstrates that humility, respect, and passion can combine to create the atmosphere for what it might mean to be both citizens of the body politic and individuals committed to a religious framework. Refusing to engage in conversations – boycotting discussions – name calling, focusing on reacting and not offering positive, workable solutions or just pretending to opt out are not consistent with any spiritual principles which I understand.
I recall living in Alaska and visiting people who lived in very remote places so that they did not have to deal with the larger community. Yet, when they or their immediate family needed help with food, medical care, or education for their family they expected the larger community to be working and available to help. If we want more effective solutions to the concerns of the larger community, we much assume our roles as part of that community while honoring all others in that community. Obviously, this is not always an easy balance. Yet, conversations which Ms.Tippett and others host play a vital role in modeling what we can do on an everyday basis.
“To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them: to die, to sleep …”
Written February 3, 2017
This partial quote from the soliloquy spoken by Prince Hamlet in Act III, Scene 1 of the play Hamlet by William Shakespeare came to mind this morning while I was at the gym and listening to the February 3, 2017 On Being podcast. This morning the podcast was a replay of an April 17, 208 conversation with the late Charles Colson, Greg Boyd and Shane Claiborne discussing what it might mean to be a Christian citizen. The opening lines of the Prince Hamlet’s soliloquy are:
“To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them: to die, to sleep …”
These lines came to mind because in this season of the body politic of the United States and, in fact, the world, we are, once again, questioning what it might mean to live one’s faith as we go about the everyday tasks of living. As is true for many others who come from a Christian framework I have been mystified by the support of President Trump by Christian leaders when I often experience him as mean spirited and disrespectful of those who act and think differently than he does. I am sure that there are many from other religious or philosophical frameworks that are very supportive of President Trump but I most familiar with the supporters who label themselves as Christian. In my mind, being mean spirited and disrespectful is not consistent with the teaching of Jesus.
Daily I get invitations to sign a petition or align myself with a group of those who are searching for a way to respond to this seemingly mean spirited and disrespectful approach to national and international issues. So far I have declined most of them although I was supportive of the women’s rallies in DC and many other cities. It seemed to me that those I knew participating in those rallies were offering positive alternatives and did not, for the most part, resort to name calling or focusing on what they were against.
Since the beginning of recorded history, the role of religious groups in the body politic has been passionately debated. In the politics of the United States the religious beliefs and affiliations of Presidents such as Jimmy Carter and John Kennedy have been especially evident. Groups such as the moral majority, the religious right, “the liberals” and all white have assumed a prominent role in the election of public officials. Single issues such as GLBT rights, abortion, fracking, mountain top mining and historically, the Third Reich, the slave trade and others have, for some determined the selection of leaders of the body politic.
The selection of the leaders of the body politic is also affected in the modern age by such factors as access to money, how effectively one uses social media and other communication techniques as well as the extent to which radio, television and another news media act and react.
In the On Being program there are many opinions expressed by the participants but no answers offered. In an atmosphere of mutual respect and love there is an exploration of various approaches to living out our lives as part of the body politic and as part of the religious family/community.
If the basis of one’s religion or spiritual beliefs is love, then how we treat each other in our search for what it means to be a present, active citizen of the body politic has to form the basis of those relationships. In the On-Being conversation, I earlier referenced Mr. Boyd who often made the point that if one’s primary allegiance is to one’s moral values then one cannot have one’s primary allegiance to a particular country or body politic. He uses the example of having a flag in a church. He finds that very confusing and contradictory. I, too, get confused by being asked to pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States in a church. This does not mean that one ignores one’s responsibility to one’s neighbor or community. In fact, Mr. Boyd is very concerned about how we, as a community, are addressing issues such as poverty which may have a significant impact on the moral choices available to many.
I think it was timely for On Being to rebroadcast the 2008 conversation this morning. It seems to me that it demonstrates that humility, respect, and passion can combine to create the atmosphere for what it might mean to be both citizens of the body politic and individuals committed to a religious framework. Refusing to engage in conversations – boycotting discussions – name calling, focusing on reacting and not offering positive, workable solutions or just pretending to opt out are not consistent with any spiritual principles which I understand.
I recall living in Alaska and visiting people who lived in very remote places so that they did not have to deal with the larger community. Yet, when they or their immediate family needed help with food, medical care, or education for their family they expected the larger community to be working and available to help. If we want more effective solutions to the concerns of the larger community, we much assume our roles as part of that community while honoring all others in that community. Obviously, this is not always an easy balance. Yet, conversations which Ms.Tippett and others host play a vital role in modeling what we can do on an everyday basis.
“To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them: to die, to sleep …”
Written February 3, 2017
RSS Feed