Sunday, October 26, 2003

Joe Hough on the Prophetic Tradition (Pt. 1 of 3)

John Scalzi at By the Way has called our attention to an interview by Bill Moyers with Joe Hough of the Union Theological Seminary. (Abe Lincoln and the Gettysburg Address notwithstanding, I can't do a comment on this in only one post. Sorry.)

Joe Hough says:

Well, my perception, Bill is that there is a definite intentional move on the part of the political leadership in this country. In the direction that I think is not at all compatible with the prophetic tradition in Islam, Christianity or Judaism. And that is the obligation on the part of people who believe in God to care for the least and the poorest. That central teaching, that sacred code, I think is very well summed up in Proverbs where the writer of Proverbs says, "Those who oppress the needy insult their maker." ...

And I think that it would be a wonderful thing if we could stand together these three great Abrahamic traditions, and say, "Look, we do not countenance this sort of thing. It is not only unfair, it is immoral on the basis of our religious traditions, and we believe it's an insult to God."

His suggestion is that Christians, Jews and Muslims use the issue of economic inequality as an ecumenical rallying point of protest against current government policies. Not only would it be the right thing to do, it would help followers of the three religions come to understand each other better.

Hough certainly won't get any argument from me that economic inequality is a huge problem, and one that gets worse all the time. That's true in the United States, and it's true on a global scale in the relations of the wealthier nations to the poorer. Bill Gates' personal assets were said at one point in the last few years to equal that of the less affluent 50% f the US population. That's inequality. And it has very practical consequences for the society as a whole.

On the issue of the three "Abrahamic" religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) coming to understand each other better as one result of that, I think it's a real possibility. (Cont. in Part 2.)

No comments: