What does it mean to "serve others?"

Twenty-fifth Sunday in Ordinary Time

In last Sunday’s gospel we heard Jesus call us to pick up our cross and follow Him.  This Sunday He admonishes the disciples for arguing and tells them that the greatest among them is the one who is a servant to others.

As society moves inexorably in the direction of becoming more secular, the values held up as “normal” are self-fulfillment and personal freedom, rather than authentic freedom which comes from acquiring virtues through commitment and self-sacrifice.  When God gave us the 10 Commandments, He laid out a prescription for developing a virtuous life and a healthy society.  The vitality and strength of our society depends on our willingness to make personal sacrifices in order to achieve personal excellence, and in service of one another.  Disciplining our minds and bodies requires sacrifice (picking up our cross), and it is the opposite of radical freedom to do as we please.  Serving one another builds trust, strengthens our communities, and secures our future.  The free-market economy rewards discipline and sacrifice.  Businesses that serve their customers well, operate efficiently enough to have competitive prices, and invest in their productive capacity are rewarded.  Competition on the basis of quality, cost, and service reinforce these principles over and over again in the marketplace.  Organizations that have no competition become inefficient, lose touch with their customers, and become self-serving.  For this reason, we have laws against monopolies… except when it comes to government entities. 

Over that past half century our government at all levels has allowed labor monopolies to dictate terms that have made city, state, and local government inefficient and bloated.  With no alternative labor force, city, state, and local governments have little or no bargaining power with the unions that staff their schools, police, fire, and maintenance divisions.   The Chicago teachers strike is but one example of unions dictating terms to city government.  Despite being among the highest paid teachers ($76,000 average salary) in the country, with a student-teacher ratio of only 16-1, the union demanded and received a pay raise, despite that fact that recent census data reveals that tax payers funding this increase have lower average incomes than seen in 20 years.  Moreover, union pensions and benefit plans are far richer than those of constituent taxpayers.  In this same school district, nearly 80% of eighth graders are below proficiency levels in both math and reading.  Never the less, teachers successfully resisted an effort to increase the percentage of their annual reviews based on student outcomes from 30% to 40%. 

This scenario has been repeated over and over in many cities whose school districts face mounting deficits.  The Chicago school district faces a $1 billion deficit over the next fiscal cycle with no means of balancing the budget now, other than increasing taxes.  In the private sector, when a business, or school for that matter, fails to achieve results and/or goes into deficit, it is forced to shut down, and is replaced by its competitors.  Not so with government entities. Instead, the unions of government employees spend billions of dollars endorsing political candidates who agree to continually raise taxes in support of the inefficient, and in many cases ineffective, government programs.  None of this serves the best interest of students or society.  As Jesus admonishes, those who serve others are the greatest, not those who serve their own interests first, in deference to the needs of the community and the inability of the community to pay for government employees to have better pay, better benefits, and better pensions than the average tax payer in the private sector. 

In this day and age we need to ask ourselves what constitutes serving others effectively?   While there’s certainly a place for financial support for the poor, the sick, and the unemployed, when does such support become a hindrance to personal growth and authentic freedom?   I was working in Wausau Wisconsin when then-governor Tommy Thompson passed a statewide welfare reform that was to serve as the model for a national reform of welfare programs a few years later.  Before the new state law took effect, everyone was fearful of the impact it would have on the poor and the unemployed.  To the shock of many, the program was a huge success.  People required to participate in job training, and to seek employment, did so.  Not only did unemployment decrease statewide, incomes went up, productivity increased statewide and with it, tax receipts increased.  Government funding of schools improved, and the state began to run a surplus.  Many of the chronically unemployed reported enhanced self-esteem at learning new skills and obtaining jobs.

Unfortunately, our nation has been going the opposite direction in recent years.  The requirement to seek work, which was the crucial centerpiece of National Welfare Reform, has been removed, benefits extended to 99 weeks, and food stamp assistance has been dramatically expanded.  This has been referred to as “the welfare trap” because it is so hard to let go of these benefits, especially when they add up to more money than people can make in entry level jobs.   Does this serve the poor, or does it ensnare them by discouraging the development of the virtues of self-reliance and industry?   In communist countries where totalitarian governments attempted to create a workers paradise, the lack of market incentives resulted in poor quality, inefficiency, and a miserably failed national economy.   With no opportunity to benefit from their labor, or acquire property, employees had no incentive to hone their skills, no reason to work hard, and no repercussions for shoddy workmanship.  In the case of Russia, it also contributed to rampant alcoholism, depression, and rising suicide rates.  All this also contributed to declining longevity, especially for men whose life expectancy fell to about 60 years old, compared to 77 years old in Germany.  See the attached article for details on this: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/05/19/russia.../index.html

The best way to serve our country is to return to the values and virtues that have made us a great nation with the strongest economy in the world.  Rather than promote the growth of inefficient government programs that lack the disciplines of the private sector, we should be encouraging self-reliance, personal growth, and success built on hard work, determination, and competition.  It is the private sector that made us the great nation we have become, precisely because of risks and rewards of the market economy.  When we excuse the government sector from the rigors of competition, we invite mediocrity and failure.  Rather than castigate those who have succeeded in the market economy, we should celebrate their success, learn from it, imitate it, and encourage others to do so as well. 

When I was in a leadership role in the private sector, I attempted to be a ‘servant-leader.’  I don’t think I succeeded in this effort as well as I would have liked.  It meant being honest with people when they failed, and allowing them to suffer the consequences of their failures.  But it also meant reinforcing success at every opportunity, and helping every person develop their personal strengths.  This is the way to promote healthy success, and we need national leaders who are able and willing do this.  We are not helping anyone when we accept and reward mediocrity, and pay for it by taxing those who have achieved a modicum of success.      

"One Nation, Under God"

“Who do you say that I am?”

This is the question Jesus asks His disciples, and we too must answer the same question.   Do we believe Jesus was simply a man whose reputation was embellished by His ardent followers?  Do we believe He was the Son of God, but now long-gone and irrelevant to our modern age?   Do we believe that He is our Lord and Savior, but only as long as we can preserve our individual freedom of conscience?  Does each of us get to define Jesus as the person we want Him to be; there when we need Him, and absent the rest of the time?   Is He relevant to our daily lives, or meekly in the background waiting for us at the time of our death? 

These are questions each of us must answer, not only at the time of our death, but here and now,  in the formation of our personal beliefs.   Do we believe what He said to the disciples, or do we think he was speaking only in the context of His historical time?  Perhaps a review of what Jesus said about Himself can inform our belief.  At various times Jesus described Himself as: “Son of Man” (a reference to many prophecies in the Old Testament), “The Good Shepherd,” “Bread come down from heaven,” “Living Water,” the “True Vine,” the “sheep gate,” and of course, “the Way, the Truth and the Life.”  Taken out of context, these titles make little sense, but when reading the text of each passage, a theme emerges.  Jesus connects us to God and is our only means of connecting with God… we cannot do it on our own.   Moreover, we cannot pick and choose among what Jesus taught, and adhere only to what is comfortable or convenient in our lives.   Either we accept Him at His word, or we reject Him.  When we reject Jesus, we reject God because Jesus also explained clearly that He and the Father are one, and when we know Jesus, we know God the Father.

Unfortunately many Christians seem to believe it is okay to pick and choose which of Jesus’ teachings to follow while ignoring the rest with impunity.  We call Catholics who do this, “cafeteria Catholics,” as if we can claim to be authentically Catholic even while rejecting major tenets of the Catholic faith.  Catholics spoke prominently at both presidential conventions last month and both conventions closed with a prayer offered by Cardinal Dolan.   The Democratic convention included Catholics Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Katherine Sibelius, Carolyn Kennedy, and Sister Simone Campbell who has been on a bus tour criticizing Paul Ryan’s budget plan.  Sister Simone and other pro-life Democrats believe that a cut in the rate of increase in Medicaid spending will result in more abortions.  Amazingly, none of these self-professed Catholics seem to have a problem with the Democratic platform that is pro-abortion, supports gay marriage, and until amended in a hotly contested oral vote, precluded any mention of the name of God.  Moreover they shared the podium with the heads of Planned Parenthood and NARL (National Abortion Rights League).  Despite these flagrant affronts to the Catholic faith, Cardinal Dolan closed the Democratic convention with a prayer for the protection of religious liberty and the unborn.  Here’s an excerpt of his prayer: “Grant us the courage to defend it — life, without which no other rights are secure.  We ask your benediction on those waiting to be born, that they may be welcomed and protected.”  Although he got in the last word, no one seemed to take notice.

This election year our country is more polarized than ever.   The difference between the two parties has never been more distinct or more divisive.  The differences in social policy with regard to abortion and marriage leave no room for compromise and even disputes in fiscal policy revert back to questions about each party’s approach to social issues.  With so much incivility and such a wide chasm between the beliefs of the two parties, I’m reminded of how divided the country was when the Civil War erupted.  The northern states had abolished slavery and the southern states wanted not only to maintain slavery, but see it expanded as more states joined the union.   Many believe that the event which triggered the civil war was the Supreme Court’s decision in the Dred Scott case in 1857 which declared that Africans were not citizens and therefore had no rights; not even the right to defend themselves in court.  This meant slaves could be beaten and even killed with no means of redress.   Abraham Lincoln ran for president as a Republican on a platform of abolishing slavery.  Southern Democrats accused him and other Republicans of being “lawless rebels” for refusing to accept the law of the land as determined by the Supreme Court.  We all know that the Civil War ensued and although slavery was indeed abolished, it would be yet another 100 years before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would outlaw racial, ethnic, religious, and gender discrimination.  Civil rights was an issue promoted mainly by Christian leaders like Martin Luther King and Bishop Sheen who decried the immorality of discrimination. 

In many respects, history seems to be repeating itself.  In the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, the court declared that individual states did not have the right to place restrictions on abortion.  Like slaves in the 19^th century, unborn children have no rights; not even the right to life.  Once again, Republicans refuse to accept this injustice and the immorality of taking the lives of defenseless unborn children.  This debate has been on-going for 40 years and now seems to be culminating in the stark contrast between the values of the two parties and their presidential candidates.  President Obama refers to himself as an Evangelical Christian, but disregards the core message and meaning of Christ’s teaching: that all life is sacred.  He does not comprehend that the murder of unborn children is intrinsically evil.

This term, “intrinsically evil” has been much discussed lately by the Pope Benedict and Catholic bishops.  They teach that certain things are intrinsically evil, and can never be condoned or rationalized.  Moreover, anyone who supports intrinsically evil acts makes themselves a party to that evil, and this includes endorsing laws and politicians who facilitate such evils.  Christians willing to accept “intrinsic evil,” because their support for social justice, are sadly mistaken.   Caring for the poor is an important social justice issue, but does not carry the same moral gravity as defending human life.  Our public culture is deeply confused about moral issues because of the growing belief that truth is a private matter and that happiness is rooted in willfulness rather than virtue.  Ironically, the same people who argue that there are no moral absolutes would be incensed if someone lit a cigarette next to them in a restaurant, or parked in a handicapped space without a permit.  At the same time, we are moving in the direction of categorizing Christians as irrational bigots for our failure to conform to the hierarchy of values established by judicial precedent, e.g. that privacy is more important than human life.  We have become a divided nation where those who believe in the inherent dignity of every human life, and in the nature of marriage as God intended, are scoffed at as extremists, hiding under the pretense of “religious freedom.” 

This amounts to nothing less than a culture war, a struggle that is at the heart of the political divisions separating our nation.  The crux of this culture war is the problem that our nation cannot arrive at a moral consensus.  The result is that our politics have become embittered and polarized.  When our nation was founded, there was a moral consensus and it was based on “the laws of nature, and nature’s God.”  America began with the assertion that there are deep truths written into the human condition.  But now people deny this and believe each person determines his/her own truth and no one can impose their truth on another.  This brings us back to the question of who we think Jesus is, and whether or not we believe in the moral values He taught.  Lets’ pray that our nation finds a way to return to a belief in the moral values that made us the great nation we have become: “One nation, under God, indivisible…”  When you take God out of our nation, we become divided. 

Listening for understanding

The Sunday readings are back to Mark’s gospel now.  Last week we heard Jesus explain that it’s not what goes into a man that defiles him, but what comes out of him:

"From within people, from their hearts,
come evil thoughts, unchastity, theft, murder,
adultery, greed, malice, deceit,
licentiousness, envy, blasphemy, arrogance, folly.
All these evils come from within and they defile." (Mark 7:23)

This coming Sunday Mark will tell us about Jesus opening the ears of a deaf man.  As we enter into the final two months of the presidential election season, all of us will be hearing more and more about the two candidate and their party platforms.  I wonder how many Americans are really listening and understanding what the candidates are saying, as opposed to hearing only for what they already agree with and want to hear?  According to the pollsters, most Republicans and Democrats will vote their party, and the so-called independents and undecided voters will swing the election one way or another. Each party demonizes the other and fills the media with ads attacking their opponent, especially in the swing states. 

Can anyone sift through all this trash-talk and really learn what kind of president each candidate would make?  I would like to suggest that instead of taking a political view of the candidates, we all compare and contrast the candidates and their party platforms based on the moral value of their positions and party planks.  After all, the purpose of any government is supposed to be to seek and ensure the “common good.”  Rather than assess the political impact of the speeches and ads, we might instead carefully examine the content of each party’s platform to determine which one best serves the common good.  The next president and the majority party in congress will not only be passing legislation, they will be writing the administrative laws that interpret legislation according to their values and vision for America.

Will the laws and administrative rules of America be based on authentic values that promote the common good?   How do we define what’s good for America?  How does each party define morality?  Pope Benedict has said that separating law from morality “fails to recognize the full breadth of human nature and in fact diminishes man and threatens humanity.”   Cardinal Dolan who gave the closing benediction at the Republican National Convention, and will do the same at the Democratic convention this week, has said that laws which violate human dignity – no matter how much they appear to make people free—contribute to the culture of death. 

President Obama is right about one thing: there is a sharp contrast between the two parties and candidates.  They hold completely different values and each has their own definition of morality.  One party’s platform places a high value on abortion rights, gay marriage, and higher taxes on the wealthy as a means of reducing national debt. The other party opposes all three, believing in the intrinsic value of every human life from the moment of conception, defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and wants to lower taxes on small businesses and their owners in order to stimulate the creation of new jobs.  

Rather than debate the political wisdom of these very different platforms, examining them from a moral context is perhaps the best way to predict the benefits and consequences of each alternative.   President Obama is being characterized as caring more about the poor and the middle class, certainly a good thing.  But he exercises this concern by offering to give people absolute freedom, including the freedom to kill unwanted children in the womb, freedom to marry same sex partners, and a safety net that provides money, food, and healthcare for those who for one reason or another failed to develop job skills.   Are these values morally good, or do they diminish human dignity by placing personal freedom ahead of human life and family values?  The consequences of this value system are lower birthrates, fewer people entering the workforce, either because they were never born or because it’s so much easier to accept government assistance than to finish one’s education and start at the bottom of the pay scale for unskilled labor.   It also results in fewer people contributing to the productive capacity of our nation and fewer people paying taxes.   As we’ve seen the past four years, this results in our government spending far more money than it takes in, hence the $16 trillion deficit faced by our nation.  Where’s the “common good” in all of this?

The other party promotes human dignity by recognizing the innate value of every human life and therefore condemning abortion as morally wrong.  They also uphold the vital importance of traditional marriage as the place for bringing children into the world in a safe and secure environment with a mother and father to teach them to respect human dignity, develop virtuous habits such as temperance, personal responsibility, and sexual continence.  Children of traditional families are more likely to complete their education, and add constructively to the nation’s economy.  The consequence is higher birth rates, more workers entering the workforce, higher productivity, higher incomes, and more tax revenue,  enabling the government to balance its budgets so that the burden of debt is not passed on to future generations.  Doesn’t this sound more like the “common good?”

Over the next couple months, tune your ears carefully to hear not just political rhetoric, but listen instead for the moral values of the two candidates and the two parties.  Which one resonates with your personal values and vision for the common good of our country?   As Michele Obama said during her speech Tuesday night, being president doesn’t change you, it simply reveals who you really are.  Listen carefully and hear what comes from the hearts of the two candidates, and ask yourself if it defiles them or reveals them to be promoting the moral values that will uphold and strengthen our country.   Are they spewing political rhetoric that appeals to the selfish desires of their ardent supporters who hold personal freedom to be the penultimate value, regardless of the consequences to our nation; or are they revealing themselves to be leaders willing to fight for what they believe to be morally best for our nation?