Another good friend from Minnesota, Anita C. Hill, co-pastor at St. Paul-Reformation Lutheran Church, also visited my blog and wrote a response. She sent it directly to me and I will now share it with you:
"Blessings on your blogging experiment in public theology. From my theological perspective, our faith compels us into political discourse, and even more so, into political action. Actions that aim to revise policies so that the little ones (the anawim) of our society are lifted up and cared for.
''As an example, advocacy as people of faith in the great health care debate currently underway in the United States requires the input of people of faith. As part of Isaiah, a faith based community organizing institution and part of the Gamaliel Foundation (headquartered in Chicago), 13 members of the congregation I serve traveled to Washington, DC to advocate for health care coverage for everyone in America. Most recently, phone calls and letters have supported public option helth insurance as an option in the steps being taken toward reform.
"Yes, I do believe we can and must bring the best of our faith traditions to bear on the matters that hamper the masses from living the abundant life in the realm of God here and now.
"Might we find the need to revise our approaches, rethink theologically, compromise to get something through our political systems? Yes to all of these.
"Even so, I view political engagement as part of our calling as people of faith. For me as a Christian, how can I claim to follow Jesus without getting involved in the fray of the world and current situations of pain, oppression, racialization of opportunity, and economic inequalities?"
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Children born of heterosexual couples
A good friend from St. Paul, Minnesota, Marilyn McGowan, wanted to post a comment to my last posting, but couldn't figure out what they wanted for her profile. Therefore she sent it directly to me and I will now share it with you:
"In this society, there are far too many children born of heterosexual couples who are in no position to offer care and nurturing of their offspring. Many who become parents are no more than children themselves, most often not married nor intending to marry each other. They lack the skills to parent a child as many have not had positive parental role models in their own lives. Many of these "couples" come out of a cycle of violence in their upbringing and therefore are not prepared to establish a healthy marriage, nor assume the role of a nurturing parent. As a result children born into these situations suffer the consequences of violence and neglect."
"In this society, there are far too many children born of heterosexual couples who are in no position to offer care and nurturing of their offspring. Many who become parents are no more than children themselves, most often not married nor intending to marry each other. They lack the skills to parent a child as many have not had positive parental role models in their own lives. Many of these "couples" come out of a cycle of violence in their upbringing and therefore are not prepared to establish a healthy marriage, nor assume the role of a nurturing parent. As a result children born into these situations suffer the consequences of violence and neglect."
Friday, September 25, 2009
Let's "air out" the public square
One of the courses I'm taking is called "Frontier Questions in Queer Ethics" and I want to share with you the words with which our professor Theodore W. Jennings started our class last monday. I didn't record his words, so I will not be able to quote him literally, but his words were approximately the followings:
"In this class we will not argue in favor of homosexuality as an acceptable way of life. This is something we will take for granted. It is on the contrary heterosexuality which should defend itself in view of the failures of so many marriages which end in divorce and so many nuclear families which don't give their members and specially the children the emotional support they are supposed to offer them.
"It is right that only a couple formed by a man and a woman can engender children in the traditional way. But even when we know that this is not the only way of engendering children nowadays, I would argue that bring more children into the world is not the most pressing need we have in most of the countries of this world.
"And furthermore. Even when every child needs a home, I would say that all the statistics about children abuse show that the nuclear family is the most dangerous place for the upbringing of children."
Provocative words? Definitely. Exaggerated? Perhaps. But to reverse the way in which we normally think was for me very illuminating.
Therefore I want to make a proposal, at least for a certain extent of time. That we agree on asking the majorities, rather than the minorities, to be who have to justify themselves in their ways of life. And that nobody will criticize others without looking first at their own faults.
What do you think? Would it not allow the public square to "air out"?
"In this class we will not argue in favor of homosexuality as an acceptable way of life. This is something we will take for granted. It is on the contrary heterosexuality which should defend itself in view of the failures of so many marriages which end in divorce and so many nuclear families which don't give their members and specially the children the emotional support they are supposed to offer them.
"It is right that only a couple formed by a man and a woman can engender children in the traditional way. But even when we know that this is not the only way of engendering children nowadays, I would argue that bring more children into the world is not the most pressing need we have in most of the countries of this world.
"And furthermore. Even when every child needs a home, I would say that all the statistics about children abuse show that the nuclear family is the most dangerous place for the upbringing of children."
Provocative words? Definitely. Exaggerated? Perhaps. But to reverse the way in which we normally think was for me very illuminating.
Therefore I want to make a proposal, at least for a certain extent of time. That we agree on asking the majorities, rather than the minorities, to be who have to justify themselves in their ways of life. And that nobody will criticize others without looking first at their own faults.
What do you think? Would it not allow the public square to "air out"?
Welcome to my blog
I wanted to come to the United States.
I'm fascinated by the fact that in this country you can turn up in the public square and advocate for your cause from your religious faith, that is, your religious faith is not only something reserved to your private life. And nobody will think that you are crazy for doing that. To argue for your ideas in the public square from your religious faith is as legitimate as doing it from other kind of convictions.
My impression is that it is indeed better to state clearly which is your faith if you have a faith and you are advocating for something in the public square.
I will continue observing how people in this country relate their religious faith to their public life, and I will use my blog to make comments on my observations and on what surprises me and to ask questions I want to discuss with you.
And the first question I have is if this practice of advocating for your causes in the public square from your religious faith really promotes the discussion. Can you argue from your faith and at the same time concede that you can be wrong? Can you argue from your faith and at the same time be open to be corrected?
Everywhere in this country I have been met with great hospitality and interest, not only in my own story and my own country, but also interest in my observations about this country, maybe because the stranger's eyes sometimes can view things which otherwise would not catch your attention. So I'm not afraid of being impertinent, but please tell me if this nevertheless should be the case.
Welcome to my blog!
I'm fascinated by the fact that in this country you can turn up in the public square and advocate for your cause from your religious faith, that is, your religious faith is not only something reserved to your private life. And nobody will think that you are crazy for doing that. To argue for your ideas in the public square from your religious faith is as legitimate as doing it from other kind of convictions.
My impression is that it is indeed better to state clearly which is your faith if you have a faith and you are advocating for something in the public square.
I will continue observing how people in this country relate their religious faith to their public life, and I will use my blog to make comments on my observations and on what surprises me and to ask questions I want to discuss with you.
And the first question I have is if this practice of advocating for your causes in the public square from your religious faith really promotes the discussion. Can you argue from your faith and at the same time concede that you can be wrong? Can you argue from your faith and at the same time be open to be corrected?
Everywhere in this country I have been met with great hospitality and interest, not only in my own story and my own country, but also interest in my observations about this country, maybe because the stranger's eyes sometimes can view things which otherwise would not catch your attention. So I'm not afraid of being impertinent, but please tell me if this nevertheless should be the case.
Welcome to my blog!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
