| Home > Community Forum > Monthly Archive |
November 30, 2006
Reverend Billy's Ten Christmas Commandments
Posted by Jesus Politics
Rev. Billy may not be a real minister, but he certainly has thought deeply about the real meaning of the Christmas season. Here are Rev. Billy's Ten Christmas Commandments:
1. Thou Shalt Not Shop 'til You Drop
2. Thou Shalt Not Go so deep into Debt that you are paying the Banks next summer. That is Hell and Damnation.
3. Thou Shalt Stop Pretending that this is NORMAL. The Buy-As-Much-As-You-Can-Christmas was invented by retailers.
4. Stop Shopping and Start Giving. We all know What a Good Gift Feels Like. Its not about what you buy.
5. Save Your Soul From the Axis of Consumer Evil! #1-Big Boxes #2-Child Slave Labour #3-Sexual Abuse at The Feet of Three Story High Supermodels.
6. Thou Shalt Have NO False Idols: Playstation 3 is Not as Good as Real Life. Thats why we'll forget about it by New Years Day.
7. Thou Shalt not Trample Thy Neighbor for Sale Items.
8. Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbor's Motorized Ashtrays or Shopping Channel Zirconian Chandeliers.
9. Remember! You don't have to buy a gift to give a gift.
10. Let's save Christmas from the SHOPCOALYPSE! Are we shopping Ourselves to Death? Christmas makes intense Plastic Trash and Burns lots of Fossil Fuel. It's the LAKE of HELLFIRE!
Posted by Jesus Politics at 04:50 PM | Comments (0)
Progressive Christians in the News
Posted by Faithful Progressive
1.) Interesting profile of Jim Wallis in Sunday Wash Post.
The Gospel According to Jim Wallis:
By David Paul Kuhn
Sunday, November 26, 2006; W20
JIM WALLIS IS PREACHING ABOUT A BIBLE TORN APART. Wallis tells the crowd at the Seattle Pacific University chapel that when he was in seminary, a fellow student took hold of an old Bible and cut out "every single reference to the poor."
"And when we were done, that Bible was literally in shreds. It was falling apart in my hands. It was a Bible full of holes. I would take it out to preach and say, 'Brothers and sisters, this is our American Bible.'"
Wallis pauses. "It's like someone has stolen our faith. And when someone tries to hijack your faith, you know what? There comes a time when you have to take it back!"
For nearly two years, Wallis has traveled across the country attempting to do just that. And some would argue that those efforts have begun to bear fruit, as demonstrated by gains in the recent elections. But Wallis, America's leading progressive evangelical, contends that the issue is far larger than any one election, that the Christian conservative movement has remade Christ in its own image. "What's at stake here is not politics or social action," he insists, "but the very integrity of the word of God."
snip...
THE LAST DEMOCRAT TO WIN THE PRESIDENCY with more than half of the electorate was also the last Democrat to nearly split the religious Christian vote: Jimmy Carter. Carter has been a devout Baptist for the whole of his 82 years. He lives today in the same town in which he was born and has spent the bulk of his life in the Bible Belt. He remains the pride of Plains, a diminutive town in the deep south of Georgia. To this day, political analysts chalk his 1976 victory up to his Southern heritage.
But CBS News exit polling demonstrated that for six in 10 voters, "restoring trust in government" was the number one issue that led them to support their candidate, dwarfing by three times all other issues. Carter's ability to authentically speak to his faith may have allowed voters to find a pathway to trusting his character.
2.) PROGRESSIVE CHRISTIANS RESPOND TO JAMES DOBSON'S INACCURATE STATEMENTS
Judgmental Rhetoric Does Not Follow the Teachings of Jesus
Washington, DC November 29, 2006 James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family, made a number of highly inaccurate statements on matters of faith, sexuality, liberalism and the United States Constitution in on CNN's Larry King Live, November 22, 2006.
The Institute for Progressive Christianity, a think tank comprising mainstream liberal Christians is issuing a correction of Dobson's crackpot assertions.
KING: If the left gets glee, Doctor, does the right get glee over sexual peccadilloes on the left?
DOBSON: That's very possible. We're all inclined to look at other people. But it's interesting to me that those, again, on the more liberal end of the spectrum are often those who have no value system or at least they say there is no moral and immoral, there is no right or wrong. It's moral relativism.
"For James Dobson to claim that liberals do not know the difference between right and wrong is new twist on McCarthyism," said Frank L. Cocozzelli, a director of the Institute. American Liberalism, and particularly religious liberals have long been in the forefront in the battle against the greatest evils of our time, and active proponents for justice in the U.S. and around the world."
To offer but one example, the birthday of the liberal Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King is celebrated as a national holiday because he personified the moral center of the liberal Christian social justice tradition that led the nation to equal rights for African Americans after centuries of slavery and oppression.
"James Dobson's preposterous claim that liberals do not know the difference between right and wrong says much more about James Dobson than it does about liberals," said Stephen Rockwell Director of the Institute for Progressive Christianity.
"Dobson claims to be a follower of Jesus, but his calumny and his reckless coarsening and polarization of public discourse sounds much more like the Pharisees than Jesus Christ. Dobson owes liberals and all Americans a heartfelt and public apology," he said.
3.) Christian Alliance for Progress Joins In Protest of Left Behind Video Game
The Christian Alliance for Progress deplores the release of the video game Left Behind: Eternal Forces in which the game's object is to convert or kill any who stand in opposition to the ideology that the game and its companion book series seek to promote. We urge the game's sponsor, Tyndale House, a Christian publishing business which used to be concerned with sharing the good news of Jesus Christ, to recall its values and withdraw its support for such an un-Christian enterprise as this.
The game, which comes with a copy of one of the books in the series, represents a relatively novel way of interpreting the book of Revelation and the biblical passages that treat the end of history and the coming kingdom of God, whose origin is less than 200 years old. It thus rejects the historic ways of reading Revelation and the coming of God's kingdom that have sustained followers of Christianity for two thousand years. It also rejects the insights of biblical scholarship and deliberately misreads Revelation as a book of prophecy, rather than the kind of literature it actually is, which is apocalyptic.
Worse, rather than seeking to close the gap between neighbors, as Jesus did in his ministry, the game's purpose is to drive a wedge between people, teaching teenagers that what God intends is for them to slaughter those who do not share their beliefs. Because of the predominance of Christian fundamentalists on television and radio in the past generation, the American people have been left with the false impression that this strange way of interpreting the Bible is what Christians have always believed and taught. We are here today to challenge that view and to name it for the error that it is.
Wh at You Can Do
Go to the CrossWalk America site to sign the petition demanding that Tyndale House recall the video game.
.
Click Here to Support the Work of the Christian Alliance for Progress
Posted by Faithful Progressive at 11:35 AM | Comments (6)
November 27, 2006
Finding a Voice
Posted by de sententia
Far too often, the 'religious right' makes the news for all the wrong reasons: Jerry Falwell. Ted Haggard. James Dobson. Need I say more? The scandals and offensive statements make it easy to criticize, but also make it easy to overlook (or even ignore) areas where the religious right deserves praise. Even as I type that, I hesitate. I can't think of too many areas where I can say that the religious right deserves praise, but here is one: Friday, December 1, 2006 is World AIDS Day. Leading the charge to promote greater concern? World Vision.
Last weeks Seattle Weekly had a complimentary article on World Vision and its efforts to promote AIDS awareness and care, with some startling statistics. In 2001, World Vision commissioned Barna Research Group, a Christian oriented survey firm, to survey Americans and their attitude toward AIDS. Among all Americans, only 8 percent indicated that they were willing to donate to AIDS prevention and education. Among evangelicals, the survey measured a paltry 3 percent in support of AIDS prevention and education programs. I
World Vision has been working to change those attitudes. It was not an easy start. As the article notes, World Vision asked itself 'where has the church been' in the efforts to raise AIDS awareness and prevention? Bono, lead singer for U2, speaking about AIDS in Africa helped provide the response: "What is happening in Africa mocks our pieties, doubts our concern, and questions our whole concept [of equality]. Because, if we're honest, there's no way we could conclude that such mass death day after day would ever be allowed to happen anywhere else. We in the faith community must find our voice."
Since then, World Vision has been working to change attitudes. In the most recent survey, 14 percent of evangelicals surveyed indicate that they would be willing to give in support of AIDS prevention and education. While the numbers are still low, it is a welcome improvement. A multimedia exhibit will be traveling to local churches around the country to continue the efforts. For me, it is somewhat ironic that they will be debuting their multimedia exhibit at Seattle Pacific, my alma mater. I can remember the cold shoulder my college roommate received when he sought to raise awareness to the disease back in 1984. Times may have changed, but I would have thought they would have changed more significantly than having a mere 8 percent of the population donate to Aids prevention and education in 2001. There is still a long ways to go.
World Vision's efforts have not been without criticism. As part of the AIDS prevention, it promotes the use of condoms. Distributing condoms and not preaching 'abstinence only' has meant that those like James Dobson are opposed to World Vision’s approach. But as World Vision says, caring for the widow and orphan in distress is a part of our calling as well.
r.johnson
de sententia
p.s. After reading the Seattle Weekly article and deciding to write about World Vision's efforts to promote AIDS education and prevention, I also noticed that the Rev. Joel Hunter, president elect of the Christian Coalition, decided to resign. Hunter got into a dispute with the Christian Coalition when he wanted to expand its concern to issues of poverty and the environment. The Christian Coalition, however, wanted to limits its agenda to abortion and same sex marriage, its Republican 'hot button' issues. I am sure that I may have my differences with Rev. Hunter, but I am pleased to see that those on the religious right are beginning to realize that poverty, care for the environment, and care for those with AIDS, are issues that deserve our attention.
Posted by de sententia at 02:34 AM | Comments (6)
November 23, 2006
Thanksgiving as an Environmental Holiday
Posted by Jesus Politics
Newsweek and The Washington Post have set up a forum for a conversation on religion. Today there is an interesting article about our Thanksgiving holiday written by Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, president of Chicago Theological Seminary.
Some excerpts:
The origins of Thanksgiving are as a celebration of the bounty of the creation and the gifts of the Creator. That makes it perfect for becoming THE environmental holiday in the United States. Thanksgiving is part of American "Civil Religion." It is and should be celebrated by people of faith and humanists alike. [ ]
It was Abraham Lincoln who, in 1863, proclaimed the first Thanksgiving as a national holiday and in that proclamation called on all Americans to give thanks for the “blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies” that show the “ever watchful providence of Almighty God.”
Thanksgiving as a national holiday has now become part of what we call “civil religion,” that is, the shared ritual practices of a nation that serve to unite them. Civil religion is based on the idea that there can be broad values that people of diverse religious perspectives, and people who would count themselves humanists, all share. One does not need to be a “believer” in God to share deeply in these values.
There can be great abuses of civil religion, as when the nation becomes an object of worship itself. But Thanksgiving as practiced in the U.S. is a great unifier and we could do more with it.
Let’s take our cue from the Wampanoag and John Calvin and Abraham Lincoln and make Thanksgiving THE environmental holiday. We need to give thanks for THIS creation and commit ourselves to saving this environment so we can have, as Lincoln said, “fruitful fields and healthful skies.”
Posted by Jesus Politics at 07:15 PM | Comments (2)
November 16, 2006
From the Author of "Christianity for the Rest of Us"
Posted by Jesus Politics
Diana Butler Bass, author of the recently published book, "Christianity for the Rest of Us", has been writing some very insightful and gently provocative articles at Jim Wallis' God's Politics blog. Some excerpts:
From What if the Amish were in charge of the war on terror?:
What if the Amish were in charge of the war on terror? What if, on the evening of Sept. 12, 2001, we had gone to Osama bin Laden’s house (metaphorically, of course, since we didn’t know where he lived!) and offered him forgiveness? What if we had invited the families of the hijackers to the funerals of the victims of 9/11? What if a portion of The September 11th Fund had been dedicated to relieving poverty in a Muslim country? What if we dignified the burial of their dead by our respectful grief?
What if, instead of seeking vengeance, we had stood together in human pain, looking honestly at the shared sin and sadness we suffered? What if we had tried to make peace?
From The Real Danger of Bad Religion:
Many people are alarmed about the dangers of extremist religion, especially of the Religious Right—afraid of dogmatism, inquisitions, theocracy, and violence. I worry about crusades, pogroms, and terrorism as much as the next person. But I confess to a different worry: the effects of religious fundamentalism on religion. [ ]
The greatest danger of religious fundamentalism, with its narrow intellectual and political vision, is not to American society, but to Christianity itself.
From Not Red, Not Blue...Purple Churches:
Even though I am, like my friend, a Democrat, I hope for more purple churches - not just pure blue ones. I do not want to be part of a political movement that is the mirror opposite of the Religious Right; I want my politics to follow in the way of Jesus. So, I was glad to find that the mainline congregations in my study were not a slam-dunk for any political party. That makes them a stronger witness for grace, not a weaker one.
From How to Defeat Fundamentalism Without Losing Your Soul:
In 1922, at the height of the conflict, Harry Emerson Fosdick, one of the great liberal ministers of the day, preached his famous (and by some standards, infamous) sermon, “Shall the Fundamentalists Win?” By the end of the decade, the answer to Fosdick’s question became apparent: the Fundamentalists did not win. Instead, liberals won—they controlled every major institution in American Protestantism. And liberal basked in their victory.
In 1935, at the height of liberal prestige and power, Fosdick preached another sermon—one far less noticed—called “The Church Must Go Beyond Modernism.” In it, Fosdick accused liberalism of being overly intellectual, “dangerously sentimental,” of losing a sense of “the reality of God,” and abandoning its ethics. He complained that liberalism had won its battle with fundamentalism, but lost its soul. Liberals had accommodated so much to culture that they were failing to be Christian; they were just like “the world.” “What Christ does to modern culture,” he finished, “is to challenge it.”
For Fosdick, winning engendered wisdom—the wisdom of internal critique, of being able to see the pitfalls of success, and of recognizing the hypocrisy of self-righteousness. “Unless the church can go deeper and reach higher,” Fosdick warned, “it will fail indeed.” No wonder his great hymn, God of Grace and God of Glory, includes the prayer, “Grant us wisdom.”
I think that is why I’ve been quiet this week. I haven’t been thinking about Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton, about exit strategies or balancing budgets. I’ve been thinking about Harry Emerson Fosdick. Winning gives you a rush of success—a rush that can be interpreted as spiritual success and “God is on our side” religion. But for mature Christians, winning should give pause. Can the church go deeper and reach higher? At this moment in history to what depth and height is God calling us? Winning should not only yield the rush of victory; winning might yet yield a harvest of wisdom. At the very least, we should pray for that.
And maybe the Democrats should consider praying for wisdom, too.
Posted by Jesus Politics at 07:26 PM | Comments (17)
November 13, 2006
Bipartisanship? Not on Balance of Power
Posted by de sententia
In the past week, we have seen a significant shift in American politics. Democrats now control both the House and Senate. Talk of bipartisanship is being bandied about as if both parties will embrace each other with open arms, like long lost relatives just getting caught up over a cup of tea. Forgive me for being skeptical, but if the parties were so willing to embrace each other with open arms, why have they not done so in the last six years? While bipartisanship should be pursued on one level, it should be ignored on another.
Make no mistake; I am not advocating that democrats rule government they way that republicans have of late. Republicans have ruled the halls of congress with an iron fist, shutting their democratic counterparts out of committees, refusing to raise democrat sponsored initiatives, and damaging the very bonds of bipartisanship that they now seek to extol. Fearful that democrats will extract revenge and rule in the same manner, it is no wonder republicans are quick to speak of bipartisanship.
And democrats talk politely about the concept as well, knowing that voters rejected their republican counterparts, in part, due to republican ineffectiveness. In the weeks leading up to the election, much was written about Nancy Pelosi's plans for the first 100 hours of Congressional debate. In many battleground states, raising the state minimum wage was on the ballot and helped drive up the democratic vote. In Missouri for example, the measure passed by a far larger margin than the margin of victory between the democratic candidate for senate and the republican candidate. Look for democrats to follow through on the '100 hour' agenda, with or without republican help, but don't be surprised when bipartisanship is displayed between the parties in congress.
But bipartisanship between congressional republicans and congressional democrats in enacting legislation means one thing. 'Bipartisanship' between a democratically controlled congress and a republican controlled executive branch means something else entirely. 'Bipartisanship' is actually a bit of a misnomer. The battle that is currently waging between the executive branch and congress is one that transcends party affiliation, the labels 'democrat' and 'republican' being nothing more than distractions. Under George Bush's theory of government, virtually all power rests with the executive branch. Congress becomes nothing more than a rubber stamp of the executive’s wishes. Under this administration’s views, while the Constitution gives congress the power of the purse, any attempts by congress to deny funding to an executive branch directive is unconstitutional since it impedes the power of the executive.
One of the reasons we have not seen cooperation in government over the last six years is because of this theory of government. That point should not be lost on anyone as we discuss bipartisanship. As this battle wages over the next two or more years, it might be easy to overlook the underlying issues and focus on the surface issue of a 'republican' executive branch and a 'democratic' controlled congress.
So while I hear talk of bipartisanship, and support it in terms of congress working to find solutions across the political aisle, I refuse to let talk of bipartisanship color the debate on the deeper issue: balance of power.
I have no qualms with saying that my vote in this election was cast in an attempt to create a check on the power claimed by the executive branch, and by some news accounts, I am not alone. This election was about asking congress, a co-equal member of government, to assert itself. Given the views of the executive branch, congress should not be overly concerned with the need to act in a ‘bipartisan’ way when it comes to standing up to the executive branch. Democrats who, in the name of bipartisanship, seek to appease the executive branch and its notions on executive power will not be performing the basic function that many people across they United States have asked them to perform. Bipartisanship, in this context, means two co-equal branches of government working as co-equals, and not congress automatically deferring to the wishes of the executive branch. A dispute over the executive branch claims of power should not necessarily be viewed as an attempt to obstruct government for partisan reasons.
It is naive to think that George Bush will welcome with open arms a congress that seeks to fulfill its Constitutional directives. If George Bush does welcome a congress fulfilling its Constitutional directives, then talk of bipartisanship would be genuine. Until he does, however, it is up to this congress to reassert its role as a co-equal branch of government, and it cannot reassert its role without some conflict. It does not need George Bush's permission to exercise its power, and it does not have to fear claims that it is acting unilaterally when it (legitimately) challenges this executive's claims on power. If George Bush seeks to use talk of bipartisanship between republicans and democrats to defuse legitimate challenges to executive branch claims of power, congress should not compromise, but demand the kind of ‘bipartisanship’ that our framers spoke of when they created a form of government with three co-equal branches.
r.johnson
de sententia
Posted by de sententia at 04:01 PM | Comments (20)
November 09, 2006
Christians and the Democratic Victory
Posted by Jesus Politics
Christianity Today has a couple of interesting articles reflecting on the recent Democratic victory. The 2006 elections seem to have confirmed what we have suspected for some time; that voters are beginning to lose their confidence in the Christian-Republican alliance that was so central to the 2004 outcome.
From "Faith-Based Triangulation":
Not since Bill Clinton's first run for President has there been so much talk among Democrats about fielding candidates viewed as more socially and religiously moderate than the standard-bearers of their party. In several important races—in Tennessee and Pennsylvania, for example—conservative Republicans found themselves up against Democrats who spoke the language of faith. "I just can't help it," said U.S. Rep. Harold Ford, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Tennessee. "I love Jesus." [ ]
In a hopeful vein, the political cost to Democrats over their perception as the "godless party" may have forced political leaders to do a little soul searching. Senator Barack Obama has impressed many with his ability to speak affirmingly and fluently about the importance of morality and faith to democratic life. "To say that men and women should not inject their 'personal morality' into public policy debates is a practical absurdity," he said. "Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition." Lines like that, when uttered by Republican leaders, send many liberals intoa fear-mongering frenzy of theocracy talk.
[ ]
Equally important, the triumph of Democratic candidates candid about their faith commitments makes it harder for liberals to vilify religious believers in general or to rule religion out of bounds in the field of politics.
From "Good News for Democrats, Good News for Evangelicals":
The pre-election campaign exposed evangelical Christianity's fading influence in the Republican Party and in the nation. David Kuo's Tempting Faith revealed that the actual influence of evangelicals in the government was more image than reality. While some Republican leaders cultivated evangelical votes, the former White House staffer reported, they also ridiculed evangelical ideas and leaders. In the campaign, evangelicals were seldom visible—except in relation to Abramoff, Cunningham, DeLay, Foley, Haggard, and other public scandals. [ ]
First, we could repent of our monogamous alliance with the Republican Party and encourage evangelicals to become involved with Democrats. Biblical Christians are called to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world; there never was biblical warrant for disengaging from the half of the population called Democrats. We are called to love Democrats as well as Republicans, to support their causes that are congruent with Scripture, and to reach Democrats as well as Republicans. From the 1700s until the late 1970s (from the traditions of Wesley, Wilberforce, Finney, and others), evangelical Christians strived, in cooperation with many parties and movements, to end slavery and to advance many humane causes—as evangelical Christians continue to do in many nations today. We could recover our tradition's full social power.
Second, we could recover, and champion, Christianity's full ethic. Most Americans would assume, from listening to public evangelicals, that the biblical social vision is limited to concerns about abortion, homosexual marriage, and evolution.
Posted by Jesus Politics at 06:19 PM | Comments (27)
November 06, 2006
Another Misguided Adventure
Posted by de sententia
Several weeks ago, I noted on my blog that Saddam Hussein's sentencing had been delayed until two days before the US elections. The brief pronouncement may have escaped attention in the mainstream press, but Media Matters notes the 'curious' circumstances. If the verdict was ready, why wait to announce it until now, and if the verdict was not ready, why announce a date certain by which it would be announced? The attempts to manipulate the story for political gain seemed obvious. But there was more to the manipulation.
That Saddam Hussein was and is a tyrant has never been in doubt. That Saddam Hussein deserved to be tried for crimes against humanity has also never been in doubt. But this trial was so transparently flawed, the verdict so certain, that to describe this as "justice" is plainly dishonest. This is about vengeance. Perhaps for this very reason, many world leaders, including representatives of the Pope, have spoken out against the verdict.
The manipulation began with the appointment of the tribunal itself. It is no secret that the current US administration detests international law, as it openly mocks it whenever given the opportunity. The trial of Saddam Hussein presented the US with a dilemma. Under International Law, the US was prohibited from trying Saddam Hussein directly. If the US turned Saddam Hussein over to international tribunals for crimes against humanity, the US would be strengthening the legitimacy of the very institutions that the US was seeking to minimize. In an attempt to avoid the most obvious conflicts, the "Coalitional Provisional Authority" set up a domestic tribunal in Iraq to try Saddam. Under Bremer's "De-Baathification" order, no members of the Baath party could serve on the tribunal, and at least one judge was removed from his appointment after it was discovered that he once held Baath party membership. This order effectively eliminated all Sunnis from the tribunal, and, right or wrong, gives critics of the tribunal a credible argument to make about fundamental fairness. In the legal world, an appearance of fairness is very important for legitimacy.
Paul Bremer's next step was to appoint Salem Chalabi, nephew of Saddam critic Ahmed Chalabi, to head the tribunal. As the Financial Times reports,
US and Iraqi officials had hoped that the trial would help reconcile Iraq’s sectarian blocs, convince the former regime’s partisans that they would never retake power, and win legitimacy for the new order by highlighting the brutality of the old.It does not take a genius to realize how incredibly short sighted such a move was. Richard Perle's candid admission that 'mistakes were made' applies to the tribunals as well.
As Amnesty International noted, this could have been different.
"This trial should have been a major contribution towards establishing justice and the rule of law in Iraq, and in ensuring truth and accountability for the massive human rights violations perpetrated by Saddam Hussein's rule."Instead of truth and accountability, this verdict will fuel anger and resentment toward the US.
There once was a time when America was a proponent of International Law. Following World War II, US Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson was instrumental in forming the Nuremburg Criminal Tribunals to try Germans for crimes against humanity. Justice Jackson warned against vengeance.
“We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our lips as well.”With the verdict against Saddam Hussein, we may now see how the process leads to calls for vengeance. And if the Saddam verdict is not cause for reflection alone, we should consider the military tribunals we are setting up to pronounce the guilt of those held in Guantanamo and similar US prisons. We are passing a poisoned chalice, and one day, it will be our turn to drink.
r.johnson, de sententia
Posted by de sententia at 05:47 PM | Comments (2)
November 03, 2006
The Fall of Ted Haggard
Posted by Public Theologian
There should not be any gloating among progressives at the fall of Ted Haggard, who has admitted buying methamphetamine and getting a "massage" from a Colorado bodybuilder. Haggard, who was pastor of a 14,000 member evangelical megachurch and president of the 30 million-member National Association of Evangelicals, has been placed on administrative leave at his church and resigned form the NAE.
But while there should be no gloating, Haggard's is a powerful negative example to which Christian progressives should appeal to blunt the critiques of the Religious Right.
The man has been a professional hate-monger for years. He used his anti-gay rhetoric to become a political player and less than seventy-hours ago was STILL using it to marginalize the gay community in his state. As a man, as a husband, as a father, I do have sorrow for him and his family. Yes, God will indeed forgive him his hypocrisy. As a political force, however, I view his fall as a positive development for society in general and gays and lesbians in particular. I think that "Judge not that ye be not judged" is indeed the operative text here, but not so much as a warning to those who would judge Haggard bur rather as an object lesson for what happens when one uses one's judgement to oppress an entire class of people, as Haggard did.
Far too often, the political and theological obsession with regulating sexuality on the Religious Right has been shown to mask a personal obsession with it on the part of its leadership. The inability to control their own bodies results in the projection of that inadequacy onto the bodies of everyone else in the form of extreme sexual legalism. In Haggard's view. at least as it appears on his web site, this means being gay excludes one from the Kingdom of God. One can only imagine that he is singing a different tune these days.
Posted by Public Theologian at 08:22 PM | Comments (53)
November 02, 2006
What I Learned from Tommy
Posted by Jesus Politics
Ethics Daily.com is a publication of the Baptist Center for Ethics, an organization that started as a centrist or moderate response to the fundamentalist takeover of the Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. Today Ethics Daily published an article by Miguel De La Torre that expresses a strong pro-gay point of view. Considering that Ethics Daily comes out of a Southern Baptist background and that it is not exactly known for its progressive outspokenness on issues of sexual orientation equality, I thought this was a very positive development.
Tommy, not his real name, was a good friend of mine. We met in the '80s at our local Southern Baptist Church, where I served as a deacon and Sunday school teacher. [ ]
At this point Tommy shared that he too struggled with sexual temptation; however, for him, the temptation was for other males. Tommy, to my shock and horror, was gay. How, I thought, could a good committed Christian, let alone a Southern Baptist, be a homosexual? [ ]
I finally broke the silence by reminding him that homosexuality is a sin, an abomination before God and a free choice he was making that was morally indefensible. [ ]
I agreed to be his spiritual partner in the struggle. We covenanted to pray together. We fasted. We cast out the demon of homosexuality.
If anyone ever truly wanted to be a heterosexual, if anyone ever truly wanted to stop finding men attractive, if anyone ever truly humbled himself before God to faithfully live a Christian life, it was Tommy.
Years went by, and you know what? Tommy was still gay. Tommy did not change, but I did. In a very real sense, Tommy taught me something important about God: either God lacked the power to save a willing believer from his sin, or maybe--just maybe--I have been taught to read the Bible through the eyes of homophobics, regardless of how loving they appeared. [ ]
I still often think of Tommy. I regret the additional spiritual burdens that I placed upon him due to my own biblical ignorance and naiveté. Rather that sharing the good news that God loves him just as God created him, I added to his sense of self-loathing. For this I will remain eternally sorry, while grateful to Tommy for showing me that he no more chose his homosexual orientation than I chose my heterosexual orientation.
And, I will always be grateful for the role he unwittingly played in my own conversion from being a gay-basher to someone who is now committed to seeking justice for all who are disenfranchised.
Posted by Jesus Politics at 03:06 PM | Comments (31)
