| Home > Community Forum > Monthly Archive |
June 30, 2005
Update: O’Connor Resignation... Hungry for Change: Help Us to Define a New Agenda Based Upon Your Values
Posted by Faithful Progressive
Update:
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has resigned. While a very conservative jurist, Justice O’Connor has been something of a voice of moderation on the Court. It is essential for many issues that we care about that she be replaced by someone in the same mold. She has been a key vote on protecting a woman’s right to make fundamental decisions relating to whether or not an abortion is the best choice given her unique situation. Beyond this, Justice O' Connor has helped preserve affirmative action and other efforts to overcome long histories of discrimination. Most importantly, she has kept the Court from becoming too extreme.
FP urges the President: 1.) to appoint another relative moderate; 2.) not to use religion in the disgraceful way in was used in the infamous Justice Sunday debate on other Federal judicial nominees; 3.) to consult with Democrats as well as Republicans to find an acceptable replacement for Justice O' Connor. Here's my question for all of you: how does this impact our agenda? What is the proper role for moderate and progressive Christians in this debate?
Hungry for Change: Help Us to Define a New Agenda Based Upon Your Values
This country is hungry for change. You can just feel it, no matter what state you travel in. You can feel it, too, from the response to this web-site. The Christian Alliance for Progress site had over 100,000 visitors last week alone, and we have recruited volunteers from 47 states. People seem eager to help. In many ways this comes as no surprise, since many people of faith have long been involved in their communities, acting locally and in their churches. You are the people who volunteer in food pantries, homeless shelters, and who advocate for victims of domestic violence. In part because of what they have learned from these experiences, moderate and liberal Christians have much to offer a nation and a world that is ready to move forward together in hope.
First and foremost, we recognize God as a spiritual foundation that gives us great hope at even difficult times in our lives as well as dark moments in world affairs. But we also represent values-- inclusion, service, and humility-- that offer up much of what is missing from contemporary American culture and politics. In the past we have been too shy about expressing our values and drawing on them to formulate an agenda that brings hope and the promise of peace and justice back to our country and the world. But we have learned our lesson--if we do not speak up, others speak in our name as Christians. And they have an agenda that many of us do not recognize as Christian.
Their agenda is about setting limits on, or asking more of, others. They put sexuality at the heart of their understanding of the Gospel, a view that Rev. Richard Hall satirized recently in his post It's All About Sex: "A careful reading of the gospels makes it plain that sex and sexual morality was at the heart of the ministry of Jesus. His absolute condemnation of sexual sin, the many parables and stories he told about sexual behaviour and the way that he refused to have anything to do with those whose sexual lives were anything less than totally pure all point to the priority of sex as the lodestone of Christian morality... I didn’t mean it, though if you’ve spent any time around Christian blogs I’d forgive you if you’d thought I did... But why? Not because it reflects anything of the ministry of Jesus. You will search in vain for anything but compassion from Jesus towards the sinners of his day. His condemnation was kept for the rich, powerful and respectable. Yes, he called all to repentance. All. There doesn’t seem to have been any special place in his life and teaching for the less than sexually pure. In the “sermon on the plain” recorded by St Luke, the Beatitudes are contrasted with woes -woe to the rich, the satisfied, the happy, the well-thought of. Nothing there about sex. Looking more widely at Jesus’ teaching, it is apparent that it is our attitude to the poor which receives the greater attention. Luke’s Beatitude’s are explicit. “Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God”. Jesus begins his ministry proclaiming “good news to the poor”.
The obsession with sexuality simply does not reflect the true message of the Gospels. Rather, in the words of liberal Catholic theologian Hans Kung, the Christian path articulated by Jesus is about “humility, self-denial, love, forgiveness without end, service regardless of reward, sacrifice without compensation. In this way God puts himself on the side of the disadvantaged, the underprivileged, the oppressed, the weak, the poor and the sick, and even--unlike the self righteous--on the side of the irreligious, and the immoral...” Kung writes, “God is kind, wonderfully kind to human beings.” The social agenda of moderate and liberal Christians should reflect these values, and it should offer hope to the poor, the disadvantaged and those who suffer from war and prejudice.
The next important election is for Congress in 2006, and moderate and liberal Christians and other people of faith need to be involved in setting an agenda that reflects our values. Polls show the American public has a very low opinion of the present corrupt and out-of-touch Congress. They simply do not connect with what Americans really care about. The current Congress spends way too much time serving wealthy special interests and doing what that they are told to do by the extreme Christian right. In the past months, I worked on a series called "Extremely Influential: The Christian Right in America 2005." One of the most shocking things I learned was that the extreme Christian Right has weekly meetings with well over 100 Congressional staffers whose members belong to a group called the Values Action Team. Guess what values they are talking about?
Their goals include squelching scientifically based sex education, which has the ironic impact of increasing the numbers of abortions that they say they seek to ban-- even in cases of rape and incest. They want to limit the rights of gay Americans to enter into contracts that settle their affairs when they die. They want to meddle in difficult family decisions about end-of-life care. They want to put restrictions on the teaching of biological science and absurd restrictions on the use of excess stem cells from IVF donors who want them used for scientific research. Yes, these are the values that are being represented as "Christian" in the weekly Values Action Team meetings. I dream of a moderate and progressive Values Action Team...what values would we bring to the attention of Congress on a weekly basis?
What follows below is my list, not the official agenda of the Christian Alliance for Progress. You can have a role in setting that agenda, tell us what agenda items YOU think reflect Christian values.
Our Values Action Agenda:
1.) Moderate and liberal Christians are united in the need for an Exit Strategy from Iraq and for more attention to bringing a just peace to the Middle East as a whole. As Christians, we are called to be peacemakers and there has never been a more urgent need for us to play this role. If you are ready to do your part, please sign this petition for the 4th of July sponsored by the National Council of Churches.
2.) Putting support of Economic Justice and Fairness back into the Federal budget and our tax policy. As was recently stated by the heads of five large mainline Protestant denominations: Like many Americans, we read our daily newspaper through the lens of faith, and when we see injustice, it is our duty to say so. The 2006 Federal Budget that President Bush has sent to Capitol Hill is unjust. It has much for the rich man and little for Lazarus. According to the White House's own numbers, this budget would move 300,000 people off food stamps in the next five years. It would cut the funds that allow 300,000 children to receive day care. It would reduce funding for Medicaid by $45 billion over the next ten years, and this at a time when 45 million Americans-the highest level on record-are already without health insurance. These cuts would be alarming in any circumstances, but in the context of the 2006 budget, they are especially troubling. For even as it reduces aid to those in poverty, this budget showers presents on the rich. If passed in its current form, it would make permanent tax cuts that have bestowed nearly three-quarters of the "relief" on one-fifth of the county. If passed in its current form, it would include whopping new cuts that would benefit, almost exclusively, those with household incomes of more than $200,000 per year. If passed in its current form, it would take Jesus' teaching on economic justice and stands it on its head….Our churches will continue their ameliorative ministries. But it is not enough for us as a Church or a society to be merciful. We must remember the admonition of the prophet Micah. "And what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God?" Micah's choice of verbs is instructive. We are not to love justice or preach justice, we are to do justice-to act, and, when necessary, to struggle. We urge the members of our churches, of other churches and other faiths, and all whose conscience compels them to do justice to join us in opposing this budget.”
Amen. We need to support candidates who have truly Biblical values in their support for social services.
3.) Moderate and liberal Christians are united in seeking health coverage for all Americans. As it says elsewhere on this site: "We believe that limiting the best medical care to those who can pay the most and burdening those who need healing with enormous indebtedness are completely contrary to the Gospels. Jesus the healer calls us to make health and healing available to every citizen."
4.) Moderate and liberal Chriistians will support candidates who follow Jesus' call for responsible stewardship - caring protection for God's creation and the development of a sustainable path for the future. Congress and the present Administration have undertaken a steady attack on what was a bi-partisan consensus supporting responsible environmental stewardship. The next Congress needs to be better stewards of God's creation.
5.) Moderate and liberal Christians seek justice and fairness for all people regardless of race, religious tradition or sexual orientation. We are all children of God. Period. As Christians, we know that America was founded on the principle of religious freedom for all. We do not claim special rights for our faith tradition. If we are a Christian Nation, we are also a Jewish, a Buddhist, a Muslim, an Agnostic--yes, even an Atheist Nation. Our government like our God gives us the freedom to choose. We support renewal of the Voting Rights Act and efforts to overcome legacies of discrimination and prejudice. We oppose putting restrictive new legal limitations on the rights of people to settle their own affairs or to enter into long-term love relationships as they see fit.
That's my short list--WHAT'S YOURS?
Posted by Faithful Progressive at 10:41 PM | Comments (22)
How the Christian Right Wants to Reinvent America
Posted by Jesus Politics
"The Center for Reclaiming America was founded in 1996 by Dr. D. James Kennedy, as an outreach of Coral Ridge Ministries for the purpose of mobilizing America’s Christians at the grassroots level."
----
"The CENTER provides non-partisan, non-denominational information, training, and support; enabling those interested to positively affect the culture and renew the vision of our Founding Fathers."
----
"As a means to accomplish this mission, the CENTER focuses on five key fronts of the modern-day culture war: (1) Religious Liberties, (2) the Sanctity of Life, (3) the Homosexual Agenda, (4) Pornography, and (5) Promoting Creationism."
"RenewAmerica is a grassroots organization that supports the "Declarationist" ideals of Alan Keyes. Its purpose, therefore, is to faithfully and courageously advance the cause of our nation's Founders."
----
"A "Declarationist" is anyone who believes in the principles of the American Republic as outlined in the Declaration of Independence."
"Restore America is founded on the belief that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself; that the Founders of America understood the Gospel and the Great Commission, and established a Republic to preserve and advance the Kingdom of God through biblically enlightened self government."
----
"We believe our Judeo Christian Heritage and Civil Government as outlined in our founding documents to be of utmost importance to America's future; that informed, principled and sustained involvement of Christians in civil government is necessary to preserve the knowledge of God, the value of each human life, and our God granted rights under the Constitution."
----
"The Vision of our Forefathers to create a nation "under God" must be restored to the Body of Christ if God's people are to fulfill their 'salt and light' responsibility in the preservation of the Republic and the Gospel of Christ. It is we Christians who are the Remnant of God in America and it is our vision or lack thereof that will determine our nation's future (Proverbs 29:18)."
----
"The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, The Bill of Rights and the VOTES of enlightened Christian citizens protect and preserve the Republic."
"For so long, we have allowed Satan to invade our communities through abortuaries, the entertainment and pornography industries, religious institutions, sexually perverse establishments, homosexual parades and other sin celebrations, without a word from the Christian therein. God has called us to “Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins.” Isaiah 58:1"
----
"We must lift up our voice like a trumpet. We must go out into the world and declare the WORD OF GOD in front of the abortuaries and sexually perverse establishments, and at the homosexual parades and other sin celebrations and call them to repentance. Our light must invade the darkness!"
"2005 is the year to rise up in Christ and take your place like never before. It's the year to get violent about the kingdom of God. In 2005 let your faith be alive and take the Kingdom by FORCE, Pursue. Overtake and WITHOUT FAIL recover all."
"This site is dedicated to returning our nation to the principles of our Founding Fathers. Some people view them as just a bunch of dead white guys but they were so much more than that. They drafted the finest document ever created on which to base a nation. Unfortunately, our country has veered from the path they set out for us. It's time to change direction and turn toward individual liberty and responsibility."
"Redemption for America can only come from God."
Posted by Jesus Politics at 07:14 AM | Comments (15)
June 29, 2005
ANOTHER DAY, ANOTHER TERM: The Supreme Court's “Ten Commandments” Decisions
Posted by Fresh Politics
Monday's Supreme Court decisions on the display of the Ten Commandments have generated much publicity over the last couple of days. I am not going to recite the facts here since they are widely available from online sources. (For more information or to read the cases, check out this link: http://news.public.findlaw.com/litigation_appeals/ap/p/56/06-28-2005/3955004476e02ce1.html ).
Suprisingly, Justice Stephen Breyer cast the deciding vote in each case, voting in McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky that the display of the Ten Commandments was unconstitutional and voting in Van Orden v. Perry that it was constitutional. Despite this seemingly inconsistent split, Justice Breyer's concurrence in Van Orden demonstrates his conclusion that borderline cases challenging religious displays on public land cannot be decided by any one method, but rather must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
While his concurrence is thoughtful and well-reasoned, it is ultimately untenable. It is precisely the “borderline” cases – those cases where it is difficult to determine whether it has gone too far – where more precision is necessary. Justice Breyer, however, leaves the line drawing for another day by rejecting the ability to draw any lines. Breyer argues that each display must be evaluated on its merits; that there can be no bright-line rule. While a solid line demarcating permissible from impermissible displays is not practical, leaving courts to use ethereal means in order to ascertain which religious symbols are constitutional is also not practical, and far more likely to yield widely varying decisions.
I do not mean to misstate Justice Breyer. His concurrence clearly shows that the context of the display and the duration of its placement are important factors to consider. Further, he contends that borderline cases like these require the exercise of legal judgment, but insists that this does not equate to personal judgment. Still, there's a lot of wiggle room remaining. Given the ferocity with which the religious right has fought to advance its agenda, is there any doubt that they will seize upon Van Orden, testing how far they can go? Surely this will invite more litigation and the Supreme Court will have to address this issue and offer clearer guidance than it provided this term.
Posted by Fresh Politics at 05:35 PM | Comments (3)
June 28, 2005
Weeding God's Field
Posted by Father Jake
Jesus put before them another parable: ‘The kingdom of heaven may be compared to someone who sowed good seed in his field; but while everybody was asleep, an enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and then went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared as well. And the slaves of the householder came and said to him, “Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where, then, did these weeds come from?” He answered, “An enemy has done this.” The slaves said to him, “Then do you want us to go and gather them?” But he replied, “No; for in gathering the weeds you would uproot the wheat along with them. Let both of them grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Collect the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn"...
Jesus disciples approached him, saying, "Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field." He answered, "The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man; the field is the world, and the good seed are the children of the kingdom; the weeds are the children of the evil one, and the enemy who sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. Just as the weeds are collected and burned up with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will collect out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, and they will throw them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Let anyone with ears listen!
-Matthew 13:24-30, 36b-43.
“The harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels.” For impatient beings such as ourselves, this is a tough message. Even though we see the weeds choking the life out of the wheat, we can’t pull up the weeds. We have to be patient, and wait on the timing of God. In regards to both the wheat and the weeds alike, the message is clear...hands off.
But, we are impulsive people. We see an obviously ugly and evil weed throttling the life out of a golden stalk of wheat stretching toward the sun, and with a shout, we run into the field with our axe, and hack away at the root of the wicked weed. We wrench it from the ground, holding it aloft, expecting to hear the applause of God for our good deed. All we hear is silence. We trudge away, confused, but confident that this day we have been about our Father’s business. We seem not to notice that our path is littered with broken stalks of wheat, the innocent vicitms of our zealous attack.
Somehow, we humans seem to have gotten the idea that we can surgically remove sin and evil from the world without involving the rest of creation. I think this erroneous thinking is why we finite beings are not the reapers of this harvest. We don’t see the big picture. Our tiny minds cannot fathom the intricate interelatedness of the created realm. We cannot be trusted to weed the crop, because we are blind to the fact that few things are totally good or totally bad.
There is a story about a farmer whose only possesion was one horse. One day his horse ran away. His neighbors all gathered around him, declaring what a bad thing this was.
The farmer listened quietly for awhile. Then he said, "It is a difficult thing to know what is good and what is bad."
The next day his horse returned, bringing with him a whole herd of horses. The neighbors crowded around once again, declaring what a good thing this was; he was now the wealthiest man in the valley.
The farmer replied, "It is a difficult thing to know what is good and what is bad."
The next day, his only son went out to break the new horses, was bucked off, and was paralyzed from the waist down. The neighbors rushed over once again, wailing about what a bad thing this was; your only son!
The farmer responded with the same reply; "It is a difficult thing to know what is good and what is bad."
The next day the army came through the valley, and took away all the able-bodied men. They didn't take the farmer's son.
This story could go on indefinately, but by now you get the point; it is a difficult thing to know what is good and what is bad!
Jesus preached the nearness of God’s harvest. He met resistance at every turn, but refused to take up the axe of judgement. Jesus continued to forgive, and to call for repentence, a change of heart. Jesus calls us to be patient. The time of the harvest will arrive, and there will be a speparation of the weeds and the wheat. But it must happen in God’s time, not ours. We must be patient.
If God were to step in right now and destroy all evil, do we think that any of us would remain unscathed? Who would be left if God stamped out all selfishness, greed, hate, and violence? No one. God is patient with us, therefore we can be patient with others.
This parable from Jesus does say something I think it is essential that we all hear; always beware of sinners judging other sinners. Good and evil exist side by side, not only in the world, but within each one of us as well. As Carl Jung once pointed out, “The brighter the halo, the smellier the feet.”
This patience does not mean we turn a blind eye to sin and evil in this world. Jesus counsels patience, but Jesus also sensitizes our consciences and makes us aware of evil in ourselves and others. Jesus exposed and confronted sin as we should. We might confront evil, in ourselves and others. We may even be able to make this world a safer place, for the time being. This parable reminds us not to be fooled , though. We will never eradicate all the weeds. We might catch Bin Laden and bring him to justice, but we will not eliminate global terrorism. Only God can heal the falleness of creation.
The wisdom of Jesus' counsel also reveals that some of the crusading efforts to eliminate sin in our churches may tend to tear up and destroy more than they create. This place we are called to live and witness in is not some kind of spiritual vacuum. It is a world made up of wonderfully good things, and good people, as well as atrociously bad ones, and every combination in between. This knowledge should free us from both indifference and fanatacism, and increase our capacity for toleration. We are free to resist evil without needing to take on the role of God.
The wheat never stifles growth. The wheat endures the weeds. We are called to show the endurance of the saints, those who have faithfully followed Jesus through the ages. Let us lift our heads towards God, nurtured by the assurance that the harvest will come, and one day, we will all shine like the sun in the Kingdom.
Posted by Father Jake at 12:08 AM | Comments (9)
June 27, 2005
We Won't Go Back: The Biblical Case for Protecting Women Who Need An Abortion
Posted by Public Theologian
One of the most frequent questions asked of me this past week was what differentiated the Christian Alliance for Progress from other liberal groups that wanted to reinject religion into public life from a different perspective than the religious right. One of the sharpest differences that we have with the fine organization of Sojourners, for example, is that we are not willing to turn the clock back on women who need an abortion.
For some very conservative Christians, who have grown up with a very limited perspective both historically and biblically of how this matter has been treated across the generations in the Christian Church, they are surprised and at times even shocked that there are Christians who believe this way. But that is not because the classic texts of the Christian faith do not speak to the matter but because the Roman Catholic Church and fundamentalist Protestants have wielded their monolithic power rhetorically on this issue with their constituents to the point that the faithful in the pews of these traditions can imagine that only atheists or nonbelievers could ever hold such a position. But this is not the case.
In my conversations with callers on right-wing talk radio I am typically assailed by biblical quotations having to do with praise directed to God for God having known the writer of that particular passage while in utero. The most common is taken from the text of Psalm 139:
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
Your eyes beheld my unformed substance. In your book were written all the days that were formed for me, when none of them as yet existed.
Another common passage is found at the beginning of the book of Jeremiah as the prophet speaks of the plan that he believed God had for him even before he was born:
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.
What both of these texts have in common is a theological confession on the extent of the knowledge of God, which both authors understand in personal terms. God knew them, and had a plan for their lives. The problem with using this to speak to the matter of abortion is that the antiabortion Christians are using texts that are descriptive in a proscriptive fashion. That is, they’re using texts that describe how much God knows and are asserting that they can extrapolate an ethical demand there from. But that is a stretch in this instance. It is just as true to say that God knew the egg that I ate for breakfast this morning as it is to say that God knew the Psalmist and the prophet before they were born, but we would hardly say that because God knew the egg that we could discern from that knowledge what God’s intentions were for that egg and what ethical demands for that egg were required from the rest of us.
The use of these biblical passages in the abortion debate actually obscures the clear scriptural teaching on the matter. When Israel wanted to know what it was required to do it did not look first to the song book (Psalms) nor to the biography of a prophet. Instead it looked first to the law, which is where we have to go if we really want to find out what the Scripture has to say about this issue. In Exodus 21 there is found in Israel’s law book an unmistakably plain answer to the question of how the community is to think about this matter theologically. At issue is the death of the fetus during a fight between two men. The passages found in a section of the Torah dealing explicitly with capital crimes introduced by this statement: “Whoever strikes a person mortally shall be put to death” (21:12). That legal edict is then expanded to include other capital crimes which the community cannot tolerate including children who curse their parents (v.17). The most important verses for our purposes are a qualification of what constitutes a capital offense when a pregnant woman miscarries after being injured as a result of a fight.
When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Now here is the passage that the fundamentalists don’t want you to read.
The reason is that the morality of the abortion debate in the contemporary political scene turns on the status of the fetus -- -- is it a person in the usual sense and thus worthy of the full protection and benefit of personhood bestowed on every other person of the community, or is it not? And the answer that God gives Israel in its law is that it is not a person. If the fetus dies, Dad gets a check. If Mom dies, however, the perpetrator gets the death penalty, because Mom is a full person, while the fetus is not, and because Mom’s death represents an assault on the sanctity of the community which cannot be tolerated, while the death of the fetus is simply understood to be an economic loss for which the father must be compensated. That is why the Jewish theological tradition allows for abortion in order to protect the safety of the mother. Jews are not pro-choice on abortion not simply because they’re mostly members of the Democratic Party. They support safe and legal abortion because the theology for such is deeply grounded in biblical law.
As Christians, we believe that our lives are not simply our own but are to be given in service to others, thereby showing God’s love and justice. Jesus taught that the most important things that a person could do in life were to love God and love the neighbor. But the demand to “love the neighbor” is qualified with the crucial statement “as you love yourself.” This simply means that in order to have the internal resources of strength and fortitude to do as Jesus said each of us first has to have a measure of self-love and care in our lives which enables us to extend ourselves beyond our comfort levels in order to embrace others. We believe that being created in God’s image, each of us has been given the capacity to know how best to take care of ourselves. The grave moral problem with the government’s attempt to regulate the reproductive capacity of women is that it pits a woman against her own body, as if she does not know her own body or what her self-care requires, forcing her to bear what she recognizes as painful, life-shattering and even dangerous. Adding insult to the injury of an unwanted or unintended pregnancy, the government would compel someone who already feels the weight of the world on her shoulders to act against her own interests and bear a child that she understands will do her harm. In such situations, a woman is not free to love herself, backed as she is by her government into a corner, and as such can be left bereft of resources to fulfill her call as a disciple of Jesus.
Following Jesus first requires a sense of well-being and bodily integrity, which is why Jesus brought a healing touch everywhere he went. As people of faith, we believe in advocating for social conditions that would give women this sense of well-being and bodily integrity that would result in self-love, which then in its abundance would be directed towards God and neighbor, as Jesus taught. Most abortions are attended by an enormous amount of emotional pain. In some cases women will be having abortions because of no support from their partner or parents. At other times, the prospect of being pulled into poverty and having their lives destroyed will be the motivating factor. At still other times fear of physical and emotional complications as a result of the pregnancy will compel a woman to make this decision. None of these are causes for anything but sadness and great anxiety for the women that must make them. If the government wants to cut down on the number of abortions, it could start by creating a more equitable and just society in which women have health care, adequate pay, decent and affordable housing, and quality education for the children that they will bear. It would not prevent every abortion, but it would certainly encourage women in difficult circumstances to consider doing something other than terminating their pregnancies. We see such work on the social conditions of women as the vital work of Jesus himself. It is on such initiatives that we believe we can find common ground with those who feel differently about this issue, which would therefore make it a most fruitful place for all sides to work together to reduce the number of women who feel that abortion is the only answer to their situation.
Posted by Public Theologian at 07:47 PM | Comments (58)
June 24, 2005
Christian Alliance for Progress Update & "You Are the One," by Guest Blogger Xpatriated Texan
Posted by Faithful Progressive
Note from FP:
FP was in a complex trial this week, but Thurman from the Blog Xpatriated Texan stepped up and agreed to Guest Blog for me this week. Stepping up is nothing new for him-- Thurman has also expressed an interest in being a Christian Alliance for Progress Local Organizer in New Jersey. We need many others to come forward in the way Thurman has. If you are interested in getting involved, go to Join the Movement and indicate how you are willing to help. It was a very exciting week for the progressive Christian movement. I have a post here that summarizes some of the many articles about the Christian Alliance for Progress this week.
FP
You are the One
by Xpatriated Texan
My colleagues often challenge me to produce statistics for the story I'm about to tell you. I'm told that it would strengthen the case to have empirical evidence to which I could refer. But my story is not an> academic research, it's simply a re-telling of what I've seen. It's a story that I lived, and I've seen the truth of it plainly every single day of my life.
I grew up in a Christian church - only lately have I truthfully identified it as Fundamentalist and Evangelical. To me, it was just our church. They taught strict moral values and gender roles. They gave us cookies and had us memorize Bible verses. They taught us that the King James Bible was the literal word of God - and the fact that it had stood the test of time in an unaltered form was proof that every word in it was straight from the lips of God.
Then, in 1980, three Evangelical Christians ran for the office of the President of the United States. Jimmy Carter, the current President, actually taught Sunday School. John Anderson had, at one point, introduced legislation to back a Constitutional Amendment that would name Jesus Christ as ruler of the United States and the Universe. Ronald Reagan, though, only said he was Evangelical. He wouldn't even say which church he attended and he was rubbing elbows with those immoral people out in Hollywood.
As an Independent Church of Christ, our Church officially backed Anderson - how could they not?
What my little church didn't realize is that a large number of revivalists were preaching Revelation and pushing for America to back Israel in an attempt to bring about the last days prophecy. see Belief Net
National church leaders such as Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson turned to Reagan as they saw Communism as a threat to Christianity - although it's still unclear to me why they thought 1980 would turn America communist. These two groups provided a willing audience for the strong anti-communism foreign policy of Ronald Reagan and by speaking to them Reagan burnished his credentials as an Evangelical. The result was that Evangelical Fundamentalists turned out in droves for Reagan - and in return he gave them an issue to own in 1983--abortion. That more than anything cemented the powerful relationship between the religious far-right and the political right. It has proven to be an incestuous relationship that has been detrimental to all concerned.
The Revivalist business was good in those days, when the Soviet Union cast an Iron Shadow across Europe and the Middle East. It was easy to believe the doomsayers and false-prophets that the end was, indeed, near. Televangelism created a whole new audience for this mission project and they put a Fundamentalist spin on the word of God that was impossible not to hear. The result was a general questioning of the laity of the sincerity and scholarship of their Church leadership. Moderate and liberal pastors found themselves increasingly marginalized and many took early retirements or chaplain positions at hospices and the like. This opened the door for a wave of fundamentalism to sweep into Church leadership - not only the churches, but the church universities and seminaries.
Moderate churches were finding it hard to keep pastors. All it took was one person who was really plugged into the Republi-vangelical network to thoroughly sow the seeds of dissent within a church.
Suddenly, the King James Bible was not the literal word of God, but a "perversion of language" that must be "re-interpreted and set to right". That means that rather ambiguous passages that had provided a limited basis for abortion and the protection of life for women for almost five thousand years of Jewish culture were re-written to more directly oppose abortion. Extremism begat extremism and wave after wave moved the Evangelical churches right, right, always to the right. The addition of partisan politics into this volatile mixture was such a slight change that it almost went entirely un-noticed.
The Fundamentalist network slowly worked into taking over whole churches. Then they converted everyone they could reach. If they couldn't convert you, they chased you away.
That is what happened to me. I remember quite well attending Sunday School one summer day and listening to the leader organize an abortion protest. I bit my tongue and flipped through my Bible - something I had learned to do when this sort of uproar rippled through my group. Finally, I looked up and realized that everyone was looking at me. I looked down at the Bible I was holding open to The Gospel Of John, Chapter 8.
I cleared my throat and spoke:
"I don't think we have truly sought God's guidance in prayer on this issue. I simply cannot imagine Jesus carrying a cardboard sign in protest while women - staggering under the weight of social derision and person pain - huddle in a doctor's office in need of the Light of God's love only a few feet away."
You'd have thought I had said I wanted to sodomize their sister. In the hour between the time I spoke those words and church services were over, no less than a dozen people approached me to offer me their prayers. Each time, I deflected their offer by asking instead that we pray for leadership instead. Each time, they insisted that it wasn't leadership that needed prayers - it was my inability to submit to the will of God. Not one person could show me a Biblical scripture to back up this statement that I was being disobedient to God by counseling more prayer and better leadership.
That was the day I left the church. I simply couldn't reconcile "Love thy neighbor" with "You ain't Christian if you don't believe this". Didn't Jesus tell his disciples, "He who is not against me, is with me."? I couldn't stand the hypocrisy.
In the almost twenty years since the Fundamentalist Evangelicals married the Republican Party, the Republi-vangelicals - have printed their own Bibles that now outsell the King James Version I grew up on. Their version of God's word is now taught as the literal word of God - which was a bit confusing to those of us with long memories. Church leadership positions had become training grounds for local and state level political offices. What happened to fastening our eyes upon the Kingdom of God and letting nothing draw our footsteps aside?
It is easy to say that the politicization of the Church has destroyed it - but it's wrong. The Church is at its strongest when it stands firm on its Biblical principles and calls society to account for its actions. The voices of the Biblical prophets cry out to us to stand for responsibility and justice. The voices of the poor and oppressed in our own communities cry out to us. The voices of the hungry, the homeless, the hopeless, and the lost cry out to us. If the Bible teaches nothing else, it teaches that God hears these voices - and He expects His people to hear them as well. And He expects us to act when we hear them.
It isn't politicization of the Church - the Church was politicized over child labor and the abolition of slavery, women's Suffrage and civil rights, workplace safety and labor laws - and it didn't just survive, my brethren, it THRIVED! The Church speaks to people when it addresses the Biblical imperative to "love one another" and calls into accounting our cultural and political leaders who scoff at such "soft" philosophies. See, God makes us strong at the broken places and the Church is strongest when it breaks itself for "the least of these".
Everywhere in our big cities and in our countryside, empty churches are closing their doors. Bigger denominations are merging struggling congregations and smaller denominations are simply aging out of existence. This isn't what we are called out of the thronging multitudes to witness. We are called, but we are not called to be silent and we are surely not called to fail. "No man lights a candle and hides it under a bushel."
It isn't politicization that is killing the Church. It's the silence of the balancing voice of moderate and liberal Christians. When I walked out of Church, mad and knowing full well that I stood firm on Biblical principles, but determined not to go back into my congregation to confront them with it - I helped destroy the Church as surely as if I had hammered a nail into its coffin. Every time I let a comment go by about Christians or by Christians that didn't fit with what I know the Word of God teaches - I helped destroy the Church.
My brethren, we have been chased out of our own Churches. We have seen the name of our religion and our Savior usurped for un-Godly purposes and ideologies. While it is certainly true that many of us have worked behind the scenes or outside of the Church to accomplish the Will of God, the fact remains that we are first called to be Christians and then called to do God's work. Make no mistake, we are called to do both, each one of us. Not a single one is called to a life of leisure.
Jesus himself said that he came to set husband against wife, brother against brother, father against son. That's because Jesus came here to confront society with the truth - and to do so in a spirit of love and compassion. I outlined the downfall of the Church, let me now predict the recovery of the Church. When liberal and moderate Christians find their voices - when we join hands in fellowship and call our culture, our politics, and our own brethren into Christian accounting - when we remind the entire world that Christ came with a radical message of social reform and interdependent responsibility - then we can reclaim our title as "Christians", "the People of God", "the salt of the Earth", "the Light upon the Hill".
This is the altar call, brethren. The altar stands empty in your heart. The prophets are calling. The suffering are calling. Jesus is calling. There is no question that you will answer - there is only a question of when and how.
If you want to know who God is calling into leadership, go to the bathroom, turn on the light, and look in the mirror. You are the one you've been waiting for. You are the one God is depending on. You are the one.
Posted by Faithful Progressive at 04:02 PM | Comments (28)
June 23, 2005
The Southern Baptist Convention and Homosexuality
Posted by Jesus Politics
Charles Warford, a retired Southern Baptist pastor speaking yesterday at a press conference, said:
I think it's very unfortunate that homophobia is still very much promoted in the Southern Baptist Convention through publications and other means.
From a Soulforce press release:
"A lot of gays and lesbians who grew up in Southern Baptist fundamentalism leave the denomination and never look back," said Jamie McDaniel, a gay Baptist who serves as co-chair of the Soulforce Southern Baptist Denominational Team. "But on Tuesday, June 21, we will be present at the annual meeting because we want the next generation of gays growing up Southern Baptist to know that they are ok and that God loves them exactly as they are - despite what their leaders might tell them."
"Southern Baptists leaders fervently promote the belief that homosexuals can and should change into heterosexuals, while gay people of faith testify that we became healthy and whole once we accepted our sexual orientation,” said Adam Riley, a 24-year-old gay male who grew up Baptist, attended ex-gay ministries while in college, and now lives in Nashville. "Southern Baptist leaders also attempt to rally their congregations to defeat nearly every piece of legislation that would help gay and lesbian Americans gain equality," added Riley.
From a PFLAG open letter to the Southern Baptist Convention:
In his high school, Brent Wimmer, a student from Sand Springs, Oklahoma, was physically beaten by classmates. They also vandalized his car with large rocks and eggs eight times in the school parking lot. What did Brent, a young man from a fundamentalist Christian family active in his local church and Fellowship of Christian Athletes, do to deserve this cruelty? He wrote an article in his school newspaper about the importance of respecting all people, including gay students, as God’s children.
We believe that all parents can agree that what happened to Brent and to countless others like him is wrong and should be prevented. Before the SBC passes a resolution denouncing all safe schools programs, please take the time to consider the impact on our children. To secure the safety and the freedom to learn for all of our students, we must combat all physical and verbal abuse in schools.
From a Human Rights Campaign press release:
Over the past 30 years, the SBC has passed 13 resolutions against gays and lesbians. That is compared to three resolutions on HIV/AIDS and a single resolution against homelessness.
“Instead of bringing families together, the Southern Baptist Convention has a long history of discrimination against gay Americans with resolutions against health insurance for same-sex partners and non-discrimination laws,”
Posted by Jesus Politics at 07:23 AM | Comments (34)
June 22, 2005
MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY: The Use of Recess Appointments to Circumvent Senate Filibusters
Posted by Fresh Politics
It keeps popping up. The Republican drive to end the filibuster, the strongest parliamentary tool that the minority party in the Senate can wield, was big news a few months ago. Then word came of a last-minute deal between moderate Democrats and Republicans, saving the procedure from practical annihilation. For the time being.
Despite the shaky compromise, the threat to the filibuster -- and its practical effect-- remains alive and well. The most recent example is with the John Bolton nomination to be ambassador to the United Nations. On Monday, in a 54 to 38 vote, Senate Democrats were able to prevent Republicans from achieving the 60 votes necessary to break the filibuster of Mr. Bolton's nomination. This was the second time Democrats were able to block Mr. Bolton's nomination, and media outlets have been busy contemplating the Republicans' next move.
One of the possibilities is for President Bush to appoint Mr. Bolton to the post when Congress goes into recess, which could be as early as the July 4th weekend. This “recess appointment” would end with this Congress, in January 2007. In a New York Times article, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/21/politics/21bolton.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=th, Democrats and Republicans have already expressed concerns that sending a representative to the UN without the Senate's approval could harm the credibility of the United States.
Yet, if President Bush elects to follow this course, it will not be the first time he has done so. On June 9th, the Senate confirmed William H. Pryor, Jr. to an appointment on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which covers Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. Judge Pryor was one of the judges whose nomination was being filibustered because of his controversial views on civil rights and legal precedent. Although his appointment was not confirmed until a few weeks ago, Judge Pryor has been serving on the Court since February 20, 2004, thanks to a recess appointment by President Bush, which would have ended later this year had the Senate not acted.
President Bush made an end-run around Senate procedure when he appointed Judge Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit despite the fact that his nomination had been filibustered. He should not do the same thing in Mr. Bolton's situation. Not only does a recess appointment under these circumstances diminish the legitimacy of the new appointee, but it demonstrates a fundamental lack of respect for the Senate process and clears the way for any majority to rule unchecked. It discourages open discussion of competing views and focuses debate on which party prevails, not on the merits of the debate.
Regardless of one's views of the wisdom of a sustained filibuster against the President's nominees, the filibuster is an important tool for keeping the lines of communication open. It forces the majority party to work with the minority party and, when appropriate, to make compromises. The filibuster has no party affiliation, having been used by both. The President's use of the recess appointment to circumvent a filibuster diminishes the bargaining power of the minority party and reinstates the majority's ability to rule by whim.
To be sure, there are winners and losers in the political game. Yet, the goal should be on the best interests of the nation, not on the “win record” of a particular party. The majority's imposition of its will through recess appointments diminishes the utility of the filibuster as a tool to bring opposing sides together, decreasing the likelihood that those with various views will work together to find a solution that many can support.
Posted by Fresh Politics at 06:11 PM | Comments (3)
June 21, 2005
Building Diverse Alliances
Posted by Father Jake
One day many years ago, I spotted a man in the parking lot of the local grocery store loading up his pick-up with loaves of bread. As the new priest in this small town, with some experience in developing food distribution sites, I walked over to introduce myself and find out how I might help.
"Are you collecting baked goods for distribution?" I asked.
The man turned, looked me up and down, and then asked, "Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior?"
I couldn't contain my grin, as I was standing there all in black wearing a backwards collar. Of course, to some Christians, I suppose such a uniform might have been cause to wonder if I was indeed a "real" Christian. After assuring the man that I met his qualifications, he gave me the name of the organization for which he volunteered to help gather surplus food for the poor.
Unfortunately, that scene is not as rare as one would hope. More often than not, I find myself having to prove that I hold the right beliefs before being allowed to participate in a group's benevolent activities. Right beliefs seem to often trump right actions in today's religious climate.
This same perspective is being played out on a global level as well. For instance, recently some of the Anglican leaders in Africa decided they would refuse any gifts from their brothers and sisters in America. Why? Because we elected a gay man to be bishop of one of our dioceses. Since this is against their beliefs, they have decided to refuse the funds that would have helped alleviate their people's suffering.
I simply don't understand such thinking. If we must pass a litmus test before participating in acts of mercy, we are limiting the flow of God's mercy unnecessarily.
In the ninth chapter of Mark, in response to the report that strangers were invoking Jesus' name when performing miracles, Jesus tells his followers not to stop them, as "whoever is not against us is for us." This story is one example that suggests that Jesus didn't put a very high priority on right beliefs. It was the actions, the fruit, that he emphasized.
I think this is an important point to consider when moving within political circles. We can make common cause with lots of different kinds of people. We don't have to agree on everything. As a matter of fact, I think diversity can be a strength. A wide variety of perspectives feeds our group's creativity.
I don't think that human beings are capable of an altruistic act, without a commitment to something greater than the self. This may be a cause, a belief system, or even a particular group of people. When performing acts of mercy, it is this that we share with those who serve with us; we give a sacrificial offering of ourselves for some greater purpose.
We need to build alliances with everyone who shares our desire to help those who are hurting in our midst. Let's not limit our opportunities by insisting on a uniform belief system from those who offer themselves for this work.
Posted by Father Jake at 04:18 AM | Comments (33)
June 20, 2005
Weird Science: How Dogma and Ideology Have Triumphed Over Reason in American Conservative Politics
Posted by Public Theologian
The problems that exist between fundamentalism and science have long been chronicled. Since the Scopes Trial of 1925, it has been apparent that fundamentalists are profoundly at odds with the methodology and the conclusions of modern science. Since the politicization of American fundamentalism that began in the late 1970s, that discomfort has most frequently been made manifest in local school districts in which these religious conservatives attempt to undermine the teaching of evolution , as well as promote their theology of creationism. This strategy has morphed in the last couple of years however, into a new phenomenon known as Intelligent Design, which is basically creationism with better funding. With this ample funding from wannabe theocrats such as Howard Ahmanson, who is a longtime board member and donor to RJ Rushdoony's Chalcedon Institute (the godfather of the modern theocratic movement), the California-based Discovery Institute has become the primary production center of ideas and materials which attempt to clothe the theology of Intelligent Design in scientific garb. Instead of proceeding after the manner of normal scientific inquiry, the Discovery Institute's advocates have eschewed publication in peer-reviewed academic journals in favor of politicking to school boards that have been taken over by Christian fundamentalists and who are eager to ditch the evolution and embrace the theology. The Intelligent Designers have met with some success, although since there is no science behind it, it has yet to take hold in school districts where reasons still prevails.
This subordination of science to theology used to be something about which the rest of America could simply chuckle. But that was back in the days when fundamentalists were still on a short leash within the Republican Party, and they were not controlling the government. But as we know all of that has now changed, so that which had formerly been ignored by most of the American public as a quirk of a particular religious sect, is now popping up with greater frequency in the public sphere. In the past two weeks, we have seen several high profile examples of the subordination of science to dogma in ways that are detrimental to the common good of our republic.
The first of these came about as a result of a leak to the press of a report by government scientists on the environment that had been doctored by a White House official, who is a former lobbyist for the oil industry. Once it was discovered that he had substantively changed the report in order to water down the language used by the government scientists. The ex-lobbyist promptly resigned and returned back to the mother ship of ExxonMobil, whereupon he was dutifully rewarded by his corporate bosses for a job well done. Another leak surfaced on Friday, ahead of the upcoming G8 summit, regarding global climate change. Once again our government doctored the language to tone down all the evidence of global warming. So even as the evidence mounts daily, which in societies where people still think causes concern, our citizens are told by our government, the greatest polluter in the world, that the jury is still out and that we just can’t say for sure, all the while trying to silence any voice which says otherwise.
The second example came from the right-wing think tank the Heritage Foundation, which presented revisionist versions of two important studies earlier this year which had addressed the efficacy of abstinence education. These peer-reviewed studies, authored by respected researchers at Columbia and Yale Universities, concluded that programs designed to get young people to make pledges of abstinence until marriage were ineffective in the long run. These widely reported findings had sent shock waves earlier this year through the camp of religious conservatives, who have blocked all attempts to provide every American child with an adequate birth control education. If the results of these studies became accepted by the general public, it would sound the death knell for abstinence-based education, which is the only kind of sex-ed that the conservatives running the government currently will allow. So the good folks over the Heritage Foundation took the same data from the earlier studies, refigured the numbers, and announced this week that in fact, the data had said exactly the opposite. If one reads their full study, however, one gets the clearer picture of how the revisionists arrived at their new truth. It is near the end of their piece, so one has to get beyond all the bluster at the beginning of how right they are and how wrong their opponents are in order to get at exactly what’s going on. Way down at the bottom, they admit that the earlier research is “technically correct,” but that they, the earlier researchers, had used a more stringent standard for the margin of error than the folks at the Heritage Foundation thought necessary. The Heritage folks think that a 10% margin of error is acceptable, rather than the 5% used by the earlier researchers. Of course, as many people who have commented on the study since it came out this week have said, a 5% margin of error is the outside limit for acceptance of the research into peer-reviewed scientific journals, which of course, is why the earlier researchers used that in their methodology. But we all know that the Heritage Foundation is not trying to get their paper into a scientific journal. Instead, they want their findings to be broadcast on the Fox News Channel and Pat Robertson’s 700 Club and on the thousands of radio stations that carry James Dobson’s Focus on the Family daily broadcast, because after all, fundamentalists don’t read scientific journals, but they do take their political marching orders from “Dr.” Dobson. And if Dr. Dobson touts this as hard evidence, you can bet that the faxes and emails will be flying from the hinterlands toward Washington in no time demanding that Congress “keep protecting our children” by continuing to fund these “obviously” successful programs.
The third peek which we got into the weird science of American conservatism came this week when the autopsy results of Terry Schiavo’s brain were released. Recall that just a few short weeks ago, we were treated to an expert neurological exam by cardiologist and Senator Bill Frist who opined on the Senate floor that Schiavo was not in a persistent vegetative state. Even worse was the diagnosis by Dr. William Cheshire, a neurologist employed by the Mayo Clinic in my own city of Jacksonville Florida, whom the Associated Press has reported is a member of two evangelical pro-life groups, who was the only neurologist that the conservatives could find who was willing to ignore his years of training and experience by asserting that Schiavo could be rehabilitated in an attempt to keep her feeding tube attached. The autopsy results are now in, but the press for some reason has not been able to get in touch with Dr. Cheshire in order for him to answer the question of how a woman with a 650 kg brain, which is half normal size, would be such an obvious candidate for rehabilitation. That this was the size of her brain was well-known to anybody who had Internet access for the last year, so I am sure that the scientific world will be beating a path to Dr. Cheshire’s door in order to hear from him the latest techniques which he has apparently developed for rehabilitating patients with half a brain.
When dogma and ideology carry the day, rather than science and reason, democracy is imperiled. I am a person of faith and believe that faith should inform our decisions in the public sphere, but what faith provides that is necessary for a properly balanced public square is the values necessary to create virtuous citizens. It does not now, nor has it ever, provided facts, data, or any type of the information that is essential to the ordering of the chaos of human existence, which is the chief purpose of government as delineated in Scripture. The people and their leaders require such knowledge in order to make the proper choices in their quest to lead virtuous lives as citizens of this society. The twisting of data, the refusal to enter into the scientific methodological process, the ignoring of evidence can only lead our country down a path of zealous destructiveness , which has been the fate of so many nations throughout history , but which as of yet, we have managed, by God’s grace, to avoid.
Posted by Public Theologian at 04:07 AM | Comments (18)
June 17, 2005
Transforming the Moral Values Debate: Ten Reasons to be Hopeful
Posted by Faithful Progressive
Sometimes I just get sick of all the negativity associated with political discussion, including even my own critiques of the extreme Christian Right. There’s no doubt that we need to counter the extremists who preach intolerance and self-righteousness, but trying to counter the extreme right agenda can wear you out. Worst of all, it can keep us from getting our own positive message of love for all of God’s creation out. So for this week’s post, which I’m hoping will include you in the Comments section, I would like to stay positive and just offer up some of the many ways that moderate and progressive Christians are transforming the political debate and giving us reasons for hope. This is not meant as any kind of definitive list, just a few things that I stumbled upon this week. Please add your own links and suggestions in the Comments section.
1.) This site! The reaction to this site over the past month has been nothing short of amazing. Thousands of you have signed up to Join the Movement, and nearly half of those have also taken the time to sign the Jacksonville Declaration. As a recent e-mail from our Founder, Patrick Mrotek and others put it...
"What a great month! 30 days ago we launched our Web site, with a strong belief that there are millions of Christians around the country who are tired of seeing their faith used to promote a political agenda they don’t agree with, and don’t think is consistent with their Christian values. Its obvious people are ready to reclaim Christianity in America. We’ve been overwhelmed by the response of thousands who are excited and ready to stand up for the values that Jesus taught and say “Enough!” to the leaders of the Religious Right...we’re also getting noticed by the Religious Right. They understand that when challenged on the basis of the Gospels, their political agenda doesn’t stand up to scrutiny—and they’re curious. In the past two weeks, we’ve appeared on the Michael Medved Show and The David Allen Show, (conservative religious broadcasters).We’re aiming to raise our profile and will be holding press conferences in Jacksonville, Florida and Washington, D.C. next week. We’ll be letting you know about it and in the meantime, if you haven’t already, sign on to our Jacksonville Declaration and pass it on. Let the Political and Church Leaders of the Religious Right know they do not speak for you. Help them hear a different understanding of Christian values. We need local community organizing to get the word out and begin building forces in your area. Let us know if you are interested in leading that effort. info@christianalliance.org
2.) A start on Debt Relief
PHILADELPHIA, PA – June 14 — The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), an international social justice organization, praises the recent cancellation of the multilateral debt owed by fourteen African countries. However, the Service Committee stresses that these nations represent only a small portion of the countries in urgent need of debt cancellation.
“After twenty years of involvement with the global campaign to cancel debt, AFSC is delighted that Mozambique, Zambia, Tanzania and 11 other impoverished countries in Africa now have the ability to invest in their own development,” said Imani Countess, coordinator of the American Friends Service Committee Africa Program, which over the past two years, has sponsored a Life Over Debt campaign designed to increase awareness of Africa’s debt and the need for cancellation.
“The life and death urgency of these issues demand we remain committed to this cause,” stressed Mary Ellen McNish, AFSC general secretary. “Global economic justice is the bedrock of a peaceful world. We can celebrate this victory while continuing to call attention to the plight of other struggling nations.”
3.) Pressure grows for an Iraq Exit Strategy c/o Common Dreams
4.) Building the Beloved Community Freedom and Faith Tour and Peace Not Poverty Campaign
The media took note of the recent Freedom and Faith bus tour of the group Building the Beloved Community. A passionate anti-Iraq War message was delivered by Cindy Sheehan, as the local Lexington, KY paper reported.
Our friend RJ at DeSententia, one of the principal authors of the Declaration of the peace not poverty campaign, also reported:
"Last week the tour rolled into Chicago, and this week it stopped in Lexington, Kentucky, where it received some favorable press. Although the main thrust of the Lexington story was on Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq, Professor Glenn Hinson of the Baptist Seminary of Kentucky stated the message well:
Quoting scripture and Franklin D. Roosevelt, Hinson suggested the nation is greedy and morally bankrupt and warned that America's fear of terrorism is excessive and unhealthy. Denouncing "fear that immobilizes, fear that causes you to lash out mindlessly, fear that prompts a nation to launch a preemptive strike against an imagined enemy, fear in excess," Hinson said, "Only God's love can bring that kind of fear under control."
5.) Our recent victory (c/o Chuck Currie) on behalf of farmworkers against Taco Bell, which we no longer boycott.
NPR had a wonderful story today about how workers, students and moderate and liberal religious groups worked together. This is also being extended to other fast food companies. See Think Inside the Bun
6.) The New Let Justice Roll Campaign for Economic Justice
Grassroots Groups Launch Coordinated State Raise the Minimum Wage Campaigns
Let Justice Roll, a national coalition of faith-based and community-based organizations supported by the Center for Community Change and the National Council of Churches, is launching a national and multi-state campaign to increase the wages of America’s working poor. Along with a key partner, ACORN – the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now – Let Justice Roll is holding a series of state-level events between June 27 and 30 in communities near you. Each event will call on federal and state legislation to increase the minimum wage.
Local Events:
Former United States Senator John Edwards and ACORN President Maude Hurd will be featured at all of these events. Bob Edgar, General Secretary of the National Council of Churches will participate in the Cleveland and Columbus, Ohio events.
Phoenix, Arizona – June 28 at 12:45 PM at Church of the Beatitudes
For more information, contact Sarah Markey, ACORN at 602-254-5299 or Rev. Jan Olav Flaaten of the Arizona Ecumenical Council at 602-468-3818.
Albuquerque, New Mexico – June 28 at 4:20 PM at City Hall
For more information, contact Bonnie Greathouse, ACORN at 503-319-9023 or Julian Phillips of the New Mexico Conference of Churches at 505-319-9023.
Lansing, Michigan – June 29 at 11:00 AM outside the Capitol
For more information, contact Luke Canfora, ACORN at 517-487-5966 or Jess Dewitt at 734-424-2860 or go to www.miaflcio.org
Cleveland, Ohio – June 30 at 11:50 AM at Trinity Cathedral
For more information, contact Stuart Katzenberg, ACORN at 216-973-0210 or Paul Sherry at 216-736-3710..
Columbus, Ohio – June 30 at 4:00 PM at TBA
For more information contact Katie Gall, ACORN at 614-390-1042 or Rev. Ron Hooker at 614-322-0777.
7.) City clergy to double efforts on violence
Boston:14 hot spots targeted for meetings, walks
By Suzanne Smalley, Boston Globe Staff | June 15, 2005
Determined to avoid a repeat of last year's bloody summer, clergy are taking the lead in targeting 14 crime hot spots across Boston with nighttime walks, community meetings, and prayer vigils, ministers said yesterday.
8.) Trinity UCC church in Chicago
Every progressive Christian should be blessed to visit this incredible and thriving church in Chicago, led by the dynamic Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. The Pastor as well as the membership of Trinity United Church of Christ is committed to a 10-point Vision:
A congregation committed to ADORATION.
A congregation preaching SALVATION.
A congregation actively seeking RECONCILIATION.
A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.
A congregation committed to BIBLICAL EDUCATION.
A congregation committed to CULTURAL EDUCATION.
A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA.
A congregation committed to LIBERATION.
A congregation committed to RESTORATION.
A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY
9.) Progressive Churches in North Carolina as linked by Bath Maine UCC Faith Blog, which was one of the first congregations to link this site.
10.)Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility
For over thirty years the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) has been a leader of the corporate social responsibility movement. ICCR's membership is an association of 275 faith- based institutional investors, including national denominations, religious communities, pension funds, endowments, hospital corporations, economic development funds and publishing companies. ICCR and its members press companies to be socially and environmentally responsible. Each year ICCR- member religious institutional investors sponsor over 100 shareholder resolutions on major social and environmental issues. The combined portfolio value of ICCR's member organizations is estimated to be $110 billion
PLEASE ADD YOUR OWN LINKS and/or other reasons to be hopeful.
Posted by Faithful Progressive at 12:02 AM | Comments (4)
June 14, 2005
Christian Racism
Posted by Jesus Politics
A recent article talks about a revival of racism that is happening in the United States. Fringe hate groups appear to be gaining popularity. Tragically, some extreme Christian Right ideas are often used to justify these growing forms of racism.
An article about the neo-confederate League of the South (LOS) group talks about a "theological" basis for slavery:
Initially, LOS seemed to concentrate on a cultural defense of the South, complaining bitterly of the treatment Southerners received in the mainstream media. But it wasn't long before it began seriously advocating a second secession, calling for an essentially theocratic form of government, and openly advocating a return to "general European cultural hegemony" in the South.
The group officially came out against interracial marriage. Hill defended antebellum slavery as "God-ordained" and another LOS leader described segregation as necessary to racial "integrity." Hill called for a hierarchal society composed of "superiors, equals and inferiors, each protected in their legal privileges" and attacked egalitarianism as a "fatal heresy."
Another Christian racist hate group called Scriptures for America Ministries Worldwide says that it is:
an international outreach ministry dedicated to preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to revealing to the Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, and kindred peoples of the world their true Biblical identity.
The Christian Separatist Church Society group says:
We freely admit that we are Christian Supremacists, believing that the true Christian faith is superior to all other religions and that there is no way unto God except through the bending of the knee to Jesus Christ and the claiming of His redeeming blood.
----
We reject the Marxist, Leninist, Humanistic doctrine of religious tolerance that relegates Christianity to the level of voodooism or a demonic practice of the boxer Chinese. Those who make such an affirmation of Christian Supremacy are often called bigots, an antichrist Jewish buzzword allegedly laid upon the king of England, when he refused to capitulate to the Jews and said, "By God, I will not," affirming that by the strength of the Eternal, he would remain unshakably adamant in his position.
----
While we are a law-abiding people, we reject the Marxist-Leninist Jewish ideology that race- mixing is somehow a civil right.
----
Since He is an immutable God that changes not, and is the same yesterday, today, and forever, then we stand sure-footed upon the Rock of Ages in declaring that race-mixing is immoral and is the act of racial murder, not only of those participating in it, but also of the tens of millions that may well have been born in the intended created image of God in the future.
America's Promise Ministries group says:
When we find modern nations whose history parallels every Bible prophecy concerning Israel, we may then be certain that we have discovered every branch of Israel's family with whom Jesus Christ has sealed His everlasting covenant. History will show that the Celto-Saxon people have been the main builders, designers, engineers, explorers, and even humanitarians in comparison to any other race or nationality. When a third world nation is in need, it is not the black nations of Africa, the Chinese, the Indians, or Oriental nations, but the White/Caucasian directed nations of the world who offer a helping hand.
----
"The next sweeping world revival will come when Christian Anglo-Saxons under the New Covenant realize that they too are Abraham's posterity --the children of those ancient Israelites who walked with God under the Old Covenant. These truths will renew in men's minds a dynamic faith in the Bible as the very Word of God; they will create a hunger for more knowledge of God's plans and a thirst for His righteousness; they will remove God's kingdom from the fanciful realm of imagination and put it into a world of reality where its principles and laws may function."
The Legion of Saints group says it:
is a theo-political, Christian Identity Church organization, governed by the will of the Creator, our Father YHVH, outlined in His Holy word, the Bible.
We stand on the principles of Racial segregation and White Racial supremacy. We believe that the White Race, are the direct descendants of the Adamic man made in the image of YHVH, in the of garden of Eden; and was placed here to be the light bearer and supreme ruling Race of this lost and dying world.
Posted by Jesus Politics at 11:48 PM | Comments (19)
What is a Progressive Christian?
Posted by Father Jake
Often, when we speak of the differences within various forms of Christianity, we find ourselves using labels to identify "us" and "them." These divisions are unfortunate, as they are somewhat illusionary. There is no "them." There is only "we." Jesus prayed "that they may be one." And so we are compelled to work towards unity; one Christ, one Body.
The difficulty is in deciding at what cost such a unity should be achieved. Today the divisions seem to be growing, with little sign that the chasm will be healed in the near future. What can we do?
There are a number of things we might do to heal these wounds. I want to mention one that might seem, at first glance, to be counter-intuitive. We can lessen these divisions by gaining a better understanding of who we are; by defining what it means to be a "Progressive Christian." If we know what that label is intended to stand for, we will not be so defensive when we encounter those whose values and world view differs from our own. If we can identify the gifts we bring to Christendom, and acknowledge the contributions we have made, maybe we won't be so quick to claim to be "right," and those with whom we differ as "wrong." If we self-identify, we won't fall into the trap of others defining who we are, or be forced to fit ourselves into the restraints of the current political arguments.
So, let's start with some of the simple definitions of a "Progressive Christian" that I've tried on for size over the years. The first one might be that it means I am a Christian Democrat. That one doesn't always work, as I've come to find out. Although many Democrats are Progressive, the terms are not always synonymous.
Another simple way to define the differences is to consider the terms themselves. A Conservative is focused on conserving the past. A Progressive is oriented towards the future. Although this may be a true statement, by itself it is not very helpful, is it? Beyond that, I'm not always so sure how honest it really is.
One definition I've used in the past is to define Conservatives as those who are preoccupied with the depravity of man, and Progressives as those who seek the glory of God. I've found this to often be the case in my experience, although I've also encountered many Progressives who are quite distracted by depravity, as well as many holy Conservatives. That's the problem with boxes; as soon as you think you've got someone neatly tucked away in one, out they pop.
I've recently encountered the work of George Lakoff, a linguistics professor at UC Berkeley. He has done quite a bit of work on defining what it means to be a Progressive, especially in the area of Progressive values. You can find a good introduction to many of his ideas at the Rockridge Institute.
The metaphor he uses to define the differences between Conservatives and Progressives is the Strict Father model vs. the Nurturant Parent model. This is helpful, but, as was recently pointed out to me, has its limitations. When discussing human interactions, it is best to avoid parent to child communications if possible. Frances Moore Lappe, in his critique of Lakoff's work; Time for Progressives to Grow Up, also notes that we must consider the possibility that the Strict Father."...may turn out to be only a stubborn loner, a bully bringing on the very threats from which he claims to protect us."
But I'm not ready to discard the metaphor. I think it is useful, in another way. In Lakoff's book, Don't Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate, he uses this metaphor to explain the differences between Conservative and Progressive Christians.
For Conservatives, God is the strict father. He is primarily punitive. If you sin, you go to hell. Since everyone sins, everyone is going to hell. Christ suffered enough on the cross to build up "moral credit" to cover everyone. This redemption comes with strict father terms however. You must obey the moral authority of Christ, the Church, and the clergy. You must be disciplined enough to follow the rules. If you don't, you'll go to hell.
For Progressives, God is the Nuturant Parent, who is more beneficient than punitive. The central idea is God's grace, God's unmerited favor. You can't earn grace; it is given by God unconditionally. All you have to do is accept the free gift. Here's a brief excerpt;
In a nurturant religion, your spiritual experience has to do with your connection to other people and the world, and your spiritual practice has to do with your service to other people and to your community. This is why nurturant Christians are progressives; because they have a nurturant morality, just as progressives have.
I think I need to read more of Lakoff. He has certainly helped me begin to form a working definition of what it means to be a "Progressive Christian."
There's much more excellent commentary over on the Rockridge site. I especially recommend Lakoff's article, How to Respond to Conservatives.
Ok, I've rambled on long enough. What does it mean to you to be a Progressive Christian?
Posted by Father Jake at 03:55 AM | Comments (26)
June 13, 2005
An American Theocracy: What Every Citizen Should Be Concerned About
Posted by Public Theologian
Americans of every party and religious persuasion have reason to be concerned about the direction our nation is heading. For the last quarter century, a group of influential religious conservatives have slowly worked their way into the power elite in our country. It is neither their religious beliefs nor their conservatism that should concern us, though, for there are many people who share similar religious beliefs and conservative principles yet who are still committed to living in a democracy.
However the particular people to which I am referring have no such commitment but are rather intent upon turning the United States into a theocracy. In the run-up to the 1980 Presidential election many of these people joined forces to bring about the election of Ronald Reagan. At that time their existence, at least on the surface came to the awareness of the American electorate. Many citizens were concerned, not about religious people being in politics, for that has been the case in American political life since the colonial period, but instead about the content of the political rhetoric that insisted that America be brought to live and govern itself under the principles of biblical law. The immediate sense of alarm faded, however, when the takeover of the government by theocratic proponents never occurred under the successive administrations of Reagan and Bush, who without the theocratic support would have wound up as trivia questions instead of our nation’s presidents, even as the faces of such figures as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and James Dobson became familiar to most Americans. The theocrats on the right were never able to fully advance their agenda inasmuch as they were blocked by a Democratic majority in the Congress as well as by traditional Republicans, the so-called fiscal conservatives who were committed to democracy, as opposed to the social conservatives who had begun to colonize the GOP.
All of that began to change with mid-term election in 1994 when Newt Gingrich led the Republicans to power in the Congress. Many of these newly elected representatives were social conservatives intent on completely reshaping the government according to the agenda of the theocrats who had helped them to power. This same electoral trend has occurred in every national election since that time, culminating in the re-election of President Bush and an increase in presence of social conservatives in both houses of Congress in 2004. And now the socal conservatives are off the leash, no longer capable of being reined in my the moderates who long held sway. These newer members of the GOP, many of whom were Southern democrats just a few years ago who could trace their roots in that party back to the civil War, have now taken to calling their more moderate party-members like Rudolph Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger, RINO’s, that is “Republicans in name only,” for they consider themselves the “true: conservatives, like the Byzantine Greeks who had never set foot in Italy but who considered themselves the “true” Romans.
But don’t take my word for this, because I am a liberal who can’t be trusted, right? Well how about Republican Congressman Christopher Shays of Connecticut who recently had this to say in the New York Times about the direction of his own party: "This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy." Or is Shays too much of a moderate for you? Do you need the word of a religious person, say a man of the cloth, to persuade you of the seriousness of the situation? How about the op-ed from the Rev. John Danforth, an Episcopal priest, former US senator from Missouri and President Bush’s most recent UN ambassador:
During the 18 years I served in the Senate, Republicans often disagreed with each other. But there was much that held us together. We believed in limited government, in keeping light the burden of taxation and regulation. We encouraged the private sector, so that a free economy might thrive. We believed that judges should interpret the law, not legislate. We were internationalists who supported an engaged foreign policy, a strong national defense and free trade. These were principles shared by virtually all Republicans.
But in recent times, we Republicans have allowed this shared agenda to become secondary to the agenda of Christian conservatives. As a senator, I worried every day about the size of the federal deficit. I did not spend a single minute worrying about the effect of gays on the institution of marriage. Today it seems to be the other way around.
Now that the Republican party is having trouble controlling the theocrats, shouldn’t this be a warning to the rest of America that something is going very wrong and that citizens should be on their guard?
Most of America has never even heard of the founders of the movement known variously as Christian Reconstructionism, dominion theology or theonomy (God’s law), but they are well known on the far right The late Rousas John Rushdoony is the godfather of the movement. His three- volume Institutes of Biblical Law is the standard work of the movement in which he outlines what a modern society based on the law of the Bible would look like. Basically, it would be an orderly society because everyone who disagreed with what was going on would be executed as either idolaters or a deviants, including fellow Christians. Rushdoony founded the Chalcedon Institute to promote his views, which have been widely disseminated throughout the Radical Right.
Other groups, such as the Alliance Defense Fund, the Coalition on Revival and the Council for National Policy have very close ties to the Reconstructionists. The ADF, which was founded by evangelicals such as the late Bill Bright of Campus Crusade and D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, as well as the late Larry Burkett of Crown Financial Concepts which is the fundamentalist’s version of the ACLU, brings the Reconstructionists to teach law students in their summer Blackstone Fellowship program, including such figures as George Grant, who advocates the execution of homosexuals in his book Legislating Immorality, and Gary DeMar who would also execute adulterers, women who seek abortions, and the doctors that perform them. The Coalition on Revival, which openly advocates the closing of public schools and abolishing the IRS, has detailed position paper on its web site outlining what and why they believe that the Bible should be the basis of all law and government. Readers should pay special attention to those papers as they outline in chilling detail what these people would do to America. Rushdoony, Gary DeMar and Rushdoony’s son-in-law Gary North, who advocates stoning homosexuals because the materials are so ready at hand, all were both original signers of the COR’s manifesto in 1986 as well as founding members of its steering committee, as were other such evangelical luminaries as J.I. Packer, Left Behind author Tim LaHaye, and Edith Schaefer, the wife of the late right-wing guru Francis Schaefer. Undoubtedly the most secretive of the theocratic organizations is the Council for National Policy. This organization, founded in 1981, brings together the heads of the biggest right-wing organizations for thrice annual meetings which are held in secret and open only to members. Over the years a number of researchers have been able to identify a number of these influential leaders. Rushdoony was a member for many years, as well as was one his disciples, Howard Phillips, the 1996 Presidential candidate of the Constitution Party who Focus on the Family’s James Dobson admitted voting for at a meeting of the CNP in 1998. In addition to the already mentioned “stoner” Gary North, other members have included Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed, Eagle Forum’s Phyllis Schlafly and Lt Col. Oliver North, as well as Peb Jackson of the evangelical organization Young Life. According to a report by the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State which has condensed recent news coverage of the group, there was a meeting of the group just prior to the Republican National Convention in August 2004 which was both appropriate and convenient, given that these people now control the Republican Party and they were all going to be there anyway.
Mainstream Americans ought to be asking what is going on with all of this. Why are these people and their ministries intent on destroying democracy? Why are they trying to make the Bible the handbook of American government and law? If these evangelical leaders do not espouse these positions, then why do they not publicly repudiate and distance themselves from such activities? What are they doing funding people who want to stone our citizens for “sex crimes”? Why are they paying to train aspiring lawyers using known theocrats who think that democracy is evil? And why do they, the followers of the one who said “Let your light so shine before others that they may see your good works and glorify your father who is in heaven,” are they meeting secretly to plot control of the Republican party and by extension the rest of our national life? What is it that they have to hide? We had better start asking these questions before it is too late and we are all stoned to death.
Posted by Public Theologian at 12:45 PM | Comments (11)
June 09, 2005
Really Left Behind: Scorning the Least of Thee
Posted by Faithful Progressive
On my own Blog, I’ve posted many times about the scary hard-right ideology and bizarre theology behind the Left Behind series of books. (see: Part 6-B Tim La Haye's Paranoid Politics) But almost as scary is the American economy under President Bush, which is leaving 95 percent of Americans truly Left Behind. There is a relationship between the the focus of these books, with their titillating and mean-spirited stories of liberals and UN officials getting their comeuppance, and the plight of the poor. I believe with all my heart that American Christians need to stop reading these kind of silly End Times fantasies and that they should instead start the hard work of responding to the real Gospel message of Jesus.
In the Gospels, Jesus rarely minces words. When a lawyer tried to trick him with a question about the commandments, Jesus deftly summarized both his preaching and the Law: love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself. One of the most beautiful and demanding aspects of his Gospel message is his forceful statement of our obligations to the poor and other social outcasts, the people he called the Least of Thee.
”I was hungry, and you gave me food. I was thirsty, and you gave me something to drink. I was alone and away from home, and you invited me into your house. I was without clothes, and you gave me something to wear. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you visited me.' "Then the good people will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and give you food, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you alone and away from home and invite you into our house? When did we see you without clothes and give you something to wear? When did we see you sick or in prison and care for you?' "Then the King will answer, 'I tell you the truth, anything you did for even the least of my people here, you also did for me.'
Christians are thus always faced with this fundamental moral question: what are we doing for the least among us? An in-depth New York Times report out this week provides chilling proof that we are failing this test as individuals and as a society. The recent New York Times series paints a picture of a Robin-Hood-in-reverse economy under President Bush. The series was very neatly summarized in this NYT June 7, 2005 Editorial.
The Bush Economy
With all of the debate about taxes, the economy and domestic spending, it is hard to imagine anyone supporting the notion of taking money from programs like Medicaid and college-tuition assistance, increasing the tax burden of the vast majority of working Americans, sending the country into crushing debt - and giving the proceeds to people who are so fantastically rich that they don't know what to do with the money they already have. Yet that is just what is happening under the Bush administration. Forget the middle class and the upper-middle class. Even the merely wealthy are being left behind in the dust by the small slice of super-rich Americans.
In last Sunday's Times, David Cay Johnston reported that from 1980 to 2002, the latest year of available data, the share of total income earned by the top 0.1 percent of earners more than doubled, while the share earned by everyone else in the top 10 percent rose far less. The share of the bottom 90 percent declined.
President Bush did not create the income gap. But the unheralded effect of his tax policy is its unequal impact on the modestly well to do. By 2015, those making between $80,000 and $400,000 will pay as much as 13.9 percentage points more of their income in federal taxes than those making more than $400,000, assuming the tax cuts are made permanent. Below $80,000, most taxpayers will see their share of taxes rise slightly or stay the same.
Whether they are people of faith or not, moderates, progressives and liberals believe that one role of government is to make things relatively more fair, whether in economics (tax policy/minimum wage/EITC ) or in relative social advantage (anti-discrimination/affirmative action). Meanwhile conservatives tend to "assume a level-playing field" and then leave it to the market to let benefits "trickle down" to the less fortunate. They also leave it up to the efforts of the individual to overcome major obstacles such as poverty and discrimination. There is some merit to both points of view. But only radical ideologues would intentionally try to advantage the rich at the expense of the poor--to assume that what is good for the rich is good for all. Yet this assumption seems to inform a lot of Bush economic policy. If you don't believe this, check out this revealing and shocking NYT graphic on Bush Tax Cuts.
This is quite simply immoral, and the tax policy of President Bush is largely to blame for this appalling new concentration of wealth among the super-rich. This problem is likely to get much worse before it gets better, given the elimination of the estate tax that has always served to prevent creation of an aristocracy in this country. The Bush tax policy will do a lot more for the super-rich than for the poor, who are scorned over and over again. The Book of Proverbs says that He who scorns the poor insults the Lord. As it says elsewhere on this website:
Tax breaks for the richest underpin ever-growing public debt. To preserve these tax cuts, public investment in education, health care, and housing is labeled "wasteful" and reduced or eliminated. So "the least of these" - children, the aged, the poor - are asked to bear the burden of controlling the public debt. This is an injustice. It is unfair, unchristian, and un-American.
Most Christians understand this. Some conservative evangelical Christians are teaming up with moderates like Jim Wallis to support A Call to Renewal to address poverty issues. British Christians have been central to the Make Poverty History campaign. But there is much more to be done. This weekend a group of progressive Christians begin a bus tour to get the Gospel message out. Jesus has set the bar pretty high, but we need to keep trying if we would call ourselves Christians.
Posted by Faithful Progressive at 11:33 PM | Comments (1)
Thinking about the possibilities of future "world-changing"
Posted by Jesus Politics
The Council on Revival is a small, yet influential Christian Right organization lead by Dr. Jay Grimstead. Their website is content rich and gives a very useful window into understanding the history and ideology behind the various current expressions of the Christian Right. Some quotes from the web page describing the mission of the Council on Revival:
COR's mission is "to help the Church rebuild civilization on the principles of the Bible so God's will may be done on earth as it is in heaven."
Wherever and whenever and to whatever degree that Christians are making a united stand in their societal groupings for the concerns of their King, Jesus, and are operating according to His Kingdom's principles, exactly at that point is the Kingdom of God in existence on this earth. When enough serious Christians thus influence, penetrate, and permeate enough various societal structures, and when those Christians are connected together in a common fellowship and commitment around their common Lord, that is when and where the Kingdom of God can be said to be advancing through society during this age.
Dr. Grimstead also writes:
At this period of church history, the Body of Christ worldwide is again engaged in a deadly, collision course with the forces of evil. It is becoming increasingly clear that each nation on this planet is being presented with an “either-or” choice wherein there is no neutral middle-ground, no “demilitarized zone” and no “fence-sitting.”
In each nation, one side or the other must win and become the dominant force in society. We in the COR orbit believe that the overriding issue underlying all present battles in politics, law, economics, education, communications, ethics, religion and family life is this foundational question: “Which law-base will govern the nations of the world—a biblical one, or an anti-biblical one?” Those are our only two options
It is our estimate that only about 10 percent of believers and a small minority of Christian leaders clearly understand the issues before us or have the courage to lose their lives, reputation, or security for Christ’s cause. Few are capable of joining organically and productively into a united local army of Christ composed of congregational “platoons.” Thus, it is our opinion, that the Body of Christ is a long way, in every nation, region, or city, from being able to unite and mobilize itself as the allied armies did in World War II and create a spiritual/theological “D-Day” to attack the forces of evil and advance the Kingdom of God on earth biblically and efficiently.
While most Christian leaders over 45 seem to have made an unconscious commitment to the status quo and to “peace at any price,” the new crop of leaders in their 30’s and early 40’s stepping onto the battlefield are ready to fight the good fight until the end. And coming behind them is a magnificent corps of bright, courageous, well-trained men and women in their 20’s who probably have Satan and his demons quaking in their boots. Add to that the coming generation of beautiful, bright-eyed children and teens from the Christian-school and homeschool movements who seem quite eager for meaningful lives and meaningful battle. We older warriors get pumped full of adrenaline just thinking about the possibilities of future “world-changing."
Posted by Jesus Politics at 05:41 PM | Comments (7)
June 07, 2005
The Kingdom of God
Posted by Father Jake
Our President, who claims to have been elected on the issue of “moral values,” planned to invade Iraq long before he publicly stated this intention, according to the Downing Street Memo. We are told that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”
Our nation, founded on the principle that every person has a right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” has killed over 20,000 innocent Iraqi civilians, and is operating concentration camps around the world.
A few months ago, at a gathering of over 500 Episcopalians, I heard a man proclaim from a microphone that in some instances, torturing prisoners might be necessary.
How is a Christian who loves his country to respond when it seems that his entire nation has been crazed by a blood lust that has spun out of control?
I don’t know. All I can tell you is how this Christian has responded.
I have reminded myself that I am first and foremost a citizen of another Kingdom; one which is ruled by the Prince of Peace.
The Kingdom of God is the phrase used more to describe the mission of Jesus Christ than any other in the gospels. What is this kingdom about? Justice and mercy. When I speak of justice, I'm not talking about "criminal justice" which is what people think of today. It’s not about law enforcement. It’s not about storm troopers threatening you with lethal force if you don't scrape and bow to them. It’s about being just. Its about struggling against injustice. Its about telling the CEO that it is decadent to take a limo when the janitor of his firm has to work 2 jobs to feed his kids. It’s about telling the President that lying to his people in order to invade another nation, and killing thousands of civilians in the process, reveals a lack of moral values. And, it’s about telling him that the citizens of this Kingdom will hold him accountable for his immoral actions.
The Kingdom is about standing up against oppression, wherever it shows its ugly head. It’s about breaking the chain of violence that threatens to destroy this planet.
What does this chain look like? Oppressors make victims. We are programmed early in life to detest the feeling of being a victim. We'll do anything to escape it. So, we become an oppressor, to rid ourselves of the victimization feelings. The boss chews you out at work. You go home and yell at the kid for the toys in the driveway. The child pulls the dog's tail. And so the chain goes, being played out on a global level among the nations.
How do we break the cycle? Not by use of force. Not by acts of violence. Not by the tools of oppression. But by turning to that which balances justice; mercy. We refuse to make victims. We make peace with those who we are tempted to victimize. And the chain stops with us.
This is what Jesus taught. "The gentiles lord their authority over one another, but not so with you!" The example of the cross stands before us as a way to break the chain. We do not respond to violence by making new victims. And, when we are reconciled with our victims, we are given the opportunity to encounter the one Pure Victim.
Does this mean we are door mats? Absolutely not. Both Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. got the message of Christ. They stood up against oppression, but refused to make new victims.
The kingdom of God is at hand. And, against this kingdom, the legions of hell will not prevail!
Posted by Father Jake at 09:11 PM | Comments (75)
June 06, 2005
God Also Created Adam and Steve: Straight Talk About Gay Marriage
Posted by Public Theologian
When voters went to the polls in November 2004, in eleven crucial states they were faced, not just with the Presidential and Congressional decision which all of us faced that day, but also with varying proposals to ban gay marriage. That is because the President’s political strategist, Karl Rove, understood long before the election that voter turnout among religious conservatives would be enhanced come Election Day and therefore reached out to influential people in those states who could help get those measures on the ballots. And he was right.
Christians believe that the best sex—not the just hottest sex, but it is that too—is between people who are in a covenanted relationship. Not just shacked up with car keys swapped and the lease in both names, but sex that is bound by a public promise, before friends, family and even strangers, that this is an exclusive relationship between two people who intend it to last for a lifetime. Christians believe that sex in this kind of relationship is “best” not simply because it induces the most pleasure but because Christians understand themselves to be responsible for more than just themselves, seeing their sexuality not in atomistic terms—what’s in it for me-- but as an act which can enhance and strengthen the lives of others or which can wound and tear down. This circle of concern includes the partners themselves, any children they might have, as well as the broader community and society in which they live.
The Religious Right has prophetically railed for at least a generation against the increasing tendency in our society to treat marriage casually and they are absolutely correct. Americans have, in recent years, married later, divorced more frequently, or ignored marriage altogether at greater levels than in any other time in our history, in each case to our detriment. Married people are healthier, wealthier, live longer and describe their overall quality of life as being superior to their single counterparts. Married men are especially affected positively: they are less likely to have car accidents, spend time in jail, or otherwise engage in reckless behavior. This makes life better not just for them, but for all of society. Interestingly, according to the highly regarded University of Chicago sexuality study from the 1990s, women in traditional religious households, far from being the frigid, repressed creatures of left-wing stereotype, reported that their sex lives were far more pleasurable than what was reported by the liberated women of the left. Even more important, the effect of matrimony on the children of the marriage enhances their lives tremendously. Children whose parents are married are more likely to graduate from high school, while are less likely to engage in premarital sex, to take drugs, or to smoke or drink alcohol. While liberals have counseled acceptance of all types of families, conservatives have both reminded America that such acceptance comes at a high social and economic cost, while at the same time hyping marriage’s benefits: If you want to be happy, and healthy, if you want to stay out of poverty and live a long time, if you want your kids to stay out of trouble and grow up to be well adjusted—if you want all that AND you want to have hot sex, get married and stay married.
Yet when it comes to gays and lesbians, the Religious Right drops all of their talking points—which the research suggests are all true—and instead falls back on bigotry and prejudice. In particular, there has been the curious argument, repeated now virtually every time one hears a conservative speak on the matter, is the appeal to definitions and dictionaries, namely that liberals are out to change the clear meaning of a word (marriage) that has been understood in static terms since the beginning of recorded history. My thought is that they tried this out somewhere in a focus group and it got some traction with Red Staters and so they recommended it for usage everywhere. Whatever its origin, it’s a stupid argument. Christians are not enjoined by their Lord to fidelity to a dictionary. They are, however, commanded to do that which is life-enhancing for the neighbor, and it is that litmus test and not any slavishness to terminology which drives their ethics.
And there is no question that marriage for gays and lesbians will be as life-enhancing as it has been for everyone else. The Religious Right has perhaps had to rely on the dictionary defense because they have no other piece of rhetoric that will work in the public square. Their real issue with homosexuality is that they think its practice is a sin, but since we don’t (yet) live in a theocracy, they can’t exactly use that on the floor of the Senate. But the problem for them is much greater than the inability to wield the cudgel of sin. While we have not yet reached a national consensus on what society is going to do with homosexual couples, we have decided that as a society we are not going to police their private adult sex lives any more than we will police those of heterosexuals. Last June the Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws in a