| Home > Community Forum > Monthly Archive |
December 29, 2005
Does Christianity Squash Women?
Posted by Jesus Politics
Five years ago at Bryn Mawr College, Rebecca Jones gave a lecture that I assume eventually became the basis of her new book, "Does Christianity Squash Women". Rebecca Jones and her husband, Dr. Peter Jones, also run the website, "Christian Witness to a Pagan Planet". In her lecture we see further evidence of the mainstreaming of extremely fundamentalistic notions of gender and family relations. Some excerpts from the lecture:
I was designed a woman. Part of that design is to submit myself to my husband. In the struggle against my sinful desire for autonomy, I look to Christ. Jesus is my example of willing submission. He went to the cross out of love. I have never considered Jesus a wimp for going to the cross, for submitting Himself to His Father’s will. If ever a human being was in an unjust situation, suffering infinitely for no apparently good reason, it was Christ. The feminist theologians scoff at the cross, denying their need for "folks hanging on crosses and blood dripping and weird stuff." They call the crucifixion the ultimate in child abuse.
The Bible teaches us that Christ is the head of the church and that the church’s role is to "bring all things together under one head, even Christ." I see this as a very large umbrella, with Christ’s sovereignty as the very tip. [ ] The father is to be the head of that home, in a role of authority over his wife and children. The Christian wife’s job is to "bring all things under one head," her husband.
The Bible’s description of couples is rich. The woman accepts the lordship of her husband within the bounds that God has prescribed. But a woman also receives the honor of her husband. 1 Corinthians paints an interdependent circle. Christ is the head of the man, and the man is the image and glory of God. [ ] The woman was created for the man, says Paul, and came from the man.
A woman need not find it humiliating to accept the role of support, encouragement and cheerleader for her husband. All the while she is honoring Christ in this way, she is glorifying her man, who is glorifying Christ, who is glorifying God. God the Father lifts up Christ and glorifies Him. So also, a Christian husband lifts up his wife and glorifies her. [ ]
In spite of the tug for immediate glory that sometimes pulls at my soul, I know that the goal I am pursuing is of much more long-lasting value. I’m not saying that I will never try to write a book, but I do consider the hearts of my children and my husband to be books of eternal worth. And I realize the territory of my home belongs to Christ. I am free, even bound, to use that home for His honor. In deciding not to pursue the call of a career outside the home, I am free to hear the calls of many people who need compassion, wisdom, a bed, or a meal.
Peter offers advice to Christian women married to unbelievers: "Wives, in the same way, be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives" (1 Peter 3:1-2). As Christ empowers a Christian woman to live this way, the hearts of men are won over.
Only when a woman understands that her worth, value and identity do not rest on how her husband sees her, or on how her world defines her, but on Christ’s absolute love for her, will she have the strength to willingly and gladly submit herself to her husband’s authority in marriage
Does Christianity squash women? Oh yes, it squashes them, as it does any Christian. We are slaves to Christ. I do not own my own body. I am not the master of my soul. It is humbling (though not humiliating) to realize that all my righteousness is "filthy rags" in God’s eyes. It is impossibly difficult to swallow my pride and to admit that I have nothing to offer God. To be a Christian is to admit sin, to fall on one’s face before a holy God and beg forgiveness. The radical feminist theologians are quite right. If we want to destroy marriage structures as Christianity defines them, we must destroy the ultimate Patriarch.
In Ezekiel 16 we see a highly patriarchal picture. A baby girl is thrown out at birth, and lies in a field, still covered in blood, unwashed, and unloved. A young man passes by and is moved with compassion. He lifts the newborn up and takes her to be washed and cared for. He provides all she needs in the way of clothing and nurture until she is a young woman. One day, he passes to see how she is faring, and is struck with her emerging adult beauty. He buys her a wedding dress, and takes her as his wife.
This is the picture God gives us of his care for us, His people. In today’s terms, this allegory is highly offensive. Is a woman dependent on a man’s care? Is she to be seen as refuse until a man comes to rescue her? Is she his property that he should be able to ride by one day and seize her as his own? Yet each Christian has had to admit to the reality of that picture. We are dead in our sins–tossed on the trash heap of the world. Though we were born to have value, we are nothing. No one cares. No one is there to rescue us. But Christ comes to rescue us, to wash us clean, to provide the clothes of his righteousness for us. Do you see that Christians are not arrogant, but thoroughly humble? Christians have admitted that they are entirely dependent in life or in death on the grace and mercy of a loving heavenly Husband. Their value is determined by Him. Their purpose is to please Him. Their existence is to bring His name honor. Their love is all for Him. Their name is His. Their identity is engraved in the hands of the one who died for them.
This humility before Him, this identity in Him, and this obedience to Him is the joy, the strength, the honor, the power, the motivation, the passion and the ecstasy of the Christian believer. If my Creator and my heavenly Father has declared the marriage structure to be good, because it reflects something about Him, and because it will teach me of my Savior, then I will embrace it with all my heart, even when my own sin still cries for me to rebel against it. I renounce the freedom to destroy myself and cling rather to the slavery that brings me life and love. I’ll take the beauty that God offers me:
"You became very beautiful and rose to be a queen. And your fame spread among the nations on account of your beauty, because the splendor I had given you made your beauty perfect, declares the Sovereign Lord" (Ezekiel 16:14).
The Spirit and the Bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life" (Rev. 22:17).
Posted by Jesus Politics at 07:58 PM | Comments (55)
Preparing for 2006
Posted by Fresh Politics
There always seems to be a lull for me this time of year. Politics takes a back seat as I concentrate on spending time with family and friends during the holiday season. But it's always there in the back of my mind; I vividly recall how last year's dread of President Bush's inauguration, when I had hoped so much that he would not be re-elected, loomed as 2005 began.
Funny how things change. Beginning the new year with the start of President Bush's second term and a strong Republican Congress, it seemed that the Administration was practically unstoppable. The only issue for progressives seemed to be if they were "too progressive" for the nation. Then came the President's social security overhaul fiasco, more bad news from Iraq, and Terri Schiavo. Suddenly, there was a crack in the facade, and as the year progressed, it has only gotten worse.
This has not been a good year for the Bush Administration specifically or for Republicans in general. Going into 2006, Democrats are hopeful that they may be able to regain at least one of the houses of Congress. But the lesson of 2005 is that you just never know -- a year that starts off with a bang can end in a bust. 2006 is a big year, starting with the Alito confirmation hearings in January. So although I am enjoying the holiday season, I am aware that though I may be mildly distracted from the world of politics now, I will have to be ready to enter the new year refreshed and ready to promote those issues which matter so much to me. Progressives who hope to turn back the tide should remain ever vigilant as we move into the new year, lest we are the ones licking our wounds this time next year.
Posted by Fresh Politics at 01:01 AM | Comments (0)
December 23, 2005
My Personal Skirmish in the War on Christmas
Posted by Faithful Progressive
It was an opportunity too rare to pass up. Somehow, the Wisconsin Christian Alliance for Progress was sent an e-mail asking us to join in attacking a school in Wisconsin that had declared "War on Christmas" by re-writing the Christmas standard Silent Night and inserting secular lyrics! The only problem with the story--pushed by the America Family Association, Fox News and others--is that it is almost completely false. So I was left with this rare opportunity to speak to a large group on a mass e-mail. I may have gone a little too far—I’ll leave it up to you to judge.
What follows are the actual e-mail exchanges between Keith (whose last name and e-mail address I am deleting to avoid any embarrassment) and members of the Christian Alliance e-mail group.
Family and friends;
I recently sent an e-mail to the Wisconsin governor and the Wisconsin state superintendant. See below. Please consider joining me in this effort by
sending this to anyone you know with the intention of reaching as many Wisconsin residents as possible. I have attached an e-mail from AFA describing what is going on in one of the elementary schools in Wisconsin.
Wisconsin Christian News and Wisconsin Christian Alliance; I have not had time to look over your web-sites. I trust that you are keeping the citizens and Christians of Wisconsin informed of this situation.
If not, please do!
Your brother in Christ,
Keith
Attachment 1
Governor Doyle and Superintendent Burmaster;
Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association informed me of your efforts to remove any reference to Christmas at Ridgeway Elementary School. Mr. Wildmon got it right when he said, "What these schools are doing to our children is not educating, but indoctrinating! And they are using Christmas as an excuse. Following the lead of the National Educational Association, Wisconsin educational leaders preach tolerance and diversity while being highly intolerant!" Highly intolerant... the very thing that many are accusing Christians of being today. Would you change your stance if the majority of the Dodgeville residents chose to home-school their children? Quickly, I believe. That is what some major retailers (Target, Lowes,
Costco, Walgreens, Sears) in the U.S. have recently done when confronted with thousands of signatures of Christians who would not purchase from their stores unless they put Christ back in Christmas.
As a resident of Kentucky I may not be able to exert any significant influence upon your choices but I will use every resource at my disposal to reach as many in Wisconsin that can.
I hope that you choose to let Christmas be what it is... the celebration of Jesus the Christ's birth!
Sincerely,
William Keith Thompson
Attachment 2
A Christmas Witch in Wisconsin Public School
Wisconsin Elementary School Changes "Silent Night" to "Cold in the Night" While Decorating For A Christmas Witch!
Dear William,
In Dodgeville, Wisconsin, Ridgeway Elementary School's "winter program" has changed the name of "Silent Night" to "Cold in the Night." Sung to the tune of "Silent Night," the lyrics include: "Cold in the night, no one in sight, winter winds whirl and bite, how I wish I were happy and warm, safe with my family out of the storm."
The "winter program" included decorating classrooms with Santa Claus, Kwanza symbols, Menorahs, and Labafana--a Christmas witch!
Also in Wisconsin, the Glendale-River Hills School District has banned every Christmas song which has any Christian "motive or theme." But while banning Christian Christmas songs, the district permits secular holiday songs as well as songs celebrating Hanukkah. In defending this policy, Frances Smith, the district administrator, says that the Hanukkah songs are more cultural than spiritual.
What these schools are doing to our children is not educating, but indoctrinating! And they are using Christmas as an excuse. Following the lead of the National Educational Association, Wisconsin educational leaders preach tolerance and diversity while being highly intolerant! Most of the residents of Wisconsin are tolerant, but not their educational leaders.
Banning nativity scenes. Banning Christmas songs in school. Banning Christmas in advertising. Calling a Christmas tree a "holiday" tree. Calling a Christmas parade a holiday parade. Refusing to mention the Reason for the season. It is time to take a stand for our children, our families, our faith and our freedom!
Educational leaders in your state could be the next officials to join this anti-Christian bigotry parade.
I urge you to email Wisconsin Governor Gov. Jim Doyle and Wisconsin State Superintendent Elizabeth Burmaster and ask them to stop this intolerant anti-Christian bigotry.
Click Here to Send Your Letter Now!
Very important! Please forward this to your family and friends. They need to be aware of this anti-Christian bigotry.
Thanks for caring enough to get involved.
Sincerely,
Don
Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association
Our Response
Hi Keith:
The only problem with your letter is that it is based upon lies, as is this whole phony Fox News generated "War on Christmas." Silent Night was sung at Ridgeway, and the school never re-wrote it--rather they were performing a play called The Little Tree’s Christmas Gift.
Please check out these links to get your facts straight. You owe the school's hardworking principal an apology!!!
Channel 3 local news report.
Silent Night Fraud
Rather than generating a phony and divisive campaign that is based upon lies and half-truths, I would ask you and all other Christians to join us in opposing the immoral cuts to Federal programs that help the poor. I am attaching a couple of e-mails for this purpose.
Have a very Merry Christmas!
Yours in Christ,
Wisconsin Christian Alliance for Progress
Attachment 1
Dear Faithful,
We have one last chance to reject this immoral budget. Call your representative now at 1-800-426-8073!
As the world waits for Christmas, poor families are still waiting for a compassionate Congress.
First, the bad news: This morning, the Senate passed a budget hurting low-income families just four days before Christmas. Now the good news: Because of your prophetic voices, the vote was so narrow that Vice President Cheney was forced to cut short a diplomatic trip to the Middle East to break a 50-50 tie. (Civics class flashback: He's the president of the Senate.) More importantly, your voices helped remove some harmful provisions of the bill, changes that will force the members of the House to fly back to Washington to vote on the amended bill.
Bottom line: Because of our hard work, we have one last chance to reject these harmful cuts to children and families struggling to work themselves out of poverty.
Call your representative now at 1-800-426-8073!
After you connect to your representative's office, tell the staffer you reach:
As a person of faith from [your state], I ask you to please vote "no" on the new budget bill that the Senate passed. Before you go home for the holidays, don't take away health care for low-income children and crucial work support for families trying to work themselves out of poverty.
Background
This morning, the Senate approved the budget reconciliation conference report. Vice President Cheney, president of the Senate, cut short a diplomatic trip to the Middle East to break the 50-50 tie. All Democrats and Independent Jim Jeffords (Vt.) opposed the bill, as well as five Republicans: Chafee (R.I.), Smith (Ore.), Collins (Maine), Snowe (Maine), and DeWine (Ohio).
But, just prior to the vote, the Senate removed several provisions from the conference report that the House had passed at 6 a.m. Monday (212-206). Therefore, the House must now approve the Senate's version and could vote as early as Thursday or Friday, or as late as January or February.
What does this mean? We get another chance in the House. We must appeal TODAY to congressional hearts and minds, asking legislators to oppose a budget that hurts the poor. Call your representative now at 1-800-426-8073.
Many in the religious community cannot believe that leaders could pass a federal budget cutting health care, child support, and educational assistance to low-income families while further lowering taxes for the wealthiest Americans and increasing the deficit for our grandchildren. Making this decision just before Christmas does not proclaim goodwill toward all. Although the faith community played a strong role in preventing food stamps from being cut in this budget, we cannot ignore the many other cuts that could become a reality for many of the 36 million people living in poverty in the U.S. Despite clear messages from people of faith that the poor families and children with whom we work need better policies and support, our political leadership is missing the meaning of Christmas. Instead of filling the hungry with good things and sending the rich away empty, this budget process will only fill the rich with good things and send the hungry away empty.
Bipartisan efforts to prevent severe budget cuts continue to provide hope. Congressional leadership may cast today's slight change to the budget bill as a way to delay the inevitable. That is not the case, and your voice can continue to have an impact. Please keep doing the great work you have been doing all year!
Make sure your member of Congress knows you are still watching and praying. Call your representative now at 1-800-426-8073 and ask the your to oppose the budget reconciliation bill.
Peace,
The political and organizing staff at Sojourners and Call to Renewal
Attachment 2
ELCA NEWS SERVICE
December 21, 2005
ELCA Presiding Bishop's Statement on Passage of Budget Reconciliation Bill
The Rev. Mark S. Hanson, presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, released this statement today following U.S. Senate passage of the budget reconciliation bill:
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America's (ELCA) steadfast opposition to the budget reconciliation process has had a direct impact in the U.S. Congress. Countless people of faith, including myself and all 65 ELCA synod bishops, spoke out against the process, which threatened cuts to food stamps, Medicaid, student loans, and other programs that help people living in poverty throughout the United States. We were appalled that these cuts were proposed in order to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest 3 percent of Americans, and that the deficit would actually increase, contrary to the stated purpose of the reconciliation process. As people of faith, we found tax cuts for the rich paid for by slashing safety net programs to be immoral.
Our voices of opposition were heard, and have provided a tangible sign that the Church is living out the Gospel of Jesus Christ and "proclaiming the greatness of the Lord" in our own day. Though some spending cuts ultimately passed in the Senate, food stamp cuts were eliminated from the final version. For this, we give thanks to the ELCA leaders and members who spoke out, including the ELCA Conference of Bishops, and all Lutherans who have called and written to members of Congress. We also give thanks for the broad ecumenical partnership among Christians working together from the shared scriptural values of justice, compassion, mercy and hospitality. And finally, we give thanks for those members of Congress who heard our cry on behalf of the poor and who voted against this process, in some cases under great pressure and at great political risk. We thank them for their courage and compassion, while we continue to pray for all public officials.
Despite the food stamp victory, the remaining cuts - including cuts to Medicare, child support enforcement, and student loans - are devastating to the "least among us." In the current version, people living in poverty across the United States will see shrinking Medicaid benefits coupled with increased out-of-pocket costs many will be unable to afford. Less money spent on child support enforcement means less child support money going to the children who need it. And cuts to student loans will prevent many from breaking the cycle of poverty through the pursuit of higher education.
The budget reconciliation measure needs to be reconsidered by the House of Representatives due to a substantive change made by the Senate. It is unclear when this action will occur in the House of Representatives.
The 2006 budget process is not over, and the 2007 budget process will begin soon.
The deficit increase resulting from the budget/tax reconciliation process will create more pressure in next year's budget to make more cuts in spending for safety net programs. As people of faith, we will continue to fight for an honest and moral budget in 2006, 2007 and beyond.
The Rev. Mark S. Hanson
Presiding Bishop
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
So far, I have had no reply.
Posted by Faithful Progressive at 11:58 AM | Comments (9)
December 22, 2005
The Rise of Dominionism
Posted by Jesus Politics
Frederick Clarkson has a new article in The Public Eye magazine. Clarkson, author of "Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy" and the founder of the Talk to Action blog, warns us about the political ambitions of the Christian Right. Some excerpts:
The story of Roy's rock epitomizes the rise of what many are calling "dominionism." It is a story of how notions of "Biblical law" as an alternative to traditional, secular ideas of constitutional law are edging into mainstream American politics. [ ]
As readers of The Public Eye know, dominionism—in its "softest" form the belief that "America is a Christian Nation," and that Christians need to re-assert control over political and cultural institutions—has been on the rise for a long time. [ ]
Recently however, the term has become fashionable with some lumping every form of evangelical Christianity and every faction in the Bush White House into one big, single-minded imperial dominionist plot. Dominionism is narrower and more profound than that. It is the driving ideology of the Christian Right. [ ]
Berlet's distinction between hard and soft dominionists is clear and broad enough to describe the two main wings of the movement. But these viewpoints, like the terms "theocrat" and "theocracy," are openly embraced by few. They are terms used by outside observers to understand a complex yet vitally important trend. So for people trying to figure out if a conservative politician, organization, or religious leader is "dominionist," I notice three characteristics that bridge both the hard and the soft kind.
Dominionists celebrate Christian nationalism, in that they believe that the United States once was, and should once again be, a Christian nation. In this way, they deny the Enlightenment roots of American democracy.
Dominionists promote religious supremacy, insofar as they generally do not respect the equality of other religions, or even other versions of Christianity.
Dominionists endorse theocratic visions, insofar as they believe that the Ten Commandments, or "biblical law," should be the foundation of American law, and that the U.S. Constitution should be seen as a vehicle for implementing Biblical principles. [ ]
The notion we often hear in public these days—of the supposed suppression of Christian expression by an alleged secular humanist conspiracy—stems largely from the works of Reconstructionist R.J. Rushdoony and those of the Reconstructionist- influenced writer, Francis Schaefer. Tim LaHaye, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson also echo these claims. [ ]
Moore and his attorney Herb Titus (vice-presidential candidate of the Constitution Party in 1996) drafted the Constitution Restoration Act, which would allow local, state and federal officials to acknowledge "God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government" and prevent the U.S. Supreme Court from gagging them. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), and Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL) signed on as the bill's main sponsors, and announced its introduction at a press conference in Montgomery, Ala., in February 2004. [ ]
It is a classic and pioneering "court stripping" bill, stripping the Supreme Court of its power of oversight. The clear presumption of the bill is that God's law is, once was, and should always have been the cornerstone of law and jurisprudence in the United States. While at this writing, the bill has not, and may never progress out of committee, the depth of support for a bill of such profound consequence is one fair measure of how far the most overt dominionist agenda has come. [ ]
But many Americans, regardless of their political orientation, seem genuinely baffled and obsessed about one or another factor in the rise to power of the Christian Right: they look to issues of funding, mass media, megachurches, dominionism, and so on. It is all of these and more. However, following the logic of Occam's Razor, that the best explanation is usually the simplest, I offer this: the Christian Right social movement, fueled by the growing influence of dominionist ideology, gained political influence because it was sufficiently well organized and willing to struggle for power. And now they are exercising it.
Posted by Jesus Politics at 02:02 PM | Comments (34)
Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid
Posted by Fresh Politics
Since last Friday's New York Times article breaking the story that the Bush Administration authorized and engaged in a secret wiretapping program, there has been much debate about the legality of the Administration's actions. President Bush acknowledged the program in his weekend radio address, and he and others in the administration have been out in full force this week explaining why this is an important program and insisting that it does not infringe on civil liberties. The key point made is this: 'tis better to have a secret program like this than to risk another terrorist attack. Don't you feel better knowing that Georgie's got your back?
The administration contends that it needs this secret program because it has to move quickly to thwart terrorist activity. Yet, this conveniently ignores that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA") court almost always grants warrants, and that the government can seek a warrant retroactively if time is of the essence. The issue isn't whether the government can move quickly to protect the American people in the event of a major threat, which surely is a legitimate reason for the government to take quick action. Rather, the issue is why the government wants to avoid getting warrants.
I haven't heard a convincing response yet. The "we have to move quickly" argument simply fails to hold water in light of current law which permits the government to get a retroactive warrant. There is surely more to this than meets the eye. In a culture of greed and corruption that has eroded the credibility of the Bush Administration and the Republican party, conspiracy theorists have all sorts of ideas on how the government has been listening to and why. I'm not buying a lot of these assertions, but I don't doubt that there is more to this story than the Bush Administration wants the American public to know. And I am not going to ignore it just because they parade around a bunch of their friends saying "September 11th" a million times and telling us that this has saved us from a terrorist attack. I won't let them distract me with fear.
I remember, shortly after September 11th, having a conversation with a friend of mine who was in lower Manhattan that day. She told me that she was willing to give up some civil liberties if it would keep her safe. Knowing her, I was shocked to hear such a statement, but have since learned that it was the trauma of the event and fear talking. I doubt she would say the same thing now. But fear does a funny thing, and makes people do things they ordinarily wouldn't. Giving up our civil liberties should never be an option. To do so would defeat that which we are trying to protect.
Posted by Fresh Politics at 02:36 AM | Comments (1)
December 20, 2005
You Are Being Watched
Posted by Public Theologian
The arrogance of the Bush administration has hit new peaks with the revelation that they have been spying on Americans. They are telling us that this is an essential element n the war on terror and that they are only targeting citizens with ties to al-Qaeda.
The problems with this explanation are legion. For one thing, such wiretaps are illegal under both the Constitution and federal law. There is already a law, on the books since 1978 and used about 25,000 times by the government since then, which would allow wiretaps approved by a secret court. The government is even allowed to tap in emergency situations for up to fifteen days if it needs to get a jump on terrorists before it can file the proper paperwork. But file it, it must. And when the court looks at these government requests, it almost always approves them—only five have ever been turned down and two of those were approved when the requests were modified.
So why does Bush think he should have dictatorial powers?
This is all the more troubling when one thinks of the track record that the administration has on such matters. They have said for years that Saddam Hussein was with al-Qaeda, all evidence to the contrary. They have tried repeatedly to prosecute alleged terrorists in this country, only to be defeated in virtually every case, most recently this month in South Florida where a university professor who had been tapped for thousands of hours (legally) was acquitted of being the chief fundraiser for Islamic terror organizations.
So why should we imagine that the government is right when they simply assert that they are only wiretapping the phones of known al-Qaeda contacts?
Moreover, because they are also watching Quaker meetings, animal rights groups and peace activists (remember the cookie-eating peaceniks whom Bushies infiltrated in “Fahrenheit 911”?), why should we imagine that the government is not just watching Americans who disagree with their policies?
Will they be so expansive about Presidnetial power when they lose the 2998 Presidential election?
Posted by Public Theologian at 08:55 PM | Comments (0)
When Christians Become the Stumbling Block
Posted by Father Jake
Mahatma Gandhi once said, “"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." How many people share this sentiment today?
I suspect the number might be many more than we could ever imagine.
I can recall a time in my life, during the late 50s and early 60s, when everyone went to church on Sunday. If your car remained in the driveway Sunday morning, the neighbors would be talking about you on Monday morning. Then, slowly, the social mores began to shift. Soon it became socially acceptable to stay home and read the Times on the patio, or even play golf, on Sundays. Attendance numbers took a nose dive within most mainline churches.
The multiple reasons for this decline is a topic for another day. I mention it only to point out one result of this shift in our mores. The children of those who stopped participating in church would now be in their 30s. Many of them now have their own children. This means that today there are two generations in some families who may have never set foot in a church and have little or no knowledge of the bible or the Good News of Jesus Christ. Their image of what it means to be a Christian has been learned primarily from the media.
What are those images? Primarily the televangelists, including Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Jim Baker and Jimmy Swaggert. Is it any wonder that many of these folks consider Christianity to be a joke?
The latest image of a “Christian” offered by our media has come to us by way of the latest big phenomenon to hit the airwaves; reality TV. A few months ago, while channel surfing, I stumbled across a show called “Trading Spouses”. I had missed the beginning of the show, but the premise seemed to be that two mothers switched places for a few days. Camera crews follow them around to record their responses to their new environment. Each family received $50,000 for their participation. At the end of the show, the “visiting” mother got to designate how the family would split up the funds.
In the episode I stumbled across, one of the mothers explored various spiritual traditions, some of which might fit under the generic label of “new age”. The other mother was a “born again Christian”. When the Christian mother returned home, she exploded with rage, while the cameras rolled. You can watch a video of her rant here. What this clip does not mention is that this mother, now referred to as “God’s Warrior”, later relented and accepted the $50,000. She has become a celebrity of sorts, as can be seen by this bobble head, which recently sold on ebay for $870.
There are two issues that trouble me about this particular “Christian witness.” The first is to ask what kind of sleazy TV producer would take advantage of an obviously mentally ill woman? Beyond that, did this producer give any thought at all about how her rant would offer a new addition to the growing library of negative images of Christianity?
The second thing that troubles me is that, unfortunately, my experience suggests that God’s Warrior is not just one isolated example. I have met quite a few rude, obnoxious, and abusive persons who claim a right to their ugly behavior because they are “fighting for God.”
How do we respond to a media who seems to be willing to stoop to lower and lower levels to boost their ratings, even if it means making a mockery of Jesus Christ? And how can we get those who hide their mental illness behind the shield of their religion the help they desperately need? And finally, what can we do to offer a world hungry for spiritual food a positive view of our Christian faith?
Posted by Father Jake at 08:18 PM | Comments (10)
December 16, 2005
'Full-Quiver' Theology
Posted by Jesus Politics
Miguel De La Torre, a professor of social ethics at Iliff School of Theology in Denver, writes an article in response to the "Full-Quiver" theology as defined by Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville. Some quotes:
In a July 27 column in Baptist Press, Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (my alma mater) insists that couples who choose childlessness are guilty of "rebellion against parenthood [that] represents nothing less than an absolute revolt against God's design."
He bases his assertion on Psalm 127: 3-5 which reads: "Children are a heritage of the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward. As arrows in a soldier's hand, so are the sons of the young. Blessed is the man who has filled his quiver with them."
Mohler advocates a "full-quiver" theology, which in some forms disapproves of all forms of contraception. Only God can decide when to "open or close the womb." For mere mortals to practice birth control is to supersede the role of divinity. If children are the sign of blessing, then the best that humans can do is have as many children as possible, so that a man's quiver can truly be full. [ ]
If these scientifically projected increases are reliable, then we must ask: Why is Mohler concerned about under-population? Under-population for whom? In other words, who is the "we" that is barely replenishing itself?
The projections concerning U.S. population growth also show that if present trends continue Euro-Americans will cease being the majority race in the United States by about 2050. The combined population growth of communities of color over the next half century will make America a predominately non-white nation.
Hence, the religious call for "full-quiver" theology is white-supremacy code language advocating for the increase of white babies.
Mohler's call, whether he realizes it or not, is a race-based warning. It is a call for white fecundity, lest America becomes overrun with "colored" children, which would only lead, as Mohler puts it, to "huge social problems in the future." [ ]
Indeed, as a father of two children myself, I can unequivocally claim that my children are among the greatest blessings of my life. Like Brother Al, who also has just two children, we are not in "moral rebellion" against God. But if Mohler insists on imposing a "full quiver," then I suggest he either lead by example or remain quiet.
Posted by Jesus Politics at 09:38 AM | Comments (19)
Religious Leaders Arrested Protesting Immoral House Budget
Posted by Faithful Progressive
For the past year, many of us have been fighting the good fight, trying to limit the impact of federal budget cuts on poor Americans. That fight has come down to its last battle, and emotions are running high. Earlier this month, the U.S. House passed a so-called budget-cutting measure that would directly transfer $50 billion from the poor to the rich by cutting taxes for the wealthy and food stamps for the hungry. The bill also imposes new fees on Medicaid recipients (fees that many won't be able to afford), squeezes student loan eligibility, and cuts both daycare and child-support enforcement funds. House negotiators are trying to reach agreement with the U.S. Senate, which passed a slightly better $35 billion budget cut that spares some programs for the poor. In Washington, more than 100 religious leaders were arrested as they sought to draw attention to this bad news for the poor. As the Washington Post reported:
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Capitol Police arrested 115 religious activists who were protesting a House Republican budget plan's cuts in social programs when they refused to clear the entrance to a congressional office building Wednesday.
"These are political choices being made that are hurting low-income people," said Jim Wallis, the event's organizer and founder of the Christian ministry group Sojourners. "Don't make them the brunt of your deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility."
Wallis called the House budget plan, which would produce $50 billion in savings over five years, "the real Christmas scandal," a reference to a campaign by some conservative Christian groups against the greeting "Happy holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas."
Wallis, who was arrested, said the group had little complaint with a more modest Senate plan.
Outside in the frigid cold for several hours, more than 200 demonstrators sang religious and holiday songs, prayed aloud and chanted, "Stop the cuts." Those who were peacefully arrested and led away from the steps of the Cannon House Office Building faced booking and a $50 fine, said Sgt. Kimberly O'Brien, a Capitol Police spokeswoman.
The prayer vigil was one of dozens taking place around the country.
"When you look at all denominations you see a real commitment to address the needs of the poor," said Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif. "And here we have a budget that does just the opposite."
The group gained support in the Capitol, where the Senate again went on record in opposition to cutting Medicaid benefits and the food stamp program as House-Senate negotiators continued talks on the budget measure.
As we noted last week, this was a National Week of Prayer and Action that included many local events to protest the pending cuts in essential programs that serve those at the lower end of the income scale. On Wednesday a group of about 20 of us, led by Madison Area Urban Ministry, gathered in snowy Madison outside the Dane County Jobs Center. We were a very diverse group—racially, religiously and in terms of our personal economic circumstances- but we were united in our belief in the power of prayer and our effort to bring good news to the poor. After we had heard the prayers and thoughts of numerous church leaders (including FP speaking for the Wisconsin Christian Alliance for Progress), we had an extended conversation with a job-seeker named Christopher who came to ask us what we were doing there.
Christopher had been released from prison just two weeks ago, and he had been unable to find a job or a suitable place to live. He was literally living on the street and had already run through his allotment of food stamps and had been cut off--he was hungry and a little desperate, but he was greeted warmly by MUM staff who promised to get him set up with a place to live to make it through the harsh Wisconsin winter. What was striking was the sense that we should be increasing our currently inadequate services to the poor, but that instead the Republican leaders in the Congress are hell-bent on cutting them instead--just in time for winter and the holiday season.
Man, even Scrooge didn't actually steal from the poor during the holidays! Jesus said he came to bring "good news to the poor," and they need this more than ever given the bad news brought to them by Speaker Hastert and the GOP House. Let's hope and pray that the more humane Senate version is adopted.
Posted by Faithful Progressive at 02:18 AM | Comments (8)
December 15, 2005
A Real Patriot Act
Posted by Fresh Politics
The Patriot Act. Ugh. Talk about taking a relatively good concept and transforming it into a national nightmare. If you've seen Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911, it's hard not to equate the Patriot Act with spying on cookie-loving California peaceniks who pose no greater threat to our national security than Cookie Monster. Perhaps a bit out there and a little soft around the edges, but basically harmless.
It's also hard not to recall the admission that no one really read the Patriot Act all that carefully before it was passed, prompting Michael Moore to drive around Washington D.C. reading it over a microphone. Like him or not, Moore's documentary highlighted some of the problems with the Patriot Act as it is now.
Several of the Act's provisions are set to expire on December 31st. The House of Representatives voted 251-174 on Wednesday to renew 16 of its provisions, the result of a House-Senate compromise. The matter now moves to the Senate, but the controversy over civil liberties continues. Some senators have called for a three month extension to allow time to craft a new bill tackling some of the Patriot Act's controversial provisions instead of rushing to pass the compromise now. There is also the possibility of a one year extension if the compromise fails to pass.
Balancing civil liberties with national security is no small task. The first attempt has led to many documented abuses that, at the very least, threaten our ideals as a nation. As provisions are set to expire, doesn't it make sense to try to remedy some of these problems? And if so, are we going to try to patch them over with a band-aid compromise or try to put some meaningful thought and deliberation into how we can effectively protect our nation and our foundational civil liberties? While I don't expect that our lawmakers will cure all the problems, I do expect them to put serious thought into addressing them (why would we expect anything less?). Trying to pass a compromise that holds little promise of making a meaningful change isn't worth the effort. Passing a short-term extension, and then doing some real work to draft provisions that will make the Patriot Act better, would benefit us all.
Posted by Fresh Politics at 05:23 AM | Comments (1)
December 14, 2005
Executed by the Golden State
Posted by Father Jake
Stanley Tookie Williams was executed early this morning. It is time to expose such acts for what they are; barbarous atrocities.
Do I say that because I think Tookie Williams was innocent? No. Personally, from what I have read of the case, I doubt his innocence. Even if he did not commit these particular crimes, as one of the founders of the Crips, there is little doubt that he was involved in violent crimes.
Do I consider this execution to be an atrocity because I believe that Tookie redeemed himself through his anti-gang work? That is a better reason than the claim of innocence. And, as a Christian, and a redeemed sinner, I certainly believe in redemption. Moses and St. Paul come to mind as two examples of redeemed murderers. But, no, that is not the main reason I think this execution was wrong.
Do I object to the state taking the life of this man because I’ve lived a sheltered life and just don’t understand the dangers of violence on our streets? No. Unfortunately, I spent some years on the street. I was beaten a few times and shot once. I’ve looked down the wrong end of the barrel of a gun a few times. I know the violence well. And I still say that killing Williams was an act that cannot be supported by Christian morality.
I object to this execution because I believe that it is God’s nature to always balance justice with mercy. Did Williams deserve mercy? Maybe not. Do any of us deserve mercy? I certainly don’t. The wages of sin is death, and I am certainly a sinner. Yet, God has shown me mercy.
This writer expresses the point well:
…This alone - this view of mercy as a gift from God to us, that we should share with others - should be the true motivation for any clemency toward any condemned man. We should not be as concerned with whether more blacks are given the death penalty, as we should be concerned about an uncontrolled sense of vengeance in our own hearts. We should not be so concerned with whether a criminal has reformed or been redeemed, for only God knows that - rather, we should be concerned with whether our hearts and minds have been reformed to pray for his redemption, rather than his destruction. We should not be so concerned that we might put to death a powerful anti-gang advocate and Nobel Prize nominee, but rather that we might put to death a human being - any human being, innocent or guilty.
Your thoughts?
Posted by Father Jake at 08:57 PM | Comments (9)
December 12, 2005
Goin' Nucular
Posted by Public Theologian
You would think that since the leader of their party can't pronounce the word that the Republicans would avoid it.
Over the weekend Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said that he was prepared to use the so-called “nuclear option” which would end Senate filibusters of judicial nominees, in order to bring the nomination of Judge Sam Alito to a vote. The Democrats should take him up on his promise.
The right to virtually unlimited debate is the distinctive element of the upper house of the Congress. It was created to be different in character from the House, whose construction was designed to elicit a “knee-jerk” populist response to matters of governance, in contrast with the Senate, which was constructed to render decisions based upon sustained reflection. Think of it as the diffrence between two of this year’s best-sellers, Blink and The Wisdom of Crowds.
Since republicans have the numbers on their side on the Senate they intend to push the nominee through, no matter what the cost. They are willing to sacrifice decades of tested practice which the filibuster embodies, and remove it from the Senate’s rules in order to make a frontal assault on abortion, which is what the nomination of Alito represents.
But Alito is too far outside of the mainstream of American politics to merit a lifetime appointment to the court. The man not only is proud of his work to overturn Roe, he thinks that women should have to get their husband’s permission to have an abortion and that Congress does not have the right to regulate machine guns. It is because he is such an extremist that the fundamentalists on the right are so gleeful about his possible confirmation—he’s a kindred spirit and they can’t wait for him to be deciding the fate of the country.
So Democrats have to oppose him with everything they have. There isn’t any tomorrow for the women of this country, and thus there remains no reason for which to “save” the filibuster, as if a more dreadful “worst case scenario” were going to appear. This is it and they had better be prepared to go to the mat.
And they may very well fail in what they attempt. The only hope that they have is that Republican moderates will join with them to avert what will be a train wreck for women’s rights in this country. The Democrats can stop the confirmation process if enough conservatives in this Senate will actually conserve something, namely the Senate’s longstanding rule of unlimited debate. If they won’t, the result will not only be a scourge to women, but it will also undo the founder’s plan to distinguish the houses of Congress from one another. The Senate will cease to function as the brakes to the whims of the Republic and we will be but a hair’s breath away from what the founders always feared, which is impulse-driven, unreflective mob rule, or what we currently have going on in the House of Representatives. Does anyone think that creating a clone of what is going on there is going to make America better?
Hopefully there are enough Republicans in the Senate who have not lost their minds and who can think past this situation to see what a change it would bring about in our governance and who will stop it.
Posted by Public Theologian at 04:12 PM | Comments (7)
December 10, 2005
National Week of Prayer and Action for Compassionate Priorities: December 12-16
Posted by Faithful Progressive
Call it the real war on Christmas. Just in time for Christmas, the leaders of Congress are set to take up yet another bill that makes life harder for the middle class and the poor in this country. Next week the House and Senate will attempt to pass a final version of a bill slashing funding for programs that help the most needy Americans. Before the Thanksgiving recess, both the House and Senate approved their own version of a budget reconciliation bill that cuts funding to mandatory programs. As the Coalition on Human Needs reports:
The Senate bill cuts $35 billion and the House cuts $50 billion.
The difference between those two bills must be ironed out in the next few days. The final bill that emerges from the conference committee will be voted on in each chamber. The reconciliation bill represents the top priority for right-wing members – yet many representatives and senators have voiced concerns over a wide variety of provisions under consideration. It is not yet clear Republican leadership will find enough votes to pass any final bill. House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) has threatened to keep the House in session until December 20 or later until the House agrees to the budget cuts. Although right-wing members claim the cuts are necessary to reduce the deficit, any money “saved” from cutting services is being directed to pay for new tax cuts benefiting the wealthy. In fact the coupling of two reconciliation bills – one cutting services and one cutting tax cuts – actually increase the deficit. For more information about the tax cuts, see related article in this issue.
To combat the budget cuts, low-income advocates are planning a National Week of Prayer and Action for Compassionate Priorities for December 12-16. Advocates are being encouraged to call their representatives and senators next week and the Emergency Campaign for America's Priorities is staging more than 90 events across the country. The faith-based organization Sojourners will hold a prayer vigil at the U.S. Capitol on December 14. Dozens of other prayer vigils will be held elsewhere in the country that week.
There are stark differences between the House and Senate versions of the budget-cutting bill – and those differences could trip up negotiators. If Congress is not able to approve the final bill before the end of the year, they could attempt to bring it up again in January. The budget resolution for fiscal year 2006, which Congress approved in the spring and which granted authority for the reconciliation bill, will remain in effect until Congress passes the next budget resolution for fiscal year 2007.
Call Your Senators and Representative and Urge Them To Oppose Both Bills
Once again, the toll-free number 800-426-8073, made available by the American Friends Service Committee, can be used the week of December 12 to reach the Capitol switchboard. From there you can be connected to your Representative. Even if you are not sure who your Representative is, the people at the switchboard can figure it out for you and connect you. Then you can hang up and call back two more times to be directed to both your Senators. For a flier with the information you need to call, click here:
I am going to a local event in Madison this Wednesday at noon. We will be holding some large Christian Alliance for Progress signs that say: Justice, Compassion, Equality. To find an event near you, clivk here.
Posted by Faithful Progressive at 02:22 PM | Comments (2)
December 08, 2005
The Gay Invention
Posted by Jesus Politics
Touchstone magazine's current issue has an article, "The Gay Invention: Homosexuality Is a Linguistic as Well as a Moral Error", written by R. V. Young. It is disturbing to see such an explicitly anti-gay article in a magazine that seems to want to be known as following in the scholarly tradition of C.S. Lewis. Another distressing thing about this article is that it is written by an English professor at a major state university. Some quotes:
Severe condemnation of any deviation from procreative sexuality seems, however, to have been in force in the ancient world only among the Hebrews, but it was incorporated into both the morality and the law of the Christian society emerging at the end of classical antiquity and became the standard view of the Western world.
On the basis of Genesis 19, Christians applied the term “sodomy” specifically to erotic acts between persons of the same sex. In his typically brisk, dispassionate style, St. Thomas Aquinas classifies “sodomitical vice” among “the species of lust contrary to nature,” and says that it is not quite so grave a sin as bestiality, but worse than the failure of a man and woman to observe “the proper manner of lying together.”
----
Writing for university theology students, St. Thomas is considerably more explicit on the subject than most Christian writers. The author of a fourteenth-century preacher’s manual, Fasciculus Morum, calls sodomy a “diabolical sin against nature” and passes over it “with horror, leaving it for others to expound” and Chaucer’s Parson likewise calls it “thilke abhomynable synne, of which that no man unnethe oghte speke ne write.”
Scriptural writers likewise tend to be reticent on the subject: The epistle of Jude, for example, refers to the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah as fornication and, in a curious circumlocution, the pursuit of “other flesh,” and in writing to the Ephesians St. Paul shrinks from mentioning “things . . . done by them in secret” that “it is a shame even to speak of.” This reluctance even to name or describe sodomy and other forms of lechery seems to undermine the argument that sodomy is of little consequence in the Bible because it is mentioned infrequently.
----
While men and women who are possessed by an urge to commit sodomy with others of the same sex should always be treated with justice and charity, they should not be allowed to determine the norms of moral discourse.
The words in which we express our ideas have consequences. To insist that words be used rationally and consistently is a first small step toward recovering moral reason. We should, therefore, refuse to accept “gender” as a relativistic substitute for the fundamental difference indicated by “sex,” while the latter term is expropriated to mean any kind of physical coupling. Above all, we should not acquiesce in the labels “heterosexual” and “homosexual,” when we are referring to men and women.
----
No really existing class of persons of a specific, distinct nature corresponds to the word “homosexual” in the way that men and women are distinct, complementary kinds of human being. A claim for specific “homosexual rights” is, therefore, frivolous, and the word is merely an ideological construct aimed at undermining the sexual norms inscribed in human nature.
Posted by Jesus Politics at 09:40 AM | Comments (91)
Holiday Talk
Posted by Fresh Politics
I've been thinking back on all the things going on in the political world of late. We heard that Tom DeLay will have to stand trial after all, although on fewer charges. The US has been accused of having secret torture/interrogation cells in Europe. There is always news of some explosion coming from Iraq. The Secretary of Defense thinks the press should cover the happier stories of the war in Iraq instead of always printing such bad news. Much like the Iraqi newspapers, where glowing articles have been written and paid for a la Armstrong Williams. More and more information is coming out about Judge Samuel Alito, nominee to the Supreme Court. Oh, and there is always Saddam Hussein's trial, punctuated with continuances and antics from the defendants.
Given the recent state of current events, it's plain to see why there is so much attention given to the so-called War on Christmas. Have you noticed? It is practically everywhere, this kind of tense atmosphere created by a manufactured argument that there is an attack on Christmas.
Look, I see nothing wrong with saying Happy Holidays. This is, after all, the holiday season for several faiths; why should Christmas be the only one of importance? This is the perfect opportunity to be inclusive and to respect and celebrate the vast diversity in this country. Doing this does not mean that we eradicate Christmas from our culture; in fact, it is just as easy to go overboard in one direction as it is in the other. Let's be reasonable. For example, a Christmas tree really is a Christmas tree and should be called such. I would no more call a menorah a common candelabra since it is obviously an item of religious signficance.
But why, with everything else going on in the world, is this the news that sticks? It's big news that the White House sent out cards wishing people a happy holiday season, upsetting some conservative leaders so much that they threw their cards out and question the president's conservatism (call me, by the way -- I can reassure you on that front). Still, can't we put our energy into something more useful than a debate over holiday semantics, which resulted from a news item of mass distraction in the first place?
I say that, but yet I almost find it hard to stop myself as I become more and more irritated that this is such a big issue. It bothers me enough to write this piece. And when the woman working at Macy's wishes me a "Merry Christmas," I can't help but respond, "Happy Holidays."
Posted by Fresh Politics at 02:48 AM | Comments (13)
December 06, 2005
Political Warriors or Followers of Jesus?
Posted by Father Jake
From an article in The Christian Century by Miroslav Volf entitled Leaving Jesus Behind:
...Evangelicals who belong to the religious right insist that Jesus is their Lord and Savior, yet many of them hardly ever talk about Jesus, at least not in public. They talk about politics—how to get their people elected to local, state and federal governments so as to advance their religious, moral and political causes. They pour their energy into political battles and have none left for Jesus. If you were to point this out to them, they'd vehemently disagree, telling you that they wage political wars for Jesus and in his name. But Jesus is no longer at the center of their attention. The struggle for power has taken his place. They are political warriors in religious garb, not followers of Jesus...
Complaints that the religious left has abandoned Jesus are not new. Now the religious right has fashioned itself in the inverted image of the religious left. If this is even roughly correct, the writing on the wall is spelling the doom of the religious right. Just think of this: the political power of the religious right is parasitic on its religious power, and its religious power is the direct result of the erstwhile centrality of Jesus in the life of its communities. Discard Jesus and you've not only foolishly replaced the one true God with idols of your own making; you've also cut off the branch on which you sit as a political actor...
My own experience suggests that there is much truth in Volf's commentary. One would think that the Right would have learned a few lessons from the errors of Progressives. When we take our eyes off of Jesus, we become like Peter; slowly sinking beneath the turbulent waves of our times.
Hopefully, we have learned lessons from our past mistakes. Those mistakes may even have a redemptive quality to them. When Peter found himself on the verge of drowning, he knew who to call on for his salvation. It is in times of great peril that we are forced to reorient our priorities. It is during times of tribulation that we are humbled enough to confess our total dependence on God.
May we be mindful of our need to always keep our focus on God. As Volf concludes:
The challenge for a religious right and a religious left that want to think of themselves as Christian is to show that Jesus matters more than politics. Only then will both be true leaven in the world of politics.
Posted by Father Jake at 07:10 PM | Comments (14)
December 05, 2005
Who's Protecting Iraq?
Posted by Public Theologian
It’s not just the American military that is fighting in Iraq. In addition there are thousands of private security officers who are working for the US government but who, unlike our armed forces, operate outside of any legal framework. From yesterday’s LA Times:
Private security contractors have been involved in scores of shootings in Iraq, but none have been prosecuted despite findings in at least one fatal case that the men had not followed proper procedures, according to interviews and documents obtained by The Times.
Instead, security contractors suspected of reckless behavior are sent home, sometimes with the knowledge of U.S. officials, raising questions about accountability and stirring fierce resentment among Iraqis.
Thousands of the heavily armed private guards are in Iraq, under contract with the U.S. government and private companies. The conduct of such security personnel has been one of the most controversial issues in the reconstruction of Iraq. Last week, a British newspaper publicized a so-called trophy video that appears to show private contractors in Iraq firing at civilian vehicles as an Elvis song plays in the background.
The contractors function in a legal gray area. Under an order issued by the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority that administered Iraq until June 2004, contractors suspected of wrongdoing are to be prosecuted in their home countries. The contractors have immunity from Iraqi courts and have so far not faced American prosecution, giving little recourse to Iraqis seeking justice for wrongful shootings.
This is not the nly high profile news item on contractors to come out in recent days. Last week the Times told the story of an army colonel, a professor of military ethics who volunteered for duty in Iraq, who committed suicide after working for the better part of a year trying to manage what he described as “money-grubbing contractors” who, though being hired as guards, were accompanying Iraqi units on missions in Fallujah and who had been accused of killing Iraqis on at least two occasions while he was in charge of that unit. In his suicide note he said that he could not live with the dishonor of being part of such an immoral and unethical war. "I cannot support a msn [mission] that leads to corruption, human rights abuse and liars. I am sullied…I came to serve honorably and feel dishonored.
"Death before being dishonored any more”
There is clearly something wrong with our policy of using contractors rather than regular military to take care of business in Iraq. The illegal killing or abuse of even one Iraqi citizen by a contractor that goes unpunished can undo whatever good our forces are attempting to accomplish in a matter of minutes. It is unconscionable that there is no accountability required for these people even though they have been given such an enormous task in our overall plan for securing Iraq.
Posted by Public Theologian at 12:56 PM | Comments (9)
December 02, 2005
Please Pray for Christian Peacemaker Teams
Posted by Faithful Progressive
Personally, I am too much of the world to be a pacifist. But I greatly admire those who arrive at that posture as a result of deeply held religious conviction. One is truly blessed to know such sincere people of God. Christians are directly called to be peacemakers and few have heard this call more profoundly than the Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) working in Iraq. As you all no doubt know, four members of Christian Peacemaker Teams working in Baghdad--Tom Fox, Harmeet Sooden, James Loney, and Norman Kember-- were abducted there this past Saturday, November 26. A moving response was posted on the website of the Voices for Creative Nonviolence:
In the course of this year alone, many thousands of Iraqis have experienced anguish because their loved ones have been abducted, tortured, disappeared and murdered. The Christian Peacemaker Team members dedicate themselves to living alongside ordinary Iraqis during this time of intense suffering. They have steadily reported the effects of occupation and war on the many people whom they’ve befriended since they first began working in Iraq in October 2002.
Tom Fox, one of the four CPT members being held, maintains a blog which we recommend for further insight into CPT’s work.
Reporters and human rights worker around the world are indebted to the careful work done by Christian Peacemaker Team members as they documentated abuses suffered by people detained in U.S. run prisons.
CPT has consciously chosen to not take sides in the conflict that rages in Iraq—other than to take the side of advocating for Iraqis who are treated unfairly and are suffering during this war.
Members of CPT willingly undertook the risks of living amongst Iraqis, in a common neighborhood outside of the infamous Green Zone. They sought no protection in arms or armed guards—trusting in, and benefiting from, the goodwill of the Iraqi people.
We harbor no ill will towards those responsible for the abduction of our friends and colleagues. Just as we hope no harm will befall our friends and colleagues—we trust that no harm will befall those who abducted them. We hope and pray that those responsible for the abduction of the four CPT members will recognize the common humanity they and their captives share and release them unharmed.
I have read Tom Fox's blog Waiting in the Light and it is indeed well worth reading. It was there that I learned that there were several key changes in the recently adopted Iraqi Consititution, including deleting a reference to not allowing foreign bases in Iraq.
The draft constitution for Iraq that has been published in the Western press has been widely reviewed and commented upon by many individuals. There have been ongoing revisions to the constitution. The most recent version was released internally on Sept. 13th. This version has not been disseminated to either Western or Iraqi press or to the Iraqi public. CPT Iraq was sent a copy by a contact in the government. While much of the document is similar and most changes are more in terms of replacing a word or two there are some significant differences.
Perhaps the most dramatic change is the omission of a section of the “Transitional Provisions.”
The published draft reads:
1. “It is forbidden for Iraq to be used as a base or corridor for foreign troops.”2. “It is forbidden to have foreign military bases in Iraq.”3. “The National Assembly can, when necessary, and with a majority of two-thirds of its members allow events stated in #1 and #2 to take place.”This provision is completely missing from the current unpublished version.
There is no doubt that Tom Fox, Harmeet Sooden, James Loney, and Norman Kember were in Iraq for the best possible reasons and that they were doing important work that brought the world a little closer to peace. Please keep them in your prayers.
Posted by Faithful Progressive at 02:40 AM | Comments (5)
December 01, 2005
A Stranger in the Pulpit
Posted by Jesus Politics
Ron Sider's organization, Evangelicals for Social Action, puts out a weekly E-pistle that is worth reading. This week there is an exceptional article written by Samuel Ross. Perhaps if you email the E-pistle's editor at kristyn@esa-online.org you can get a copy of the complete article. Here are some quotes:
In February of 2003, shortly before the U.S. declared war on Iraq, I asked my pastor if I could make a one-minute announcement from the pulpit about a letter I wrote to President Bush opposing the imminent U.S. invasion of Iraq, giving congregants the opportunity to respond. As a Christian, I opposed the war on many grounds, and was concerned with the reflexive response of many of my fellow Christians to stand with President Bush and the current administration without critically thinking through what a Christian response might look like. My motivation was to give those in my local church the opportunity to sign the letter if they wished, to begin thinking soberly about their specific response, with the promise of sending it on to Washington the next day.
My request was flatly denied, despite having preached many times from this same pulpit (thirteen times in all!). A year earlier, a complete stranger had been granted unquestioned access to this same pulpit to make a lengthy announcement promoting a “God and Country” rally shortly after the tragic events of September 11th.
-------------
I’ve discovered many strangers in the pulpits of evangelical churches in this post-9/11 era. Some of the names of these strangers are nationalism, populism, corporatism, and patriotism. Many of these strangers are given unquestioned access to American pulpits.
-------------
Many Christians in the American evangelical church have made a practice of defaulting to the right-wing political position that Republican politics provides. In recent decades, the evangelical church has become a spawning ground for a popular, pervasive, and unexamined Christian nationalism, despite plentiful biblical evidence opposing that position. This is nothing new. This penchant for power has been alive throughout the history of the church. Since Constantine made Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire in the early 4th century, the Catholic Church has made an art form of being on the power side of politics, from the inquisitions to the reformation age, and more recently during the Nazi era from 1930 to 1945. During the early 1940s the Nazis were fond of saying, “Deutschland uber alles!” which translated means “Germany over all!” There is a striking similarity of this popular Nazi chant and the desire that many evangelicals possess today to make the rest of American culture conform to their moral template of success for America. This reflexive posture is promulgated by many prominent Christian television and radio personalities and largely disseminated to the culture through the pulpits of America’s local evangelical churches.
--------------
The big flaw in the American evangelical church is that it erroneously believes it must be a majority to impact the culture. God’s arm is already plenty long enough without a Christian majority to change people’s lives.
--------------
Finally, and the reason why I was not allowed to make a one-minute announcement about promoting peace on the eve of war is that many evangelical Christians have little appreciation for disagreement of any kind. Like the stranger in the pulpit, many evangelical Christians have a very narrow tolerance for dissent as well as dissonance.
--------------
If evangelical Christians in America want to have a voice in the culture, they must accept their minority role and accept and work through the dissent and dissonance (even amongst their own) that naturally result when wrestling with issues that matter. Lastly, they must do this by resisting the temptation to default to the popular majority political position (be it Democratic or Republican). This reflexive default to power will not gain them a wide hearing, but will render their message more difficult to hear and relegate them further to the margins of American society. And that just might be a fate worse than hell for most American evangelical Christians.
Posted by Jesus Politics at 11:43 PM | Comments (1)
Black Friday, For Sure
Posted by Fresh Politics
You know Thanksgiving is over when you are treated to an endless stream of news stories prominently featuring footage of early morning shoppers trampling each other to get a $20 DVD player at Wal-Mart. All of a sudden, the so-called “Black Friday” has become a national event, our own American version of Boxing Day.
Not one to enjoy a crowded store, I've never quite understood the allure of getting up at the crack of dawn to go shopping. Thanks anyway, but I think I'll sleep a little later. Watching the film of shoppers waiting in the cold, getting into fistfights, and one emotional shopper venting her anger over such chaos when there were little babies present, I couldn't help but wonder why anyone would subject themselves to such horror. But then, it is painfully obvious that these people are not there because they want to be; they're there because they have to be. They can't send the children to a babysitter and wait until the stores are a little less crowded (and maybe a little more expensive) to do their holiday shopping. In a culture where your value is measured by the material things you have, this is one time where you can go on a shopping spree that is simply not possible on any other day.
The post-Thanksgiving message is clear: buy things. We are told well in advance what the hot item is for the upcoming holiday season (in case you've been under a rock for the last several weeks, it's the Xbox 360), and shoppers dutifully provide scenes of the frenzy for the salivating media. That the frenzy is created by greedy manufacturers who (sometimes intentionally) fail to supply enough of the product to meet the demand generated by the relentless media hype is an issue that doesn't present so well on camera. And for some reason, the shopping craze is hot news for those of us watching it unfold in the comfort of our cozy living rooms. On this issue, Knute Berger wrote in the Seattle Weekly this week (http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0548/051130_news_mossback.php):
"The sad accounts of holiday shopping insanity appeal in part because we spectators can take solace in the fact that there is someone out there—maybe lots of someones—more desperate, more willing to be humiliated, more pathetic, more deserving of scorn than we are. Better to be a fan in the stands than to be struggling in the arena yourself, right?
Watching people duke it out over Christmas gifts distracts us from the fact that we're all suffering from diminishment. We can roll our eyes over their foolishness without thinking about the bigger picture, that these foolish shoppers paid $2.50 a gallon for gas to drive miles and miles to fight with their neighbors over electronic merchandise, which they'll buy on credit, that was made by foreign workers in countries where their living-wage job wound up. We're getting desperate because we're being drained.
If people thought about the real context, maybe there'd be real riots."
Indeed. The real story is not the high retail sales, but the fact that so many people subject themselves to this experience because they have to in our dollar and gadget worshipping society. And what's missing in the media coverage is who pays the cost of this necessity. It may be Black Friday, but certainly not for the reasons we are told.
Posted by Fresh Politics at 01:59 AM | Comments (0)
