| Home > Community Forum > Monthly Archive |
July 31, 2006
Who Says the Rapture can't be Funny?
Posted by ChristianAlliance
By Ding:
Last week, while the Flaming Bag of Poo called 'work' flamed on, I enjoyed a brief email exchange with friends.
Friend - I have an interview on Monday and am looking for volunteers to practice with me...it's been ten years. Any takers? And, okay, while I know neither of you are conservative Christian right wing republicans I was hoping you may know how long I (who am I kidding - "we") will have to wait for the second coming? This is the order, right? WWIII, then a Jesus party, then suffering on earth, then the second Jesus party? So how long is that suffering part? I just think I need to plan...
Ding - Though I'm no longer a fundamentalist, I know exactly this timeline - I even took a class in it.
Rapture Agenda:
1. Trumpet
2. Jesus in the clouds
3. Rapture
4. Worldwide confusion
5. Anti-christ (also heralded by rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem and the resumption of sacrifices)
6. Tribulation of remaining folks, most likely Lutherans, UCC, Episcopalians and Presbyterians (approx 40 years or so, during which we get that dreaded 'mark' or die)
7. Jesus again
8. Judgment
9. Fiery ball of destruction
Ding (cont'd) - I think steps 8/9 are interchangeable. So you've got some time there. Work is kicking my ass all over the place but I'm willing to ask questions like 'Where do you see yourself in ten years'? That won't be depressing at all.
Friend - Thanks for the detailed timeline. Now I can actually answer the ten year question with 'rebuilding the temple in Jerusalem.'
[speaking of that hot bed of instability called the mideast, and totally unrelated to our email exchange, latest news
Posted by ChristianAlliance at 02:35 PM | Comments (30)
Progressivist vs. Fundamentalist Conscience
Posted by ChristianAlliance
By Dr. Bruce Prescott, Mainstream Baptist
Several years ago I heard a Baptist pastor publicly berate a member of his own congregation at a statewide meeting of the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma. The member, who worked with battered women, had dared to openly disagree with the Southern Baptist Convention’s edict that wives should “graciously submit” to their husbands. She planned to challenge that ruling at the state convention meeting, but, as her pastor knew, she was called away at the last minute to make funeral arrangements for an immediate family member.
I found myself wondering how anyone could be so malicious as to publicly libel, defame and berate before a statewide audience another Christian in absentia. The act was unconscionable to me. Especially so given the circumstances that led to that absence.
In a vein similar to the title of John Dean’s book “Conservatives without Conscience,” I started to write an article about “Fundamentalists Without Conscience.” After considerable reflection, however, I decided that fundamentalists don’t lack a conscience, they just have a defective conscience. The defect lies in hubris.
Conscience is the ability to put yourself in the place of others and to look at yourself through the eyes of others. This ability is presupposed by the “Golden Rule.” Some form of the “Golden Rule” or some principle of respect is common to most religions and philosophies. Most of us are familiar with the formulation that Jesus gave: "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and Prophets." (Mt. 7:12 NIV)
The "Golden Rule" tells us to view ourselves as subject to the acts of others and commands that our own actions reflect the same respect that we hope to receive from others. In effect, it says our human capacity to assume a standpoint outside ourselves should be exercised with humility (looking back on ourselves) and not with arrogance (looking down on others).
Arrogance (looking down on others) is a fault that bedevils all fundamentalists. They presume to use their ability to assume a standpoint outside themselves to put themselves in the place of God and look down on others through the eyes of God.
In the Christian faith, such arrogance is explicitly prohibited. Jesus said, "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." (Mt. 7:1-2 NIV).
Despite this prohibition, Christianity has its share of fundamentalists. They are the ones who are so certain of their interpretations of scripture that they feel authorized to pass judgment on others for God.
The only real difference between the fundamentalists of different faiths lies in the sources of revelation that they think authorizes them to pass judgment on others. The arrogance and judgmentalism that renders the conscience defective is common to all fundamentalists.
Posted by ChristianAlliance at 02:31 PM | Comments (31)
July 28, 2006
How to Deal with the War Crisis-- Options to be Peacemakers
Posted by Faithful Progressive
1.
Dear FP,
The escalating Middle East violence and the continued bombing of Lebanon and Gaza is threatening regional stability. Though appeals have gone out from the religious community for the United States and other world leaders to intervene diplomatically, the U.S. refuses to call for a cease-fire. Instead, the U.S. is increasing arms shipments to Israel and Congress has passed resolutions declaring unconditional support for Israel’s devastating military campaigns.
Hezbollah’s opportunistic raid that captured Israeli soldiers and rocket attacks on Israel have been nearly universally condemned. However, the excessive force with which Israel is responding goes far beyond defense against Hezbollah and promises to destroy most of what has been rebuilt in Lebanon since its civil war 15 years ago. The disproportionate attack on Lebanon may backfire, strengthening Hezbollah, increasing sectarian strife, and weakening Lebanon’s democracy and security.
As Israeli troops drive further into southern Lebanon and the bombings continue, the U.S. State Department needs to shift direction radically and President Bush should call for an immediate cease-fire to stop the growing loss of civilian lives in Lebanon. In 14 days thus far, over 400 Lebanese and 54 Israelis have been killed. The critical humanitarian needs worsen everyday.
It is urgent that JPANet advocates contact their members of Congress and President Bush and ask them to work proactively, especially with the Israeli government, to restrain the use of military force and to reach a negotiated cease-fire in Lebanon and Gaza. Weakening Lebanon and threatening regional stability are against U.S. interests. Only U.S. cooperation in renewing comprehensive negotiations will bring a fair peace and lasting security to Israel and the region.
Click here to send a message to the President and the Congress asking for their judicious diplomatic intervention in the region. You may also call the White House comment line at (202) 456-1111.
Click here to view more UCC related news from our global partners and others on the Middle East.
2.
Letter from Rabbi Michael Lerner and Others on Middle East Crisis
STOP THE SLAUGHTER IN LEBANON, ISRAEL AND THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES!
Convene an International Middle East Peace Conference to Impose a Just, Equitable and Lasting Settlement on All Parties
In the name of our sisters and brothers suffering and dying in Lebanon, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, we, the undersigned religious leaders, scholars, academics, cultural leaders, poets, writers, philanthropists, social change activists, and citizens of the world demand that the Israeli government, the leaderships of Hezbollah and Hamas, the U.S. Government, the international community and the United Nations immediately take the following steps to stop the war in these countries:
1. We demand that the Israeli government immediately halt its attacks on Lebanon. We join with the Israeli peace movement and the thousands of Israelis who demonstrated against this war in Tel Aviv on July 22, 2006 in their insistence that these attacks are utterly disproportionate to the initial provocation by Hezbollah, have killed innumerable innocent civilians, displaced half a million people, destroyed billions of dollars of Lebanon's infrastructure, and will not, in the long run, secure peace or security for Israel. We also call on the Israeli government to supply food, electricity, water and funds to repair the humanitarian crisis caused by its invasion of Gaza
2. We demand that Hezbollah and Hamas immediately stop shelling or otherwise engaging in violence against Israel. These actions, which have killed numerous Israeli civilians, terrorized the people of Israel and damaged many towns and cities, played a central role in provoking the current crisis, and do nothing but harm the cause of Palestinian and Lebanese independence and democracy. It is this kind of violence which has over the years pushed many decent Israelis into the hands of its most militaristic and paranoid political leaders.
3. We demand that the U.S. government and governments around the world call on Israel, Hezbollah and Hamas to observe an immediate ceasefire, place an immediate embargo on all shipments of weapons to all parties in the war (including Syria and Iran), and join an international conference to provide security on the border between Israel and Lebanon. By endorsing Israel's attacks and explicitly giving it time to do more damage to the people of Lebanon, the U.S. government has become a party to this violence, which, together with American military actions in Iraq, is sure to create enmity towards the U.S. and Israel in the Muslim world for generations to come.
These are the minimum steps necessary to stop the violence and the humanitarian disaster in southern Lebanon and the Gaza Strip. But these steps alone will not ensure that the region doesn’t return to an untenable status quo which will again eventually break into violence and new rounds of warfare.
We therefore also issue:
A Call for Lasting Peace
We call upon the international community to hold an International Peace Conference to impose a fair and lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to the conflict between Israel and other states in the region. Why do we say “impose”? There are too many forces in each country in the region who are committed to continuing this struggle forever. Their provocations will continue until the international community stops the violence once and for all and imposes conditions of peace that will allow the peace and reconciliation forces in each country to flourish.
Such a solution would be based on the following conditions:
a. The creation of an economically and politically viable Palestinian state (roughly on the pre-1967 borders with minor border modifications mutually agreed upon between Israel and Palestine); and simultaneously the full and unequivocal recognition by Palestinians and the State of Palestine and all surrounding Arab states of the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state offering full and equal rights to all of its non-Jewish citizens;
b. An international consortium to provide reparations for Palestinians who have lost homes or property from 1947 to the present, and reparations for Jewish refugees from Arab states from 1947-1967;
c. A long-term international peacekeeping force to separate Hezbollah and Israel in southern Lebanon and to protect Israel and Palestine from each other and from other forces in the region who might seek to control or destroy either state; and
d. The quick imposition of robust sanctions against any party that refuses to sign or violates these agreements.
A New Spirit of Open-Heartedness and Reconciliation
We know that no political solution can work without a change of consciousness that minimally includes an open-heartedness and willingness to recognize the humanity of the Other, and repentance and atonement for the long history of insensitivity and cruelty to the other side.
Both sides must take immediate steps to stop the discourse of violence and demeaning of the other in their media, their religious institutions, and their school text books and educational systems. They should implement this by creating a joint authority with each other and with moral leaders in the international community who can supervise, and if necessary, replace those in positions of power in both societies who continue to use the public institutions of the society to spread hatred or nurture anger at the other.
Once the other parts of a lasting peace have been set in place, we call upon the parties to this struggle to launch a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, following the model used in South Africa.
Use This Moment to Challenge the Paranoid and Cynical “Political Realism” That Generates Endless Wars
The paranoid and allegedly “realistic” version of global politics asserts that we live in a world in which our safety can only be achieved through domination, or others will seek to dominate us first. Of course, when we act on this assumption, it becomes self-fulfilling.
We propose, instead, a strategy of generosity—to act on the assumption that people have an enormous capacity for goodness and generosity (without negating the truth that certain conditions promote fear, anger and hatred which sometimes are expressed in horribly destructive ways). For the U.S. and other G8 countries, we call for a Global Marshall Plan: for each of the next twenty years, the U.S. and other G8 countries should dedicate 5% of their Gross Domestic Product to eliminating global (and domestic) hunger, homelessness, poverty, inadequate health care and inadequate education for the peoples of the world. This would have to be carefully monitored and apportioned in ways that ensure the care reaches the people for whom it was intended. But what is critical is the spirit in which it is done.
Similarly, we urge Israel not only to return to its 1967 borders (with minor border modifications mutually agreed upon including a sharing of Jerusalem and of its holy sites) but to do so in a spirit of generosity and caring for the other before it is forced to return to those borders by the international community and before thousands more young Israelis and Palestinians die in these senseless wars that will otherwise continue in the coming years.
The only protection that we in the advanced industrial countries of the world can ever really have for our lives is to spread a spirit of love so powerful and genuine that it becomes capable of reducing the anger that has justifiably developed against the powerful and the wealthy of the world.
The “cynical realists” claim that others are entrenched in their hatefulness, and that war and domination is the only way to battle them. This kind of thinking has led to five thousand years of people fighting wars in order to “end all wars”—and it has not worked. It’s time now to try a new strategy of generosity, both economic generosity and generosity of spirit. As stated above, there will first have to be a transitional period in which real military protections are available to people on all sides of the struggle. But by beginning now to simultaneously commit our economic resources and change the way that we talk about those whom we previously designated as “enemies,” we can begin the long process of thawing out angers that have existed for many generations.
Nothing can redeem the deaths and suffering that all sides have faced in this struggle for the past 120 years. But this very moment could also be the time in which the human race realizes the futility of violence and comes together not only to impose a lasting solution for the Middle East, but to begin a new era and to recognize that our own well-being depends on the well-being of everyone else on the planet. The International Middle East Peace Conference should be structured to achieve this end—which means it should have an explicit psychological and spiritual dimension and a visionary agenda.
We Affirm the Sacredness of All Human Beings
This is the moment to begin to make that real. The U.N. raised these possibilities 61 years ago, but relied on political arrangements while ignoring the need to simultaneously build ethical and spiritual solidarity among the people of the world, resolutions that most people never even heard about, a system that represented the elites of countries around the world but not necessarily the will of their own people, and fell into politicizing every issue. We need to strengthen international institutions that move in a new direction, but we also need a commitment of the heart from everyone on the planet. Our own countries must take the lead in a whole new approach to security and well-being. This may well be the last chance we in the advanced industrial societies have to avoid international catastrophe (either environmental or nuclear) by modeling something else besides brute power, military might, and indifference to the well-being of others. If not now, when?
Unrealistic? Nope. What has proved unrealistic time and again—whether we are talking about US policy in Vietnam and Iraq or Israeli and Arab policies in the Middle East— is the fantasy that one more war will put an end to wars. The path to peace must be a path of peace.
Religious and spiritual leaders are also making a global call for ten days of prayer and fasting toward the aim of peace, reconciliation, and ending violence, beginning July 27th and continuing through August 6th.
Signed by:
Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor, Tikkun and chair, The Network of Spiritual Progressives
Annie Lamott, author, Operating Instructions: A Journal of My Son’s First Year
Nan Fink, original publisher of Tikkun
Rabbi Arthur Waskow, chair, The Shalom Center
Prof. Cornel West, Professor of Religion, Princeton University
Rev. Tony Campolo, Evangelical Association for Promotion of Education
Robyn Thomas, former executive director, Tikkun Community/NSP Peter Gabel, President Emeritus, New College of California, S.F.
Click Here to add your name and help sponsor this ad,
(Space permitting, your name and identification, plus the names of hundreds of others.)
__________________________________________
3.
JULY 27, 2006
LWF Signs Statement Calling for Immediate Ceasefire and Access to Humanitarian Assistance in Gaza
International non governmental organizations providing humanitarian assistance to the civilian population in Gaza warn that more and more people are in need of help as hostilities between Israel and Palestinian factions continue unabated. Humanitarian access to the hardest hit communities remains difficult, and access of humanitarian staff in and out of Gaza is restricted to expatriate staff only. While global attention quite rightly focuses on the Lebanese civilians trying to escape the fighting in Lebanon, the 1.4 million people of Gaza are trapped, unable to flee from the current hostilities.
The undersigned international non-governmental organizations call upon the international community to work with all parties to:
*
Adopt an immediate cease fire and seek a peaceful resolution of the crisis,
*
Ensure full access to humanitarian assistance for Palestinian civilians living in Gaza to realize their critical needs, and
*
Protect the lives of civilians in Gaza, in particular children, and the essential infrastructure that supports them in accordance with international humanitarian law.
To continue reading, visit us here.
Posted by Faithful Progressive at 01:06 AM | Comments (3)
July 27, 2006
The Hysteria over Theocracy
Posted by Jesus Politics
Much has been made in the last two years of the threat of theocracy to our democratic traditions. Many secular and religious progressives have been alerted to and disturbed by the growing Christian supremacist or Christian nationalist movement in the US. Some of these alarms about the Christian Right have been sounded right here at the community forum of the Christian Alliance for Progress. To see how some conservatives are reacting to these alarms, it may be of interest to read Ross Douthat's review (published in First Things) of the recent "theocratic" literature. Some excerpts:
This is a paranoid moment in American politics. A host of conspiracies haunt our national imagination [ ]
Perhaps the strangest of these strange stories, though, is the notion that twenty-first-century America is slouching toward theocracy. [ ]
But the fear of theocracy has become a defining panic of the Bush era, reaching a fever pitch in the weeks after the 2004 election, when a host of commentators seized on polls suggesting that “moral values” had pushed the president over the top—and found in that data point a harbinger of Gilead.[ ]
The term theocrat has become a commonplace, employed by bomb-throwing columnists, otherwise-sensible reporters, and “centrist” Republicans such as Connecticut’s Christopher Shays, who recently complained that the GOP was becoming the “party of theocracy.” And now the specter of a looming Khomeini’ism has migrated into the realm of pop sociology, producing a spate of books with titles like The Baptizing of America, Kingdom Coming, Thy Kingdom Come—and, inevitably, American Theocracy, the Kevin Phillips jeremiad that shot to the top of the New York Times bestseller list this spring.[ ]
Goldberg’s approach, like that of all the anti-theocrat authors, is to assume that the most extreme manifestation of religious conservatism must, by definition, be its most authentic expression. So she analyzes contemporary evangelicalism without once mentioning Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, or any other prominent pop theologian, and her description of mega-churches—at once “temples of religious nationalism” and “tightly organized right-wing political machines”—suggests a fairly thin acquaintance with the variegated world of entrepreneurial Protestantism. [ ]
Never mind, because the Rushdoony-and-Rapture theory’s implausibility is crucial to its appeal. Just as a plausible account of American politics in the 1950s would have left no room for the fantasies of the John Birch Society, a reasonable account of the Religious Right would have to accept the possibility that religious conservatives are fairly normal American political actors, seeking to further their agenda through normal political channels. [ ]
But if you’re committed to the notion that religious conservatives represent an existential threat to democratic government, you need a broader definition of theocracy to convey your sense of impending doom. Which is why the anti-theocrats often suggest that it doesn’t take mullahs, an established church, or a Reconstructionist ban on adultery to make a theocracy. All you need are politicians who invoke religion and apply Christian principles to public policy.
If that’s all it takes to make a theocracy, then these writers are correct: Contemporary America is run by theocrats. Of course, by that measure, so was the America of every previous era. The United States has always been at once a secular republic and a religious nation, reflexively libertarian and fiercely pious, and this tension has been working itself out in our politics for more than two hundred years. It’s often been a mixed blessing, giving us Prohibition as well as abolition, Jesse Jackson as well as Reinhold Niebuhr, the obsession with free silver as well as the zeal for civil rights. But there’s no way to give an account of American history without grappling with this tension—and with the role played, for good and ill and sometimes both, by religious reformers from Jonathan Edwards all the way down to Jerry Falwell.
Yet this is a history that the anti-theocrats seem determined to reject. The Christian Right isn’t just bad for America because of its right-wing misapplication of religious faith, they suggest—it’s bad for America because any application of faith to politics is inevitably poisonous, intolerant, and illiberal. [ ]
In addition to casting religious conservatives as mullahs, proto-fascists, and agents of American decline, this strict-separationist interpretation of world history frees the anti-theocrats from the messy business of actually arguing with their opponents. From sex education and government support for religious charities to stem cells and abortion, it’s enough to call something “faith-based” and dismiss it. Indeed, reading through the anti-theocrat literature, one gets the sense that the surest way to judge if a political idea is wrong, dangerous, or antidemocratic is to tally up the number of religious people who support it. [ ]
A Christian is allowed to entertain such doubts, in other words, and allowed to mix religion and politics in support of sweeping social reforms— but only if those reforms are safely identified with the political Left, and with the interests of the Democratic party. [ ]
No religion-infused movement can afford to be used by a political party as a way to gain votes and nothing more. That’s how the Democrats have used the Al Sharpton / Jesse Jackson–era civil rights establishment and, sadly, how the GOP has often used the Religious Right. But this is less of a danger to the nation’s self-government than to the integrity of religious witness. [ ]
What all these observers point out, and what the anti-theocrats ignore, is that the religious polarization of American politics runs in both directions. The Republican party has become more religious because the Democrats became self-consciously secular, and the turning point wasn’t the 1992 or the 2000 elections but the putsch of 1972, when secularist delegates—to quote Phillips, quoting Layman—suddenly “constituted the largest ‘religious’ bloc among Democratic delegates.” [ ]
So the rise of the Religious Right, and the growing “religion gap” that Phillips describes but fails to understand, aren’t new things in American history but a reaction to a new thing: to an old political party newly dependent on a bloc of voters who reject the role that religion has traditionally played in American political life. The hysteria over theocracy, in turn, represents an attempt to rewrite the history of the United States to suit these voters’ prejudices, by setting a year zero somewhere around 1970 and casting everything that’s happened since as a battle between progress and atavism, reason and fundamentalism, the Enlightenment and the medieval dark. [ ]
The tragedy is that so many religious people have gone along with this revisionism—out of sympathy for the lifestyle liberalism of the secular Left, or out of disdain for the crudity and anti-intellectualism of some religious conservatives, or out of embarrassment in the face of a culture that sneers at anyone who takes their faith too seriously. In the process, they have become everything they claim to oppose: bigoted and hysterical, apocalyptic and self-righteous. What’s worse, they have corrupted themselves for the sake of a politics that cares nothing for their faith—that would tame it to suit the needs of secular society or do away with it entirely. [ ]
Garry Wills is half-right: There is no single Christian politics, and no movement can claim to have arrived at the perfect marriage of religious faith and political action. Christianity is too otherworldly for that, and the world too fallen. But this doesn’t free believers from the obligation to strive in political affairs, as they strive in all things, to do what God would have them do. And the moments when God’s will is inscrutable, or glimpsed only through a glass, darkly, are the moments when good-faith arguments between believers ought to bear the greatest fruit.
In today’s America, these arguments are constantly taking place—over issues ranging from abortion to foreign policy; over the potential, and potential limits, of interfaith cooperation; over the past and future of the Religious Right. But they are increasingly drowned out by cries of “theocracy, theocracy, theocracy” and by a zeal, among ostensibly religious intellectuals, to read their fellow believers out of public life and sell their birthright for the blessing of the New York Times.
Posted by Jesus Politics at 05:26 AM | Comments (23)
July 24, 2006
What is Progressive Faith
Posted by ChristianAlliance
By Mainstream Baptist, Dr. Bruce Prescott
I think progressive faith to has at least ten characteristics. It is conscientious, chastened, hopeful, strong, humble, growing, questioning, dialogical, active and interdependent.
1. First, and foremost, a progressive faith is a conscientious faith.
I understand conscience to be an exercise of human understanding or imagination that involves three steps.
The first step is an act of intellectual (mental) distantiation that produces self-consciousness -- it is the ability to step outside yourself (whatever "self" is) and look back at yourself (as though you were looking at yourself in a mirror).
The second step is an act of sympathetic imagination by which you look at the world from the perspective of another.
We often hear this described by the phrase, "Walk a mile in my shoes." My good friend Foy Valentine, now deceased, once told me jokingly that doing this had proven highly profitable for him. He said that, whenever he did it he got a new pair of shoes and was a mile away before the poor guy he took them from knew what was happening. That?s one of the reasons why I think conscience formation requires a third step.
It requires an act of reflexive self-consciousness. In simplest terms, this is the ability to put yourself in the place of others and to look at yourself through the eyes of others.
Essentially, this defines progressive faith as a faith that practices the Golden Rule.
Jesus of Nazareth gave the rule a positive formulation when he said "Do to others as you would have them do to you," (Luke 6:31 (NIV)) but the Golden Rule is not unique to Christianity.
Judaism teaches, "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man." (Hillel, Shabbath 31a.)
Islam teaches, "No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself." (Hidith)
Even Buddhists, some whom deny the existence of any God, teach, "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." (Udana-Varga)
Some formulation of the Golden Rule or some principle of respect for other persons seems common to all religions and philosophies.
2. Second, a progressive faith is a chastened faith.
It is a faith that sorrowfully acknowledges the pain, suffering and injustice that its own community has inflicted on others.
Chastening occurs when persons of faith look at themselves and their faith through the eyes of people of different faiths.
Christians need to look at themselves through the eyes of Jews -- particularly, through the eyes of those who were herded into boxcars and slaughtered like cattle in the holocaust.
Jews need to look at themselves through the eyes of Muslims -- particularly, through the eyes of those who were displaced from their homes in Palestine.
Muslims need to look at themselves through the eyes of Bahai's.
We all need to look at ourselves through the eyes of the hungry and the homeless, the impoverished and the imprisoned.
All of us need to summon the courage to honestly look at ourselves through the eyes of others who are strange and foreign to us and/or who have been injured and ignored by us.
If we do that, I believe that we will begin to view things the way that God views them.
3. Third, a progressive faith is a hopeful faith.
It is a faith that exercises a sympathetic and creative imagination to transcend the past and present realities of self, family, community, and nation to envision a world with a more benevolent, loving and hopeful future.
Guilt, shame and sorrow all summon us to search for forgiveness, reconciliation, restoration, regeneration, renewal, recreation, transformation, a new birth, -- i.e., some better way of living.
If life is just an endless cycle of violence, conflict and strife, then there is not much reason for a hopeful future.
4. Fourth, a progressive faith is a strong faith.
It is a faith that is strong enough to demand both equal rights in civil life and genuine respect in social life for those who have other convictions and different worldviews -- while remaining firmly committed to its own convictions and worldview.
Fundamentalist faiths can achieve power, but they can never be strong. All fundamentalisms are weak faiths that compensate for their inadequacies by scapegoating those who differ from them.
Fundamentalists fear differences and social change and the "other." They react to their fears by fight or by flight. Whenever they fight, they demonize and destroy whatever makes them afraid and insecure.
Faith can never become strong until it overcomes its fears and insecurities and begins to respect the integrity of conscientious difference.
5. Fifth, a progressive faith is a humble faith.
It is a faith that acknowledges the finitude and fallibility of all humanity. It recognizes that all forms of interpersonal communication and understanding fall short of perfect comprehensibility.
Different faiths privilege different expressions of faith as conveyed by different texts, practices, and rituals. Some make absolute claims for the authority of their competing texts, practices, and rituals.
Generally, it is not necessary to directly challenge the authority of these differing truth claims. It should be enough for all to acknowledge that no matter how sacred, perfect and privileged these texts, practices and rituals are believed to be, all historical faiths are subject to differing interpretations and understandings by adherents within their own faith tradition. Humility, therefore, is proper for people of all faiths.
No system of communication is adequate to fully express the meaning of the Divine. No language is perfectly transparent.
While some interpreters of religious traditions may be considered authoritative, infallibility is an attribute that is best reserved for the Divine.
6. Sixth, a progressive faith is a growing faith.
It is a faith that is growing, expanding, striving for depth and never satisfied with its progress. It is a faith that is incomplete, unfinished, and has never arrived.
Progressive faith does not lay claim to human perfectibility in this life.
7. Seventh, a progressive faith is a questioning faith.
It is a faith that is undaunted by critical thought. It is not a blind faith that expects adherents to surrender their intellect.
Instead, it practices what Paul Ricouer calls the "hermeneutics of suspicion" because it desires to be more than a projection of human wishes and desires, more than an opiate for the masses, and more than merely a slave revolt by which the weak seek to gain power over the strong.
Progressive faith welcomes doubt and raises questions because it knows they are necessary for the extension of understanding, for spurts of growth and for the testing and strengthening of genuine faith.
8. Eighth, a progressive faith is a dialogical faith.
It extends itself both by random acts of kindness and by deliberate acts of compassion and mercy.
It refuses to extend itself by force of law or arms.
Whenever it seeks to convert others, it seeks to do so by persuasion and example shared in moments of genuine dialogue.
9. Ninth, a progressive faith is an active faith.
It gives more than lip service to love.
It puts love in action by waging peace and working for justice.
It is faith with the courage to put itself at risk by publicly opposing injustice and by actively resisting it by non-violent means.
10. Finally, a progressive faith is an interdependent faith.
It recognizes both the value and the interdependence of all life on this planet.
It is a faith that affirms and honors the claim that future generations have on the present by responsibly stewarding the resources that make life possible on this planet.
Posted by ChristianAlliance at 04:24 PM | Comments (92)
Kings take pleasure in Honest Lips
Posted by ChristianAlliance
Posted By: R. Johnson
As the conflict in Lebanon moves into the third week, I can't help but notice a few key points. No one wants to call this a war, let alone an Israeli 'invasion' of Lebanon. When the news does speak of invasion, it is quick to mention a limited time frame or 'superior' objective for Israel's actions. In my book, that like saying "but I will only lust after her for a short period of time." How quick we lose our perspective.
In last weeks post, I gave you some background on this conflict, and how the pro-Israel lobby in the United States has dictated US policy. I think back to a conversation my uncle and I had nearly 6 years ago, on when the conflict in the Middle East would most likely end. He suggested the second term of a republican president, given the close connection between the democratic party and influential Jewish donors. I cautioned him on Christian Zionists, conservative republicans who supported Israel more fervently than Israelis themselves. And as I see both the democratic party and the republican party courting the Jewish vote here in the US, I know the conflict will not end with the help of the US any time soon. A pox on both their houses.
In many ways, the current US alliance with Israel is an extension of the conservative religious movement that has enveloped the United States over the last several years. It is an alliance based upon form, not substance, and it goes something like this: 'the Israelites were God's chosen people in the Bible, therefore, they are God's chosen people, and what the Israeli people do must be ordained by God.' Israel can do no wrong. This formalistic approach places far too much emphasis on the Old Testament and the covenant God had with Israel. Even in Old Testament times, Israel went astray. This emphasis on Israel being God's chosen land and people also ignores the fundamental shift that occurs with the birth, and death, of Jesus Christ. With Christ, a new covenant is made that is not dependant upon being born an Israelite, but dependent upon those who are born again in spirit.
In the US, we ignore that distinction. The religious right is now Israel's most fervent supporter. When Israel proposed trading land for peace, Pat Robertson spoke out against that plan, claiming that trading land, i.e. holy land, may be against God's will and result in a delay in the second coming. Its as if God is not powerful enough to work through these human events, and requires our intervention so that His second coming can come about. It seems more to me that Robertson and his ilk are 'holding a form of godliness, yet denying the power of God' to work independent of our own intervention, but I digress.
Not long ago, religious conservatives held a 'Stand with Israel' day here in the United States. 16,000 churches reportedly participated. 16,000. Maybe we see Israel as a perpetual victim, and not the regional power that it has become, or maybe we see Israel as incapable of doing wrong as 'God's chosen nation.' In either case, the sense that Israel deserves our undivided and unquestioned loyalty dominates our perspective here in the US. Democrats are loath to criticize Israel, not wanting to 'bite the hand that feeds it.' Republicans are worse, egging Israel on in taking an aggressive stand, a far cry from God's message of feeding our enemies when they are hungry. But where do Christians stand? Do they follow George Bush, the republican party, or the democratic party, or do they follow God? We must ask whether we are serving God by standing beside Israel no matter what she does. Again this week, I ask that you spend time in prayer, asking whether we should be defending Israel, or criticizing her.
Posted by ChristianAlliance at 04:20 PM | Comments (7)
July 23, 2006
Thoughts on the Middle East Crisis
Posted by Faithful Progressive
1.) Hezbollah is a terrorist group that relies heavily on Iran as well as Syria. There is little doubt that Iran was involved with the timing of the crisis, and the best case scenario may well include the nauseating prospect of Tehran playing "peacemaker" to end the crisis. The crisis reflects the new strategic balance that the Iraq Invasion has delivered...Iran is now the undisputed regional super power, rich from $75 oil--with no local rival to keep it in check. Hezbollah is well funded and has changed the military balance by acquiring long range rockets that threaten Israel. The present crisis is in large part about sorting out the new strategic balance resulting from the Iraq War and the related drift in US foreign policy. The US has given up its role as slightly-biased honest broker in the Middle East. The US (government but not its people!) now has little ability and no desire to promote the peace process in the region.
2.) "We don't want peace, we want a brief war that leads to lasting peace." That seems to be what the US position has been on the crisis in the Middle East. President Bush and a hundred talking heads are all talking pie-in-the-sky nonsense that Israel will take a couple of weeks to eliminate the Hezbollah threat and then everything will return to normal. They stupidly expect things to remain the same in Lebanon after pounding the country, killing hundreds of civilians and destroying its infrastructure. Israel has been down this path before, and the last time it resulted in a tragedy that still haunts the region.
3.) Let's not forget that Hezbollah was formed in 1982, after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon that resulted in the deaths of nearly 18,000 Lebanese and Palestinians and about 675 Israelis. That war resulted in Belgian war crimes charges against Ariel Sharon, who was... "accused of being responsible for the massacre of more than 800 Palestinians in Lebanon in 1982 while he was Israel's minister of defence, because, it is claimed, he allowed militia forces allied to Israel to run amok in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps." (Guardian)
4.) Lebanon has historically been controlled by Sunni and Christian elites--the Hezbollah political wing represents some portion of the approximately 40 percent of the population that is Shia. Iran has helped fund humanitarian projects by the group. The political balance is delicate, and the pro-Western government in Lebanon is weak and unlikely to survive: there appears to be no benefit to ordinary Lebanese from being pro-Western. Obviously, there is little benefit from being pro-Hezbollah either. But..
5.) I can't say how many reports I've heard in the past week from ordinary Lebanese civilians who are praising Hezbollah and who are furious at both Israel and the US...The last time Israel invaded Lebanon, it briefly lost its soul, and it resulted in the creation of Hezbollah-- the formidable adversary it now faces. What will be the result this time? All I know is that it is extremely unlikely to look anything like the pie-in-the-sky peace through war that Bush and the media are pushing.
6.) I heard two reports on NPR yesterday. In one, an Israeli soldier declaimed somethig to the effect that "yes, there are civilian casualties, but most of them are living in Hezbollah neighborhoods." The other report talked about how one third of the casualties on both sides have been children.
7.) Compared to the Wa-Solves-Everything Idealism of the US (represented by the fatuous statements of Sec. Rice and Amb. Bolton), the statement of Sec. Gen. Kofi Annan was a model of realism and clarity:
Both the deliberate targeting by Hizbollah of Israeli population centres with hundreds of indiscriminate weapons and Israel’s disproportionate use of force and collective punishment of the Lebanese people must stop. The abducted soldiers must be released as soon as possible and, in any event, the International Committee of the Red Cross must be granted immediate access to them. The Government of Israel must allow humanitarian agencies access to civilians. And the democratically elected Government of Lebanon must be urgently supported in its hour of crisis.
In addition to, and in parallel with, these urgent steps, we need to continue diplomatic efforts to develop, in the shortest possible time, a political framework, which can be implemented as soon as hostilities cease. Most people in the region rightly reject a simple return to the status quo ante, since any truce based on such a limited outcome could not be expected to last.
The mission has suggested elements to me, which, in my opinion, must form the political basis of any lasting ceasefire, and on which they have conducted consultations with the leaders of Lebanon and Israel. I and my advisers will continue to work on these elements, in dialogue with the parties and regional and international partners.
The elements include the following:
The captured Israeli soldiers must be transferred to the legitimate Lebanese authorities, under the auspices of the ICRC, with a view to their repatriation to Israel and a ceasefire.
On the Lebanese side of the Blue Line, an expanded peacekeeping force would help stabilize the situation, working with the Lebanese Government to help strengthen its army and deploy it fully throughout the area. Meanwhile, the Lebanese Government would fully implement Security Council resolutions 1559 and 1680, to establish Lebanese sovereignty and control.
The Prime Minister of Lebanon would unequivocally confirm to the Secretary-General and the Security Council that the Government of Lebanon will respect the Blue Line in its entirety, until agreement on Lebanon’s final international boundaries is reached.
A donor framework would be established, with immediate effect, to secure funding for an urgent package of aid, reconstruction and development for Lebanon.
A mechanism would be established, composed of key regional and international actors, to monitor and guarantee the implementation of all aspects of the agreement.
An international conference should be organized, with broad Lebanese and international participation, to develop precise timelines for a speedy and full implementation of the Taef agreement and further measures needed for Lebanon to comply with its international obligations under Security Council Resolutions 1559 and 1680. The conference would also endorse a delineation of Lebanon’s international borders, including a final resolution on all disputed areas, especially the Shebaa Farms. My letter to Prime Minister Siniora of 5 June 2006 covers these issues.
The planning and implementation of these elements should, as far as possible, be done in parallel. I repeat, in parallel. I should stress that these ideas would obviously require further elaboration and re-working, in close dialogue with all concerned. This Council would need to consider incorporating the elements of such a package in a resolution.
Meanwhile, the conditions for peacekeeping clearly do not exist. The Security Council will need to decide what to do about UNIFIL, whose mandate expires on 31 July. In my view, the continuation of UNIFIL in its current configuration, and with its current mandate, is not tenable. Should it be withdrawn? Should it be strengthened? Should it be replaced with something else altogether? The context is radically different from that of a few weeks ago.
We also need a peace track for Gaza -- despite the different issues involved -- as much as we do for Lebanon.
Posted by Faithful Progressive at 09:21 PM | Comments (7)
July 20, 2006
The Anti-Gay Dishonesty of Focus on the Family
Posted by Jesus Politics
It is good to see Soulforce confronting Dr. Dobson and Focus on the Family the way they are doing this week in Colorado. Soulforce is an organization committed to ending religion-based discrimination against people of minority sexual orientations.
To give an idea of what Soulforce is doing, here is an excerpt from their website:
Monday, July 17 – Friday, July 21, 2006 Diverse families from across America will participate in this week-long 65 mile "relay" style march from the steps of the Colorado State Capitol Building in Denver to the entrance of Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Each group of families will take turns walking a 4 mile segment of the march during the week until we reach Focus on the Family on Saturday, July 22. The purpose of the march is to help America connect the dots between the false and defamatory rhetoric that flows from Focus on the Family and the assault on the civil liberties of LGBT people and same-gender families.
However, Focus on the Family, is also one of the world’s primary sources of defamation against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) people and same-gender families. The misinformation that flows from Dobson's radio and television broadcasts reaches millions of people each day in approximately 162 countries and 21 languages. Focus on the Family’s massive collection of books, pamphlets, audio/visual materials, and websites depicts LGBT people as miserable, lonely, disordered, sick, and sinful. Focus on the Family is also one of the primary financiers of the so-called "ex-gay" movement, and travels the country misrepresenting the scientific research on sexuality to thousands of people. Positive images and stories of LGBT people, committed long-term couples, and same-gender parents are never portrayed; giving people the false impression that gays and lesbians are unhealthy, broken and in need of "repair." Focus on the Family has powerful political establishments, called "Family Policy Councils," in approximately 40 states who work to prevent equality for LGBT people. These groups often lead the discriminatory political campaigns that pass constitutional amendments banning same-gender marriage, and work daily to strip away the civil liberties that protect our families and the freedoms of all Americans.
That's why Soulforce is gathering thousands of people for a nonviolent direct action on July 22, 2006. Actor and activist Chad Allen and Judy Shepard, executive director of the Matthew Shepard Foundation, will lead the march to Focus on the Family, and Broadway Star Billy Porter will perform his amazing and powerful evening concert of jazz, rhythm, and blues in front of Dobson's complex. Lifting our voices in word and song, we will gather to show the public the loving and vibrant spirit of our community and peacefully call all fair-minded Americans to resist injustice. Throughout history, fundamentalists have misused religion to discriminate against people of color, women, and interracial families. Now, gays and lesbians are the target of their oppression. Together, we must peacefully demand that America learn from history and end religion based discrimination.
Posted by Jesus Politics at 04:00 AM | Comments (129)
July 19, 2006
The Gift That Keeps Giving.
Posted by ChristianAlliance
As Israel and Lebanon and all of the Middle East descend into additional violence, I cannot help but think of all of those who have died in Iraq as a result of this misadventure. It may seem like a non-sequitur, but these events are deeply intertwined.
To explain requires a brief recap of history. In 1993, the Israeli government, controlled by the Labour Party, signed what became known as the Oslo Peace Accords. The agreement, signed by Mahmoud Abbas on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization and Shimon Peres on behalf of Israel, called for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip and West Bank. In exchange, the Palestinian Authority would work toward peace in the region, and the agreement became an extension of the 'land for peace' principles that have been suggested by many to resolve the conflict. In the following year, Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin (along with Shimon Peres) were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts.
Dissatisfaction with the plan in Israel ran high. In 1995, Yigal Ami, a right-wing radical opposed to the 'land for peace' idea, assassinated Rabin. Others voiced their dissatisfaction with words. Several prominent conservatives in the US, acting as consultants for Benjamin Netanyahu and the conservative Likud Party, formed the "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000." On July 8, 1996, they then drafted a report entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm." Richard Perle, who along with David Wurmser and Douglass Feith became close advisors to George Bush on Iraq, were the report's principal authors. Perle et. al. were critical of the Israeli policy of swapping land for peace, contending that the road to peace being followed undermined the legitimacy of the nation and led Israel into “strategic paralysis.” According to Perle, Israel was in retreat by adopting these policies. He advocated ‘a clean break.’
According to Perle, Israel could shape its strategic environment by removing Saddam Hussein from power as a means of foiling Israel’s chief rival, Syria. The plan was for Israel to exploit a natural rivalry between Jordan (ruled by the Hasemites) and Syria, with the goal of detaching and isolating Syria from the Saudi Peninsula, “the prelude to a redrawing of the map of the Middle East". The goal was to restore the Hashemites to the throne in Iraq where the family has traditionally ruled, and in doing so, the Hashemites would "use their influence over Najaf to help Israel wean the South Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah, Iran, and Syria.”
The first time I read that, I laughed. When Perle, Feith and Wurmser all became key planners on Iraq for the Bush administration, I cried. While some may not see our actions in Iraq as flowing from A Clean Break, I do. To say that it was a bad idea does not begin to describe the many, many criticisms that have been leveled against it. Case in point: you might want to consider which religious clerics came to power in Najaf who would then 'influence the South Lebanese Shia. If you guessed Muqtada al-Sadr, you are correct. Al-Sadr has close ties to Iran. You may also recall the pitched battles for Najaf between al-Sadr's forces and US forces back in 2004, which helps explain why the US sought to isolate al-Sadr from the political process.
With Israel sending forces into Lebanon, it is pretty clear that "A Clean Break" is a failed policy. Then again, its the gift that keeps on giving. Israel and the United States are now citing the negative influence that Syria, Iran, and the religious clerics of Najaf have over the South Lebanese Shia as a reason for attacking Syria and possibly Iran.
Next week, I will focus on how or why the US stands so closely with Israel, whatever she may do. As you read the news this week, as you spend time in prayer, ask whether we should be defending Israel, or criticizing her.
Posted by ChristianAlliance at 06:45 PM | Comments (7)
July 15, 2006
Regarding Religious Intolerance in Public Schools
Posted by ChristianAlliance
by Bruce Prescott:
I'm on my way today to the first annual Progressive Faith Blog Conference. Kudos to Thurman Hart, an Xpatriated Texan in New Jersey, for taking the lead in organizing the event.
Bruce Wilson of Talk-to-Action has suggested that a few of us write a statement about the incident at the Indian River School District in Delaware to share with others at the conference. The hope is to pool ideas and come up with a collaborative statement that can be jointly issued. Here's a draft of a statement that I wrote for this effort:
Regarding Religious Intolerance in Public Schools
We are progressive religious people from a number of different faiths and traditions who are uniting to voice our concerns over signs that intolerance of religious minorities is mounting in America.
One particularly egregious example of this intolerance is the persecution and harassment of an American Jewish family from the Indian River School District in Delaware. Sadly, the Dobrich family felt so threatened by actions of some within their community that they felt it necessary to sell their home of eighteen years, to relocate and to place one of their children in a private school.
Conflict within the Indian River School District originated over forced observance of a religious exercise. Forcing anyone to participate in public acts of worship -- against their will and their deepest convictions -- violates both the Constitution and what James Madison in his "Memorial and Remonstrance" called an "unalienable" right of conscience.
America's public schools serve children from families of many different faiths and traditions. Every parent of every faith has the right to expect that the public schools will not be used to impose religious beliefs and practices upon their children. Every parent of every faith has the right to expect that public schools will honor the parent's solemn responsibility to instruct their own children regarding religious beliefs and practices. Every child of every faith has the right to expect that public schools will not force them to participate in religious practices that violate their religious convictions. Every child of every faith has the right to expect that public schools will treat them with the same fairness, dignity and respect that they treat the children of any other faith.
We call upon all Americans to raise their voices together with us to condemn the spiritual molestation of children taking place in our common public schools when they impose majoritarian religious practices on students from minority faiths.
We ask all Americans to take direct, non-violent action to put an end to every form of tacit governmental endorsement of religion.
We encourage all Americans to reaffirm the Constitutional right of every citizen to be free from being coerced to participate in acts of worship with those of different faiths and beliefs.
All persons should be free to worship with like-minded people of their own choosing in accord with the dictates of their own consciences.
Posted by ChristianAlliance at 03:18 PM | Comments (130)
July 14, 2006
Action Alert from Churches for Middle East Peace
Posted by Faithful Progressive
Action Alert from Churches for Middle East Peace
Mideast violence is escalating and your urgent advocacy of the Administration is needed. Make the following points in your call to the White House Comment Line: 202-456-1111.
Suggested Message:
1. I condemn the provocative raid and capture of Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah and their continued rocket attacks on Israeli civilians.
2. I urge the President to work with the United Nations to press Hezbollah and its supporters to stop attacks on Israel and to return the captive soldiers. I ask the President to cooperate with international diplomatic intervention efforts.
3. I appeal to the President to work with the Israeli government to restrain their use of military force. Israel’s retaliatory response, which has resulted in civilian deaths and destruction of infrastructure in Lebanon, has been disproportionate and weakens the Lebanese government.
4. I call on the President to help end the current Middle East violence and restore hope for Arab-Israeli peace.
* * *
Formed in 1984, Churches for Middle East Peace is a Washington-based program of the Alliance of Baptists, American Friends Service Committee, Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Armenian Orthodox Church, Catholic Conference of Major Superiors of Men's Institutes, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Church of the Brethren, Church World Service, Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Franciscan Friars OFM (English Speaking Conference, JPIC Council), Friends Committee on National Legislation, Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Maryknoll Missioners, Mennonite Central Committee, National Council of Churches, Presbyterian Church (USA), Reformed Church in America, Unitarian Universalist Association, United Church of Christ, and the United Methodist Church (GBCS & GBGM).
Posted by Faithful Progressive at 11:04 PM | Comments (37)
July 13, 2006
You Better Work it!*
Posted by ChristianAlliance
by Ding
*[am I the only one who remembers RuPaul’s dance floor classic?]
Let’s talk about work. (Since this week at the office has exploded all over me like a flaming bag of poo, I thought Work would be an appropriate subject for this go-round.) And let’s think about the work that doesn’t get done when we try to say that ‘values’ and ‘faith’ is the same thing. The two aren’t interchangeable, though they are related; this is the problem I have with the way these two terms are used in our public political discourse because I think that while Faith and Values are good in themselves they may not be the best way to create social change or solve a problem. Rather, I think the solution rests in Work.
When I say Work, I mean the difficult labor of making change. It is the process (be it small or large, on a local or national level) through which a discernible difference can be made in someone’s material circumstance. Does this mean that a person’s spiritual change can't also manifest in social change? Brian McLaren doesn't think so; he posits that Christ’s gospel is really so revolutionary, it has immediate and radical implications for both private and public life – a truth that has been tamed in our church tradition so that the Gospel resembles nothing more than nicey-nice verses telling us all to love one another.
(Full disclosure: I’m only on page 40 of McLaren’s book. Sigh. I keep putting it aside to read my new serial killer thriller.)
Let’s back up. Last week I posted about Obama’s speech on the Democrats' need to engage more people of faith in an authentic way and not to shy away from issues of faith. While I agreed faintly, I disagreed, strongly, that we should be concentrating on Faith as Electoral Strategy. Instead, I wanted us to start looking at their Work, not as an Electoral Strategy (which puts a box around progressive work), but because it’s what has to happen.
Lately, the ‘religious left’ story has popped up in all sorts of places. Here , here , and here . And, even here . Adele Stan, in the American Prospect piece, writes:
At the root of all of the great faiths are fundamental beliefs in compassion, justice, love, and charity. We have the right -- dare I say the duty? -- to express ourselves as moral agents without the imprimatur of ecclesiastical authority.
Spoken the right way, arguments for the embodiment of these values in our civic life can ring with the divine provenance granted to them by believers. And indeed, religious activists -- especially our ministers, priests, rabbis, and imams -- are vital to our movement. But to expect them alone to create a moral counterforce to the destructive fear mongering of the right is not only unrealistic, it’s an expectation rooted in abdication of our own role as moral agents.
I want to concentrate on the word ‘movement.’ It’s a political word. It’s a word that brings to mind force, power (both of the people behind it and that which it is battling), and largeness – the largeness of the idea behind the movement and the largeness of the goal of the movement. For me, it’s a much more relevant and piercing call than one to Faith and Values. Yes, I have faith in Christ and through Him all things are possible; yes, I want to evangelize an ideology (which is what ‘values’ are) of equality, tolerance and grace. But to what end and do I really believe all that?
I am reminded of a church song that says “They will know us by our love.” For me, being progressive has always been about the fundamentals of love writ large. There is grace for everyone. We care for our fellow man, our fellow worker, our fellow struggler because they matter. They are not insignificant and they are not here simply as chaff for the fiery destruction of the world – nor are they meant to be soulless fodder for a corporate war machine.
But I’m suspicious of Faith and Values language because I don’t tend to believe the person who’s using it. The conservatives use it to hide their power and the left is using it to hide our rage. So let’s use a different language. Let’s use a language that was just fading from use when I was born – the language of a revolutionary love. Let’s start getting real about identifying who has power in this society, and who doesn’t. Let’s start being real honest about whose interests are behind which policies and who’s getting screwed by those policies – and how all of that must change. Let’s start thinking about a movement that’s less ‘Can’t we all get along?’ and more James Cone (as quoted in Sharlet’s piece in The Revealer):
‘authentic love is not ‘help’ — not giving Christmas baskets — but working for political, social, and economic justice, which always means a redistribution of power. It is a kind of power which enables [the oppressed] to fight their own battles and thus keep their dignity.’ [emphasis mine]
But since redistributing power means that those with privilege – class, race, and gender privilege - must confront it and then willfully step away from it, (thus personifying the whole ‘first shall be last’ thing in the Beatitudes), I have little hope such justice will occur any time soon.
We of the left seem to have forgotten that the personal is political – and that all politics are local. Instead let's forget electoral strategies. We already know that nothing trickles down, least of all change. Let’s get mucky on the bottom, on the street, in those grassroots we theoretically love. Understanding and evangelizing the ideological behind the ordinary is how we must affect change; it is how we must create a cultural shift. It’s not trendy, clean, or easy. It’s fracking hard. It means actually penetrating the communities we want to change; it means actually educating people about and implementing real, tangible, meaningful social change while transcending shallow election tactics that are only relevant every four years. It means ORGANIZING.
I do not accept the answer ‘it’s too much work’. It’s not Work when you mean it.
Posted by ChristianAlliance at 09:23 PM | Comments (42)
Pastor Dan Talks to Senator Obama
Posted by Jesus Politics
Faithful Progressive, in an earlier post, wrote about Senator Barack Obama's recent speech on religion and politics and the way it was not so warmly received by some on the left. Pastor Dan, of the blog Street Prophets, interviewed Obama after the speech and they talk about how the speech was received. This interview shows that political leaders with national ambitions are taking the time to explore the nuances and difficulties of speaking about faith in a political context. Some excerpts from the interview:
[pastordan] One of the charges that people have laid against your speech is that it was unnecessarily critical of the Democratic party.
[Obama] Which I found misplaced - some of it that response had to do with people reading the AP story that came over the wire instead of reading the speech. If you look at the speech, I was far more critical of the religious right, and give a vigorous defense of the separation of church and state. What I simply say in the speech - I think it's hard to deny, and as the reaction to my speech confirmed- is that there are a lot of folks in the progressive community, there are a lot of folks on the left, who are very sensitive to the topic of religion and feel that to acknowledge the other side's point of view is to give aid to the theocrats and religious bullies that are out there. It would be hard to read through that speech and see a harsh condemnation of the Democrats.
Actually, what I said was, we've abandoned the field. I think there was one line in which I said there are some in the secular camp who dismiss religion. I don't think that's undeniable. [sic] I did not charge that to the entire Democratic party. So I think in some ways those characterizations of my speech were inaccurate.
Now, I understand people's sensitivities, because I have a number of friends who feel that they have been beaten down by the Jerry Falwells and the Pat Robertsons of the world, that they feel that they're always on the defensive if they don't proclaim allegiance to evangelical Christianity. Non-believers feel that they're the ones who are outnumbered, you know, intimidated. They feel frustrated if there's some suggestion that Christians are somehow oppressed, which was not my intention in the speech. [ ]
[pastordan] I've heard that same kind of critique from people who are secular. What I found a little more compelling was the notion that portraying progressives or the Democratic as being unfriendly to people of faith buys into Republican frames.
[Obama] Again, if you read the speech, what I said was not that Democrats or progressives are unfriendly to religion. What I said - there were two sentences in particular - primarily our problem is that we feel uncomfortable engaging in a discussion of religious values in the public square, which is very different than the "hostile" quote. I think it's true. We're much more sensitive, in many ways, in a good way. As a consequence of our belief in tolerance and respect for religious diversity, we are much less willing to express religious motivations in our public conversations. I don't think that's a controversial statement. I think it's something that's patently true.
What I did say is that some secularists who believe religion does not have a legitimate place in our civic discourse. You know, I didn't say the majority of Democrats believe that, I didn't say that a sizeable minority say. I said some. And again, I don't think that's a controversial statement.
This idea that somehow - that any time that Democrats or progressives engage in self-reflection we are adopting a Republican frame - the popularity of this George Lakoff critique of everything we do, I think hampers us from being able to improve our game.
You know, I love Lakoff. I think he's an insightful guy. But the fact is that I am not a propagandist. That's not my job. My job and my intent in delivering a speech like this is I'm trying to speak truthfully as I can about what I see out there. If I'm restricted or prescribed in my statements because the media or Republicans - or Democrats - are going to interpret what I say through the Republican frame, I'm not going to spend a lot of time saying very much.
Posted by Jesus Politics at 05:37 PM | Comments (2)
July 11, 2006
Time to Raise Your Voice.
Posted by ChristianAlliance
by r. johnson
I have been on vacation over the past week, and my head is still spinning. For most of the time away, I have lived in a bubble with no phone, no newspaper, no internet, and no television. (I did sneak off, wife and kids in tow, to the local watering hole to watch the World Cup semifinals.) Plenty of fishing, swimming, and time with the kids. I am getting 'caught up' on the news, which leads to two very different emotions. On one hand, I am outraged and surprised to read of all that has happened over the past week. Then again, I am not surprised at all.
The talk of civil war in Iraq. Israel talking of assassinating the Palestinian Prime Minister. . Civilians being killed in Gaza. If I had not seen the date on these stories, I might have mistaken them for ones I read six weeks, a month, or even six months ago. Why should I be surprised to read these stories again? Some things never change.
Iraq is a mess and has been for some time. Perhaps Dr. Martin Luther King described the problems we face in Iraq best when he said "If you succumb to the temptation of using violence in the struggle...your chief legacy to the future will be an endless reign of meaningless chaos." Endless reign of meaningless chaos. Sounds right to me.
Then there is Israel, launching an offensive in Gaza. The goal of the offensive has been to free the kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, but in the effort to secure the freedom of one man has caused the deaths of many innocent civilians. They have bombed the offices of the Palestinian Prime Minister and targeted him for assassination. Imagine what we in the United States would do if Canada decided to bomb the White House and target George Bush for assassination, or invaded this country to '[make Canada safe.'
If some things never change, then these stories will have passed with barely a ripple in the public consciousness. Iraq may be the one exception, where there is a growing awareness of the violence and killing, and an unwillingness to let the conflict continue indefinitely, but for the most part, no significant outcry, no collective condemnation of Israel, no cry for justice. Nothing that the political strategists for the democratic and republican parties can't handle.
Why is it that we bite our tongue and refrain from speaking out on Iraq, Israel, Guantanamo, Iran, and countless other topics? Is it that we are afraid of being painted as 'soft' on national defense? Are we afraid of being painted as sympathetic to 'terrorists'? Are we afraid of being called a radical? Jesus Christ was a radical who spoke out against the inequities of life that he observed. It is the message of Christ, the still voice within, that tells me I must speak out. Violence begets violence. The message of Christ breaks that chain. The chain of violence will continue as long as people of faith remain silent. It is time for people of faith to speak out.
Posted by ChristianAlliance at 12:51 PM | Comments (9)
July 07, 2006
The "PH"undamentalism of "F"onics
Posted by ChristianAlliance
by Dr. Bruce Prescott
Across America two armies are poised to wage war over how children should be taught to read. One army demands attention to the "drill" of "phonics." The other army commands standing "at ease" with "whole language." Most Americans have been deaf to the conflicting orders issuing from these armies, but the bugle is being sounded and our children and grandchildren will soon be caught in the crossfire of what may well become a significant skirmish in America’s culture wars.
I would prefer not to wrestle with this issue. Educational philosophy and methods are best left to those who are thoroughly trained and experienced in the field. I don’t care how my children learn to read. I just want their schools to do a good job of teaching them to read and appreciate literature. I trust that conscientious, professional educators will learn to do whatever it takes to do that effectively. I am wrestling with this issue because so many untrained citizens have taken it upon themselves to instruct professional educators on how to teach. I’ve seen housewives and antique dealers successfully pawn themselves off as experts in the theory and practice of education. If they are to be taken seriously, then I expect that a Baptist preacher could make some observations in an area outside his field of expertise.
My first observation is that there are a lot of familiar faces in the "phonics" camp. Fundamentalist preachers, televangelists, the Christian Coalition, and the religious right comprise the bulk of those who militantly oppose the forces that support "whole language." These are people who thrive in the limelight of controversy and conflict.
The names and faces of those who support "whole language" are not familiar to me.
They are educators, administrators and academic researchers who strive to work together to solve problems through critical evaluation, open discussion and cooperative effort. These people are unaccustomed to rancorous conflict and ill-prepared for ideological warfare.
I’ve seen armies with such contrasting dispositions before. The faces most familiar to me in the "phonics" camp are seasoned veterans from the coup that seized control of the educational institutions of the Southern Baptist Convention. Then they were battling to enforce a literal reading of the Bible. The educators welcomed their opponents to the academy and engaged them in the open dialogue that is necessary to reduce conflict and build a consensus. The fundamentalists waged war in the political arena. It was a massacre. The educators are still being buried among the ranks of the unemployed.
My second observation is that many phonics advocates have a hidden theological agenda. The deepest reason prompting the religious right to promote extensive phonics is that it matches their view of scriptural inspiration. Most Christians believe that God inspired the authors of scripture and that those writers used their own words to express what God revealed to them. Many fundamentalists believe that every word of the Bible is so important that God dictated the scriptures word-for-word to the men who wrote it down. For fundamentalists, every word of scripture has divine significance and is invested with an unequivocal, literal meaning.
The methods of whole language reading instruction were not developed to coincide with any theory of divine revelation. Public education has no business developing theories to coincide with theories of religious inspiration. Whole language instruction was developed to teach children to read and comprehend the texts of ordinary language. The words of newspapers, magazines and ordinary books are not invested with divine significance and do not have unequivocally literal meanings. Ordinary words are understood by their context within a sentence and paragraph and story. Whole language instruction is concerned with developing readers who can comprehend the meaning of ordinary language in ordinary texts.
My final observation is that the issue has been unnecessarily polarized. Both sides teach phonics. The debate is not whether some knowledge of phonics is useful in the early stages of reading. The debate is how to teach phonics and how much is needed.
Whole language instruction teaches phonics "indirectly" and "intrinsically" in the context of meaningful reading. The goal of the instruction is grasping the meaning of words in context more than grasping the sounds of letters. Phonics advocates insist that phonics be taught "directly" and "extensively" by routine drill and repetitive instruction in letter sounds. The goal of the instruction is an automatic mental association between sounds and letters. Later the letter sounds will be combined to form an automatic association with the sound of words and the sound of words will automatically be associated with a single meaning.
I was taught to read by the direct-extensive-drill method of phonetic instruction. My recollection is that it was boring to an extreme. We drilled for days and days on sounds without meaning. Then, when we learned that the sounds could make words, our thirst for reading was quickly quenched by reviewing the same words over and over again. Who can forget the monotony of weeks reading, "See Dick run. See Jane run. See Spot run?" The teaching was perfectly designed to make the intellect lethargic, to create a passively receptive mind, and to produce an automaton.
I think fundamentalists promote extensive phonics because it is the most likely method to produce minds that will automatically accept a literal interpretation of scripture. They fear that a mind that actively searches for meaning, as whole language encourages, might see beyond the letter of the law to its spirit. Public education has no business developing theories to favor any method of scriptural interpretation. A mind actively searching for meaning is as free to interpret scripture literally as it is to interpret it metaphorically.
These observations are enough to make me suspicious about the value of extensive phonics. On the other hand, I am not prepared to say that I am a "true believer" in the whole language method. What’s good in theory may not prove effective in practice. In the end, I’m a pragmatist on this issue. My only concern is that the schools do a good job of teaching children to read and appreciate literature. I think they will be able to do that best when hidden theological issues are left out of the equation.
Posted by ChristianAlliance at 11:13 PM | Comments (25)
Seeing the Other: Sen. Obama Delivers Brilliant Speech on Faith and Politics
Posted by Faithful Progressive
1.)
One of the central Republican campaign techniques has been to frame issues to create a phony sense of crisis that basic values are under attack by a politically correct secular culture. This gives them endless opportunities to feel outraged and under siege. Thus we see discrimination posing as “Marriage Protection,” we hear rants about protecting The Flag by people who refuse to properly protect our troops, we see true believers riled up by a bogus War on Christmas. Given this context, it is perhaps inevitable that liberals would often have their dukes up and be ready to pounce when they see fellow progressives (wittingly or unwittingly) tap in to one of these themes. This is perhaps one explanation for the really unbalanced and unfair criticism of Sen. Obama’s speech on faith and politics by many liberal bloggers.
The most recent comes from the well-respected authorFrederick Clarkson:
Obama and Jim Wallis before him are wrong to scapegoat "secularists" for the problems mainstream Christians and others have had in finding their voices. They are also wrong to allege that non-religious people are somehow chasing religious expression from public life. It is long past time to call a halt to this nonsense. Let's start today. He then goes on to note that... "the religious right frames much of how they view politics in America as a struggle in America between Christianity and secular humanism; between faith and no faith; between religiosity and secularism. The words differ a bit depending on who is doing the talking, but the the frame is always the same. Indeed, it has been one of the central features of the religious right's rise to power for decades and has been articulated by every major leader from Jerry Falwell to Sun Myung Moon."
Okay, no argument there. We disagree, though, about how this relates to Obama's speech. What does Clarkson site as grounds for putting the weight of this history on Sen. Obama? This line: "Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square." Clarkson writes, "I am not aware of anyone being asked leave their faith at the door of public life. Are there a few cranky atheists out there who oppose all religiosity, particularly in politicians and public life? Well sure, so what else is new? But there is no evidence that anyone is making any actual headway in reducing religiosity in America.Nevertheless, the influence of Wallis shows in Obama's speech. Let's talk about that influence for a moment.
To listen to or read Jim Wallis, you would think that legions of the Secular Left are rampaging across the land; that the secularity police are billy-clubbing every expression of religion in public life -- especially if it happens to be Christian; and ruthlessly blocking "people of faith" from participation in constitutional democracy and requiring politicians to hide their religiosity."
This wasn't Sen. Obama's point--but, so what? It's far more important that Clarkson find Senator Obama guilty (by association!) of being influenced by Jim Wallis!! Man, we better send out the attack dogs--that is horrible!! Thank God, we have brave bloggers like Clarkson and Atrios to set him right...because there is only one right way to think.
This brings me back to the lack of, well, intellectual tolerance and a sense of proportion in especially the conservative but also the liberal blogosphere. Blogs are full of people who seem to believe that there is only one right way to think--or even one right way to approach a conflict of ideas or strategy. Obama's strategy was about tolerance of opposing viewpoints and respect for those who disagree with us. It was about seeing our neighbors in need, about ending the phony Culture War. Obama made it clear that his approach came out of his own experience, his experience in the African American church in particular.
2.)
FrederickClarkson heard echoes of Jim Wallis in Sen. Obama's speech, and for Clarkson (as we argued here) this meant "the speech is indelibly marred by propagating one of the central frames of the religious right..." Why? Because Wallis overemphasizes the idea that secularists in the Democratic Party need to become more comfortable with the fact that a large part of the Party base has a strong sense of religious values. Clarkson believes this argument is the same as the right frame that "Democrats are hostile to religion."
But Clarkson misses some of the argument's subtleties: for Wallis also argues that these values have been missing from the laundry-list interest-group platform of a more and more "corporate" political organization. Recalling progressive religious values would embolden Democrats to talk about poverty and economic injustice in moral terms. This is also what Rabbi Lerner is talking about when he speaks of a "new bottom line" that respects individual citizens as much as corporations. Lerner is speaking from a place well to the left of the current Democratic Party, and this is perhaps less the case with Wallis. However, speaking from these values, Wallis opposed a war in Iraq that did not even come close to meeting "Just War" principles. He was also arrested last year opposing cruel and immoral US budget cuts that impacted mostly the poor. Further, because the progressive religious community has always been a core part of the Democratic Party base--not emphasizing these values (which as Obama notes are also universal values) is part of what has led the Party to the muddled middle.
So the "frame" of religious progressives is not "Democrats are hostile to religion," but rather, "Democrats have to some extent lost their way and need to return to the Party's fundamental values that have much in common with and have historically referenced progressive religious as well as secular values." This "framing" of the issues is well to the left of either that of the religious right or the existing Democratic Party leadership--a point missed by most secular liberal bloggers.
Further, as EJ Dionne notes, "...there is often a terrible awkwardness among Democratic politicians when their talk turns to God, partly because they also know how important secular voters are to their coalition. When it comes to God, it's hard to triangulate." Bingo. But, more fundamentally, Dionne also goes beyond this same tired debate to strike at the heart of what Obama was really saying. While Clarkson hears echoes of Jim Wallis, EJ Dionne hears something closer to Søren Kierkegaard.
Kierkegaard argued that every individual has an individual existential relationship with the absolute. The absolute is ultimately unknowable but still worth the effort of the human attempt to understand. Credo ut intelligam, in the famous prayer of St. Anselm, I believe that I may understand. The struggle at the heart of this relationship involves doubt and an acceptance that humans will never fully comprehend this absolute. This is a very different perspective on religion than the self-righteous certainties of the religious right.
But, as Dionne notes, this is Obama's somehwat surprising personal admission: Here's what stands out. First, Obama offers the first faith testimony I have heard from any politician that speaks honestly about the uncertainties of belief. "Faith doesn't mean that you don't have doubts," Obama declared. "You need to come to church in the first place precisely because you are first of this world, not apart from it."
By acknowledging the doubt factor, Obama strikes a profound note for tolerance. Each individual will resolve the existential issue of faith in their own fashion. Some people will not undertake the exhausting wrestling match with the absolute at all. That is their right and an existential choice worthy of respect. In matters of the spirit, one size emphatically does not fit all. We should expect to come to different judgments, even within ourselves at different times of our own lives. We should expect to have these discussions, because they are discussions of nothing less than what it means to be human. But Obama doesn't stop there, he offers us the benefit of his own experience--rich with the depths of the vibrant African American tradition of a prophetic and personal faith that has known struggle. He was doing organizing with black churches in Chicago, but wasn't particularly religious himself.
Obama writes: "...(I)f it weren't for the particular attributes of the historically black church, I may have accepted this fate. But as the months passed in Chicago, I found myself drawn - not just to work with the church, but to be in the church.
For one thing, I believed and still believe in the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change, a power made real by some of the leaders here today. Because of its past, the black church understands in an intimate way the Biblical call to feed the hungry and cloth the naked and challenge powers and principalities. And in its historical struggles for freedom and the rights of man, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world. As a source of hope.
And perhaps it was out of this intimate knowledge of hardship -- the grounding of faith in struggle -- that the church offered me a second insight, one that I think is important to emphasize today. Faith doesn't mean that you don't have doubts."
It's not surprising that Sen. Obama's speech was misunderstood--almost willfully--by (mostly white) bloggers on both the right and the left: they could only see things from their own frame of reference and prejudices. But it’s exactly this kind of very human intransigence that is the real subject of Obama’s speech—for his speech is first and foremost a plea for greater tolerance and effort at understanding. It is nothing less than a plea to see the Other. The speech was also a call to the individual transformation that occurs when we do so--for we grow from our encounter with the Other. Of course. this plea was greeted with smug self-righteousness from both right and left--not many of us really want to grow in this manner.
But this type of insight is an especially strong tradition in African American churches. As Sen. Obama writes:
"After all, the problems of poverty and racism, the uninsured and the unemployed, are not simply technical problems in search of the perfect ten point plan. They are rooted in both societal indifference and individual callousness - in the imperfections of man. Solving these problems will require changes in government policy, but it will also require changes in hearts and a change in minds. I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturers' lobby - but I also believe that when a gang-banger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels somebody disrespected him, we've got a moral problem. There's a hole in that young man's heart - a hole that the government alone cannot fix.
I believe in vigorous enforcement of our non-discrimination laws. But I also believe that a transformation of conscience and a genuine commitment to diversity on the part of the nation's CEOs could bring about quicker results than a battalion of lawyers. They have more lawyers than us anyway.
I think that we should put more of our tax dollars into educating poor girls and boys. I think that the work that Marian Wright Edelman has done all her life is absolutely how we should prioritize our resources in the wealthiest nation on earth. I also think that we should give them the information about contraception that can prevent unwanted pregnancies, lower abortion rates, and help assure that that every child is loved and cherished.
But, you know, my Bible tells me that if we train a child in the way he should go, when he is old he will not turn from it. So I think faith and guidance can help fortify a young woman's sense of self, a young man's sense of responsibility, and a sense of reverence that all young people should have for the act of sexual intimacy.
I am not suggesting that every progressive suddenly latch on to religious terminology - that can be dangerous. Nothing is more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith. As Jim has mentioned, some politicians come and clap -- off rhythm -- to the choir. We don't need that.
In fact, because I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality, I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics, and who is also secular, affirm their morality and ethics and values without pretending that they're something they're not. They don't need to do that. None of us need to do that.
But what I am suggesting is this - secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Moreover, if we progressives shed some of these biases, we might recognize some overlapping values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the moral and material direction of our country. We might recognize that the call to sacrifice on behalf of the next generation, the need to think in terms of "thou" and not just "I," resonates in religious congregations all across the country. And we might realize that we have the ability to reach out to the evangelical community and engage millions of religious Americans in the larger project of American renewal.
Some of this is already beginning to happen. Pastors, friends of mine like Rick Warren and T.D. Jakes are wielding their enormous influences to confront AIDS, Third World debt relief, and the genocide in Darfur. Religious thinkers and activists like our good friend Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo are lifting up the Biblical injunction to help the poor as a means of mobilizing Christians against budget cuts to social programs and growing inequality.
And by the way, we need Christians on Capitol Hill, Jews on Capitol Hill and Muslims on Capitol Hill talking about the estate tax. When you've got an estate tax debate that proposes a trillion dollars being taken out of social programs to go to a handful of folks who don't need and weren't even asking for it, you know that we need an injection of morality in our political debate."
3.)
This is not the "frame" of the religious right, this is a call to renewal, transformation and tolerance. Tolerance and understanding means engaging in a serious conversation, and relationships, with even those with whom we disagree. How different this vision is from some of his critics, who prefer to merely dismiss those with whom they disagree. Say, by calling them a “Wanker, in the immortal term of Master Atrios Bates. Let me once again set forth Atrios response in full: Dear Senator Obama,
If you think it's important to court evangelicals, then court them. If, on the other hand, you think it's important to confirm and embrace the false idea that Democrats are hostile to religion in order to set yourself apart, then continue doing what you're doing. It won't help the Democrats, and it probably won't even help you, but whatever makes you happy.
Love and kisses,
Atrios
Geez Louise, talk about buying in to the frame of the Right! It's clear that Obama wasn't just talking about "courting Evangelicals"--the obsession of the right & the MSM when it comes to Dems and religion--this was largely a progressive critique, a critique from the left of where the Democratic Party currently stands.
Beyond this, the question is in part what we think American voters are more likely to respond to: this smug type of puerile and sophomoric baiting--or the healing vision offered by Senator Obama? Here it's important to recall the way Sen. Obama ended his speech. With "a prayer that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others" that a doctor who opposed abortion had extended to the pro-choice Sen. Obama during his campaign.
"It is a prayer I still say for America today - a hope that we can live with one another in a way that reconciles the beliefs of each with the good of all. It's a prayer worth praying, and a conversation worth having in this country in the months and years to come."
The last American politician who spoke openly of doubts and faith and the need for tolerance and who generated the healing wind of actually seeing our neighbors in need was Robert F. Kennedy--especially in the year just before his death. I am delighted that that powerful tradition is now being ably carried forward by Sen. Barack Obama. And I thank him for this underappreciated but absolutely brilliant speech.
Posted by Faithful Progressive at 04:32 AM | Comments (11)
July 06, 2006
The Idolatrous Mixing of Church and State
Posted by Jesus Politics
Well known Baptist professor, Walter Shurden, recently gave a spirited speech at the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship General Assembly. Shurden is concerned about the "idolatrous mixing of church and state" in this country. Some excerpts from his speech:
Let me be clear at the outset. I am not suggesting that we are on the lip of any kind of political totalitarianism in this country. I don't believe that. I am suggesting, however, that there are "American Christians" for whom the adjective is more important than the noun. I am suggesting that some Christian churches in our country have been transformed into political temples and some pastors have embraced the moniker of "patriot pastors."
I am suggesting that devoted theocrats have an eye on the machinery of national and state governments, and that they make no apology for it. And I am suggesting that a skewed reading of our nation's history is sending forth armies of buck privates scurrying to wreck Jefferson's wall. [ ]
Let me tell you why I believe it can happen here, this idolatrous mixing of church and state.
It can happen here because "Generation Joshua" is loose in our country. Have you heard of "Generation Joshua?" It is an effort by Michael Farris, founder of Patrick Henry College, to turn Christian, home-schooled students into political foot soldiers to gain political power in order to subsume everything—entertainment, law, government, and education—under their right wing version of Christianity. Like Joshua of the Hebrew Bible, Generation Joshua's job is to possess the land, to conquer the land, or, in the words of the religious right, "to take back the land." And, according to Michael Harris, in the spring semester of 2004, Patrick Henry College had more interns in the White House than any other college in the nation.2 It can happen here because of a religious right-wing militancy.
It can happen here because by 2004 The Christian Coalition gave 42 out of 100 United States senators a rating of 100%. More than half of the senators received ratings of 83% by the militant Christian Coalition. It can happen here because sincere religious ideologues are rampant in our country, and they mean business. [ ]
I MEASURE MY WORDS WHEN I SAY THAT I believe with all my heart and soul that one of the most important religious organizations in this republic is the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty. One of the reasons I have always admired the BJC is its ecumenical nature. The BJC is not simply a Baptist thing. The BJC is a human thing. It does not matter whether you are Baptist or Buddhist, Methodist or Muslim, Assembly of God or atheist, the BJC is a flaming torch guarding God-given freedoms for your children and grandchildren.
Posted by Jesus Politics at 07:01 AM | Comments (77)
July 05, 2006
must be election time: the values argument. again.
Posted by ChristianAlliance
By Ding
here's a novel idea for democrats: how about actually DOING something, instead of just worrying about the frame for your message.
as a progressive woman of faith, i'm getting just a little tired (yes, tired of even beloved obama) trotting out the tired 'we have to compete in the churches with the religious right.' my advice to the dems is a bit more...feisty. as a progressive woman of faith i'd like to see my fellow democrats stand in front of something without flinching when the crap starts to fly. as a progressive woman of faith i'd like to see some policies on the ground that demonstrate our progressive policies are the best for us and this country.
(hello, paid family & medical leave; hello, increasing the eitc; hello, increasing the minimum wage; hello, broadening access to higher education.)
unfortunately, we don't see too much of that when we're too busy watching our politicians genuflect and share their conversion experiences. thanks very much but i remember my own conversion experience; i was thirteen, brushing my teeth one sunday morning. i didn't feel anything so i accepted jesus a few more times that day, just to make sure. (ah, the joys of growing up baptist.)
and i'm reminded of my baptist childhood watching the dems 'try on' faith just to rack up some votes with the same awkward earnestness that's really just a fear of going to hell.
not to say that the democratic party should ignore issues of faith; rather, they should realize that having faith doesn't make you an easy mark for a con. and that's what this feels like to me - a con. it's great that suddenly everyone wants to talk about jesus, but i'd rather see you manifest jesus in what you do rather than trundling down to some black church on the south side and clap on the 1 and 3 instead of the 2 and 4. (y'all know what i'm talking about.) those of us in those churches know exactly what those visits mean and for any politician, black or white, that kind of hospitality is eventually going to dry up. you are pimping us out.
eventually the whore gets tired, you know?
this is what's disappointing about obama's speech; he gets awfully close but fails to put his finger on the pulse of the problem: the left can't make much ingress into these communities of faith now because, at last, folks are waking up to the fact that they've been played. after two election cycles and the dems still haven't brought home any of their promises, who's going to look better? the people who say what they mean and act on it. sure, their message is narrow and awful and retro and won't look after the interests of regular folk, but it feels right. it has the feeling their conversions didn't. instead of talking about the discourse of faith, obama needs to say how faith is about how you WALK - and then tell the dems they need to start walking if they want to see anything fruitful.
if the left really wants to be the party of change, then BE the effing party of change.
fracking grow a set and be like jesus: walk into the temple and raise some hell.
Obama urges Democrats to embrace faith Chicago Tribune
Posted by ChristianAlliance at 12:51 PM | Comments (151)
