Part of being a household of faith which self-describes itself as “radical” in the truest sense of the word means, it seems to me, that we have to look at issues which make even us, the radical ones, uncomfortable. Are we radical? We mean when we say that we are that we apply a radical interpretation of the gospels; and that we experience this in welcoming everyone at our mystical table. Our community is open to whomever comes our way by chance or choice. Our mystical table isn’t only the altar table–oh no–it is the table of our lives, and hopefully, not just our individual but our communal lives. We work in places where individuals are in danger because of something unjust or even inhuman is present. We live with the poor, the aged, the ill, the marginalized, the insecure, the afraid, the lonely, the searching, the young, the angry, the hungry, the homeless, the imprisoned, the learning, and the list goes on. Each of us have a comfort zone. That goes without saying. Some of us are at their best at walking the street serving the homeless, while others are superb administrators in organizations which serve. Some of us are chaplains and spirit companions, while others teach how one becomes such a companion. Some of us work secular jobs and become available to their co-workers as the need presents or have unpaid ministries after checking out of work. Many of us are retired, and do what older folk do so well, praying and listening and watching and responding. And all of us are challenged in ways particular to us. What is a fit for a companion in ministry in Yonkers NY won’t do for one of our own in Lexington KY; the passion of a companion in ministry in Australia won’t do for Mexico; the thrill of ministry found in the Virgin Islands would not fit a companion in Fort Wayne IN. Ones vocation is where our hunger to serve encounters one of the hungers of the world.
In this radical faith community a challenge for all of us is the death penalty in general, and particularly for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the “Boston bomber.” It isn’t an easy hunger of the world to address. It is filled with emotion. Massachusetts hasn’t executed anyone since 1047, and only a poll showed that just fifteen percent of Bostonians favored death in this case. But it was a federal, not state case, so the death penalty was always a possibility. And the entire jury voted for his execution.
I believe this is a mistake. I am convinced that our nation would send a far more powerful message by not taking the murderer’s life. I’m probably in the minority here, but I believe that this stance is what Jesus would have preferred; that doesn’t make me saintly, not at all. It makes me one willing to resist the urge to take a life in vengeance and to do so in a way that would cause pain to the murderer. But even as I admit that I feel that I must witness to life rather than death as a penalty for his horrible crime.
In our era, many countries have eliminated the death penalty. I know that many places still use it in what seems arbitrary ways and for inhuman reasons. That is a sadness for me, and a cross for us.
A hero of mine is Joseph Bernardin, the late Archbishop of Chicago. He wrote a pastoral and used the phrase “seamless garment” to describe life. Taking a life in vengeance unravels the fabric of life, and I prayerfully submit to your consideration that we members of a radical church are doing good when we oppose the death penalty.
Metropolitan Archbishop +Peter (Zahrt), Primate
Orthodox-Catholic Church of America (OCCA)
from WordPress http://ift.tt/1Q099zV
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment