Compromising Positions

I note this week there are bound to be times in a career when you're required to loyally implement policies with which you disagree. At such junctures, you may find yourself a prisoner of your own personal sense of honor; or, you alone, may possess the experience, expertise and contacts, to pull it off, thereby gratifying your ego, even if it means the ends aren't something you desired.

What can we think of an Admiral who orders the fleet to run a blocade of one-time Allies to deliver raw materials to an enemy that conquered his country, so that the conquerors release thousands of his fellow countrymen held prisoner? Although he's made a deal with the devil, and it looks as if Satan holds all the cards, it's only through the power of a fleet still personally loyal to him that he continues to possess a leverage that'd be lost if he committed the fleet to battle in support of either side. What would you do?

Such was the dilemna of Jean Louis Xavier Francois Darlan, Vice-Premier of the notorious Vichy regime, Admiral of the French Fleet. I note this week, a quixotic, and likewise conflicted, invitation by modern descendents of other Nazi victims. Organizers of the Global Anglican Future Conference, the anti-Lambeth meeting of those representing the reactionary arm of the Anglican Communion, "told the Jerusalem Post, this was not merely a gathering of an anti-gay coalition of bishops, but a meeting for 'orthodox' Anglicans to be getting on with things, doing the work of the church."

Likely in attendance will be the Bishop of the Bukedi Diocese of Uganda who's quoted recently in 'The New Vision - Uganda's Leading Website, that "advocates of gay rights have no place in the Kingdom of God - these are acts to question the ordinances of God. There's nothing like intellectualizing sin; sin is sin. How do you imagine a woman sharing the same bed with a woman or a man with a fellow man?" In Uganda, "according to the Penal Code Act, homosexuality is illegal and carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment."

Reflecting more than the 'not merely anti-gay' agenda, one stated Conference goal is to "bring fellowship and bear testimony to the Christian communities in Israel and Palestine." Darlan-esquely, there is more at stake here than meets the eye. Lacking friends in the world, Israel is no doubt cheered, as the Post reports, that last year, 15,000 Nigerian Christians made a pilgrimage to their country, and upon their return, affixed the initials, JP, after their names, competitively with Muslims, who add 'al Haj,' to their names after a similar trip. It is often true that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend,' yet, uniting Israeli Christians and Palestinians in hatred for the current nominees designated the premier outcast of the day, crosses a line, in a country founded by a people who once held that distinction, and know the consequences themselves, all too well.

Can compromise be uncompromising? I note this week, in Texas, a Federal court threw out a challenge to a law that allows schoolchildren to observe a daily minute of silence. As a staunch separation of State and Church defender, I can abide, with almost no qualms, a law that permits children to 'reflect, pray, meditate or engage in another other silent activities,' for one minute. If I was a Middle School kid in Texas, it's likely if I wasn't meditating upon the girl who told me she liked my best friend but doesn't know if he likes him or his best friend, I'd be praying for victory in the football game that afternoon, football, of course, being the supreme religion of Texas.

Someone approached me once in the parish hall and asked if I'd be joining the 'Purpose Driven Life,' course that was forming, I suppose, at every church in America, at that time. During those days, in addition to a full time job, and classes at seminary, I was managing a shelter three nights a week and Saturdays. I responded that I prayed to God daily for less purpose.

I'm wary of the purpose-driven phenomenon just as I was skeptical of Jabez and the Christian flavor of the month before that (yet if I could latch onto some theme myself and earn millions, to boot, I'm not totally averse...). I note this week, admiringly, a new, more substantial, book by Rick Warren's wife, Kay, who writes of how her compassion for AIDS victims led her into a "Dangerous Surrender." As reported by Rachel Zoll, in our local rag, "as recently as last year," a poll of born-again Christians revealed that "two out of five said they had more sympathy for people with cancer than for those with AIDS."

The Warrens have nevertheless waded in deep, potentially offending millions of acolytes, by not only focusing on care and prayer, but on practical prevention, including "correctly using condoms, limiting the number of partners, offering needle exchange," and as Kay states, "I don't know how anyone can reasonably say that virginity isn't a protection against HIV." I've never objected to abstinence - only to "Abstinence Only."

What constitutes uncompromising compromise? Is it possible to extinguish personal considerations borne of ego or the pride of accomplishment when it comes to making a decision on whether ends can accomodate involvement in means? Can we approach any issue solely on its merits despite an entrenched loyalty to country, faith, idea or party, that has held sway over our minds and hearts over a lifetime?

Peter Maurin, the French peasant philosopher and Catholic Worker theologian said it was all about trying to create a society where it's easier for people to be good. History demonstrates when that end is intentionally attempted without the enshrinement and institutionality of the principle of compromise, the end inevitably represents an uncompromising failiure of epic proportions.