Auld Lang Syne

The end of a year typically brings out lists - top books, top movies, top news items, etc. There are even lists of the best lists making the rounds.

Among the lists that I always like to see are the ones that detail the top religious stories of the year. Time Magazine has one, for instance, but you can find others. Some pitch the story in the other direction; on BeliefNet, for example, the Progressive Revival lists the 10 Worst Religious Stories for 2008.

Then, you can find those media outlets who try to cast ahead and make predictions about 2009. No, I am not referring to the National Enquirer here. In the Washington Post ON FAITH section is a series of essays about what to expect from religion and things religious in the coming year.

With all of that, if you made a list of the top religious stories of 2008, what would you include? If you contemplated the impact or force of religion in the new year, what do you anticipate?

I would love to have reader's responses for either of these categories, but, if you choose not to respond, Happy New Year anyway.

Religion items in the SLC Tribune

Usually, it is as I am looking at diverse news sources that something catches my eye for inclusion in this blog. Today, I was struck by the items in the hometown newspaper. (Well, actually, there are two hometown papers - The SLC Tribune [describing itself as "Utah's Independent Voice since 1871] and the Deseret News).

** Massacre at a Catholic Church in the Congo with both the government forces and the rebel armies accusing each other of perpetrating the atrocity.
Church folks are frequent pawns in territorial conflicts as one side or another try to prove something. Wouldn't it be wonderful if churches could be considered "off-limits" in such territorial conflicts?

** Teen sexual abstinence pledges - which are predominantly religiously based - do not reduce the number of teens who become sexually active. Teens who make such pledges, though, engage in riskier sex, that is they are less likely to use condoms or other birth control methods. This is based on a new definitive study from Janet Rosenbaum of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
I hope this finally convinces the US Government, local school boards, parents, ministers, and churches that the best way to reduce unwanted teen pregnancies is through a comprehensive sex education program that includes the message of abstinence and proper instruction in birth control methods. Unfortunately now, with the Freedom of Conscience ruling pushed through HHS by the Bush White House, pharmacists can honor their own religious preferences and refuse to provide any birth control methods to anyone, even if prescribed by a doctor. I wonder who thought that would help the situation?

** A Catholic man in Maine who is an outspoken critic of the way the Roman Catholic Church has dealt with the sexual abuse scandal has been threatened by Bishop Malone with losing the right to participate fully in the sacraments of the church if the man persists.
I do not know what the man has done to annoy the Bishop, but doesn't this seem to be an abuse of ecclesiastical power to tell someone that God's presence and grace will be withheld from them for protesting? I am glad that I do not have that power in the Congregational Church.

** It has been interesting to me for a number of years to see how various religious groups put aside religious differences in order to achieve a common goal. I speak here most prominently of campaigns to limit marriage to one man and one woman, campaigns to deny rights and benefits to homosexual couples, campaigns to limit abortion, and campaigns to promote abstinence-only sex education in public schools. This was seen most recently and publicly in the joining together of the LDS Church and the conservative Christian groups like Focus on the Family in the California blitz on Prop 8. Perhaps now, that alliance is beginning to show cracks. As a result of pressure from other, more (?) conservative Christian groups, FotF has pulled an on-line interview with Glenn Beck, conservative talkshow superstar, from its website because he is a convert to the LDS Church. Quoting from the article, the FotF spokesperson said, "While Glenn's social views are compatible with many Christian views, his beliefs in Mormonism are not. Clearly, Mormonism is a cult."
Does this qualify as a "love 'em and leave 'em" policy after they - whichever they you may name - are no longer useful?

What do you think, good reader? Do you pay attention to the religion and culture items in your own newspaper?

Israel and Gaza

Much of the international news is filled with the stories of the Israeli attacks on Hamas in Gaza. The US papers, in general, give at least tacit support to the Israeli government for defending their nation against the rocket attacks that have been launched against Israel from Gaza.

Certainly, any nation has a right to self-defense. In the attacks, however, many Palestinian citizens, innocents in this situation, have also been killed. As I condemn the attacks on Israeli citizens by suicide bombers, I also condemn Israeli attacks that kill Palestinian citizens.

In the media coverage, the voices of Israeli citizens who may not approve of the attacks are largely lost. On the Progressive Revival blog site on BeliefNet is this posting from Rabbi Arthur Shaskow of the Shalom Center:

Today the starkest choice of values and visions of the future was laid before the Jewish people throughout the world.

On the one hand, Jews throughout the world were reading in synagogue the Prophetic vision of Zechariah, no stranger to exile and humiliation, writing from the midst of the Babylonian Captivity 2500 years ago and looking forward to the rebuilding of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem and the relighting of its Menorah --- both of which had been destroyed by Babylonian militarism.

This rebuilding and relighting, Zechariah proclaimed, must be achieved not by mobilizing might and power against Babylonia but by drawing on the Infinite Spirit, God's power. A vision reinforced by the Rabbis who chose the passage to be read on the holy day that might easily fall into a celebration of the military might and power of the Maccabees.

On the other hand --- on the very same day!! -- at least 225 Palestinians were killed by Israeli bombs in one more attempt to quell by might and power the use of violence (on a much smaller scale) by Hamas, in what Hamas sees as itself a retaliation against the Israeli blockade and semi-starvation of the people of Gaza.

There is plenty to bewail and plenty to examine in the details of this crossroads-moment in the history between our two Families of Abraham. Tonight (Saturday night) I cannot gather the strength to do this -- having just, after a pleasant Shabbat of synagogue and family dreidling, discovered this crushing news. We will look more deeeply together into these choices, in the next several days.

But what I can do now is simply ask us all to face the choices, to experience the deadly vertigo of choice between these choices.

A hard but necessary moment to send you the blessings of shalom, salaam, peace. --- Arthur

May we all pray for peace for all people in the Middle East.

A Christmas Prayer

On the BeliefNet blog site, Progressive Revival, Paul Raushenbush, grandson of the well-known early 20th century Baptist pastor Walter Raushenbush, has this prayer:

Creator God,

On this Holy Night, still our frentic pace, and calm our worried minds so that we might experience the miracle and wonder of Christmas. Send your Holy Spirit to pierce the shadows of these uncertain times, rekindle our hope for the future, and guide us by the shining star of Bethlehem to the humble manger where your Love made flesh awaits.

Thank you for the beauty of this world and for the simple, true blessings of family, friends and loved ones. Guided by your spirit of compassion, help us to be loving, forgiving and gentle with one another. May the life giving spirit of Christ sanctify our celebration so that this might truly be a Holy day and bring us closer together as families and as a community.

In this world confounded by the false glitter of materialism and afflicted by the sin of greed, help us to repent of our selfishness and callousness. As we worship your son, born in a manger because there was no room for him at the inn, help us to see in Jesus all who lack the basic dignities of shelter, food, employment and healthcare. We remember especially those who are out of work or who have lost their homes in this time of economic crisis. May we be in solidarity with the suffering of others and each work to usher in your reign of justice, peace and good will on earth as it is in heaven.

We remember all those serving in our military in Iraq and Afghanistan. May they find joy and know that our thoughts and prayers are with them and with the people of those war torn nations. We pray for Israel and Palestine, the Congo, and cities around the world where violence and strife tear and the fabric of life. As we worship the one called the Prince of Peace, we pray that the day come soon when swords are beaten into plowshares and sisters and brothers of every nations, race, and religion live in peace.

Loving God, On this Christmas Eve we give you thanks for your son who loved the outcaste, healed the lame, preached Good News to the poor, was crucified and rose again; who was born so that we might be born again. May our lives reflect our gratitude.

Amen

Joy to the World

In time for your Christmas meditation is this quote from Rainer Maria Rilke, German poet who lived from 1875-1926.

Joy is inexpressibly more than happiness. Happiness befalls people, happiness is fate, while people cause joy to bloom inside themselves. Joy is plainly a good season for the heart; joy is the ultimate achievement of which human beings are capable.

When you sing "Joy To The World" during this Christmas season, I hope these words from Rilke will enrich you.

Freedom of Speech

In the current issue of The New Yorker is an essay written by Mark Twain in 1905 entitled "The Privilege of the Grave." In it, Twain comments on the delusion of free speech for those who are still living. Enjoy some of Twain's brilliance:
Its occupant [speaking of the grave] has one privilege which is not exercised by any living person: free speech. The living man is not really without this privilege - strictly speaking - but as he possesses it merely as an empty formality, and knows better than to make use of it, it cannot be seriously regarded as an actual possession. . . . Murder is forbidden both in form and in fact; free speech is granted in form but forbidden in fact. By the common estimate both are crimes, and are held in deep odium by all civilized peoples. Murder is sometimes punished, free speech always - when committed. Which is seldom. There are not fewer than five thousand murders to one (unpopular) free utterance. There is justification for this reluctance to utter unpopular opinions: the cost of utterance is too heavy; it can ruin a man in his business, it can lose him his friends, it can subject him to public insult and abuse, it can ostracize his unoffending family, and make his house a despised and unvisited solitude.

Twain made this observation long before the advent of the internet and blogging. It seems now, that, while one person's opinion will surely enrage someone, someone else will see it as a pure elixir of golden thought. So, do Twain's observations still hold true?

Do you refrain from expressing your true feelings on matters because you know the people around you will reject you? Should that be the case? Do you wish that you had the courage and the opportunity to voice what you truly believe on any subject to everyone you know? If so, what would you say?

It's the most wonderful time of the year.

No, this is not the lead-in to a sing along of popular Christmas-related songs. Instead, I thought it appropriate to call attention to two items related to the celebration of Christmas.

First, noted in the London Daily News is a Muslim who proclaims that celebrating Christmas is a sure way for Muslims to miss Paradise and go to hell. The article can be found at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1093414/Christmas-pathway-hell-Muslim-lawyers-extraordinary-rant-evil-celebration.html?ITO=1490.

Among his statements made in a broadcast sermon is this quotation: 'Many (Muslims) take part in the festival celebrations by having Christmas turkey dinners. Decorating the house, purchasing Christmas trees or having Christmas turkey meals are completely prohibited by Allah. Many still practise this corrupt celebration as a remembrance of the birth of Jesus. How can a Muslim possibly approve or participate in such a practice that bases itself on the notion Allah has an offspring? The very concept of Christmas contradicts and conflicts with the foundation of Islam. Every Muslim has a responsibility to protect his family from the misguidance of Christmas, because its observance will lead to hellfire. Protect your Paradise from being taken away - protect yourself and your family from Christmas.'

The second item returns to America where the Kansas minister, Fred Phelps, and the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka warn of the dangers of Santa Claus. From an article in the Seattle Times, which can be viewed at: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008493779_church11.html, comes this revelation: A Kansas-based church that has blamed deaths in Iraq on U.S. tolerance of homosexuality has asked Gov. Christine Gregoire's office to approve a "Santa Claus will take you to hell" message to display among other religious statements in the Capitol's third-floor hallway. ... The first part of Westboro's proposed message, according to Spokesman-Review reporter Rich Roesler: "You'd better watch out, get ready to cry, You'd better go hide, I'm telling you why 'cuz Santa Claus will take you to hell. He is your favorite idol, you worship at his feet, but when you stand before your God He won't help you take the heat. So get this fact straight: you're feeling God's hate, Santa's to blame for the economy's fate, Santa Claus will take you to hell."

I don't think I could add anything to either of these.

Advent Reflection

On the website, Faithful Democrats, I saw a refence to this piece. You can access the entire essay at this URL: http://www.spiritualsisters.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=3&id=14389&catid=2&func=fb_pdf. And, I encourage you to do so.

This was written by a Jesuit priest, Alfred Delp, who was executed in 1945 by the Nazis.

Let us kneel therefore and ask for the threefold blessing of Advent and its threefold inspiration.

Let us ask for clear eyes that are able to see God's messengers of annunciation; for awakened hearts with the wisdom to hear the words of promise. Let us ask for faith in the motherly consecration of life as shown in the figure of the blessed woman of Nazareth. Let us be patient and wait, wait with Advent readiness for the moment when it pleases God to appear in our night too, as the fruit and mystery of this time. And let us ask for the openness and willingness to hear God's warning messengers and to conquer life's wilderness through repentant hearts. We must not shrink from or suppress the earnest words of these crying voices, so that those who today are our executioners will not tomorrow become accusers because we have remained silent.

Let us then live in today's Advent, for it is the time of promise. To eyes that do not see, it still seems that the final dice are being cast down in these valleys, on these battlefields, in those camps and prisons and bomb shelters. Those who are awake sense the working of the other powers and can await the coming of their hour.

Space is still filled with the noise of destruction and annihilation, the shouts of self-assurance and arrogance, the weeping of despair and helplessness. But just beyond the horizon the eternal realities stand silent in their age-old longing. There shines on us the first mild light of the radiant fulfillment to come. From afar sound the first notes as of pipes and singing boys, not yet discernible as a song or melody. It is all far off still, and only just announced and foretold. But it is happening. This is today. And tomorrow the angels will tell what has happened with loud rejoicing voices, and we shall know it and be glad, if we have believed and trusted in Advent.

Reprinted from Watch for the Light: Readings for Advent and Christmas.

Condemned as a traitor for his opposition to Hitler, Alfred Delp, a Jesuit priest, wrote this piece in a Nazi prison shortly before he was hanged in 1945.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Yesterday, December 10, marked the 60th anniversary of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. I re-read the document and was struck by the bold vision of those who were responsible for its composition. Issued in the aftermath of World War II, in which millions upon millions of non-combatants were killed, the hope for the future expressed in the declaration is inspiring.

You can read the document at this site: http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm.

I want to include Article 18 in this blog which speaks to religious liberties:
Article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

As I re-read the declaration, I was also struck by how far the nations of the world have to go in seeing the full expression of these rights realized for all people.

Now for the question(s) of the day: What do you think are the main obstacles to true religious freedom for all people? What can the world community do to help all people achieve these rights? Can you think of ways in which your government - either national or local - has limited freedom of religion? In secular societies, how can you guarantee the religious rights of some without infringing upon the religious rights of others?

Comment on Comments

On Monday, December 8, I posted a piece that dealt with President George Bush's interview with ABC News about his religious beliefs. My approach to the interview was not what the President believes, per se, as much as what the conservative Christian base of the GOP would think about the religious positions the President espoused.

Thus far, the only comment received on the post was from "Anonymous" [please read the comment] who suggested that I hate the President and then gave a White House type talking point perspective on what a great man and a great President he has been. If that is your view of the last 8 years, you have the right to that opinion and should express it in an appropriate venue.

The Pro-Bush talking points, however, had absolutely NO connection to the piece I posted or to the question I raised. That frustrates me. This is not the first time this has happened on my blog, but it will be the last. I do not mind people expressing a different viewpoint than I have, but it seems that you should, at least, express something that has some connection to what I have posted. Thus, all comments to this blog will be monitored, and I will choose to include or to refuse to include them as part of the on-going conversation.

Newsweek Story

Let me direct your attention to this on-line posting of the current Newsweek cover story: http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653.

Rather than post excerpts of the article, may I encourage you, please, to read the original article, and then I invite you to post your comments in this forum.

President George W. Bush and Religion

I, of course, do not have any private information for an expose on the religious beliefs of the current President, nor do I have any desire to make up any. The NY Times, though, posted an AP wire story detailing some of the Q&A with the President for an ABC News report. So, this is a report about a report about an excerpt of an interview.

There are several things relating to religion that the President affirms ...

Asked about creation and evolution, Bush said, ''I think you can have both. I think evolution can -- you're getting me way out of my lane here. I'm just a simple president. But it's, I think that God created the earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty and I don't think it's incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution.''

He added: ''I happen to believe that evolution doesn't fully explain the mystery of life.''

Interviewer Cynthia McFadden asked Bush if the Bible was literally true. ''You know. Probably not. ... No, I'm not a literalist, but I think you can learn a lot from it, but I do think that the New Testament for example is ... has got ... You know, the important lesson is 'God sent a son,''' Bush said.

The president also said that he prays to the same God as those with different religious beliefs. ''I do believe there is an almighty that is broad and big enough and loving enough that can encompass a lot of people,'' Bush said.

When asked whether he thought he would have become president had it not been for his faith, Bush said, ''I don't know; it's hard to tell. I do know that I would have been -- I'm pretty confident I would have been a pretty selfish person.''
Bush said that he is often asked whether he thinks he was chosen by God to be president.

''I just, I can't go there,'' he said. ''I'm not that confident in knowing, you know, the Almighty, to be able to say, Yeah, God wanted me of all the other people.''
He also said that the decision to go to war in Iraq was not connected to his religious believes.

''I did it based upon the need to protect the American people from harm,'' Bush said.

So, based on this exchange, President Bush could be classified as a theistic evolutionist and not a young earth creationist, as one who does not believe the Bible is inerrant and infallible and not as one who believes the Bible is the very Word of God, as one who would affirm the religious beliefs of those who are not Christian and not as one who thinks God will not hear the prayers of any but Christians, who does not believe that he was specifically chosen by God to be President for these times and not that God placed Bush in office to deal with the aftermath of September 11, and as one who does not see the current war in Iraq as a holy war and not as one who sees the conflict as between our God and their god.

Without citing chapter and verse of earlier interviews in which his answers might have been different because, while it seems that he has given different answers before, I do not have access to that information, I would make one comment. Most of these answers are at odds with the belief system of most of the conservative Christians that the GOP has turned to for political gains since the days of Ronald Reagan. I wonder how all of those loyal religious supporters of the GOP will respond to these remarks?

A Religiously Based Foreign Policy??

Rick Warren, the best-selling author and minister in California, continues to be a popular fixture on talk shows. Last week, he appeared with Sean Hannity of FOX NEWS. I took this snippet of the interview from a transcript posted on Religious Dispatches.

HANNITY: Can you talk to rogue dictators? Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust, wants to wipe Israel off the map, is seeking nuclear weapons.
WARREN: Yes.
HANNITY: I think we need to take him out.
WARREN: Yes.
HANNITY: Am I advocating something dark, evil, or something righteous?
WARREN: Well, actually, the Bible says that evil cannot be negotiated with. It has to just be stopped. And I believe…
HANNITY: By force?
WARREN: Well, if necessary. In fact, that is the legitimate role of government. The Bible says that God puts government on earth to punish evildoers. Not good-doers. Evildoers.

While not defining his terms too clearly, Hannity seemingly called for the United States to remove Ahmadinejad from power. The options for our country to do that seem to be limited - we try to stage a coup to remove him from power, we assasinate him (either directly or cause to have it done), or we invade Iran. Then, it seems that Rick Warren agrees with the analysis and says that this would fall under the divinely ordained purpose for government. So, the United States, and, I guess by extension, any other "Christian" nation merely has to identify "evildoers" who are leading nations and remove them in any way we can and God will be pleased with us for doing God's will.

Now, I disagree with the interpretation that God commands "good" governments to engage in murder or invasion to topple "evil" governments. I know that the United States has tried this before - as in Cuba and in Iraq, but I still disagree. One of the sticking points to this approach is basic: who gets to decide what governments are evil enough to be the targets of divine justice as administered by "Christian" nations.

Good readers, do you agree with the approach as suggested by Hannity and Warren? Do you think God calls the USA to engage in such activities? Do you think, depending on the measures you use to judge, that the USA is fit to be the administrator of holy justice?

Satan's Clothes?

News from Iran as posted on the World Wide Religious News site:

Iran arrests 49 for wearing 'satanic' clothing"

By Tim Butcher ("Telegraph", December 4, 2008)

Qaemshahr, Iran - Mahmoud Rahmani, head of police in the northern city of Qaemshahr, where the arrests took place, denounced Iranians who wore western-style clothes and haircuts.

"Police confronted rascals and thugs who appeared in public wearing satanic fashions and unsuitable clothing," he said.

He added that five local barber shops were closed and twenty more warned for "promoting western hairstyles". These are believed to include spiky haircuts.

I understand a little bit about Muslims having negative reactions to things identified with the West. In their mind, Western culture represents the influence of evil. In this way, Muslims are not too far different in their viewpoint from very conservative Western Christians.

One thing that has always bothered me, though, about such reactions is that the religious authorities seem to focus on something minor and, from my perspective, make an over-reaction to it.

I remember reading about the furor in 1950's America over rock and roll as the devil's music. Through the years, religious guardians of all that is pure and holy have condemned things like: the circus, bobbed hair (look it up, if you need a definition), and crossword puzzles as leading otherwise good religious people down the garden path to hell. Of course, from the perspective of the religious guardians, these things, innocent though they may seem, were the first step to ruin, utilizing the infamous "slippery-slope" argument.

So. I wonder, what have you done that was condemned by some self-appointed religious purist? Did it ruin you? Are you now a minion of Satan because of what you wore or how your hair was cut?

Veritable Compendium of Items

There have a number of interesting items related to religion to hit the news over the last few days.

DATELINE PARIS, FRANCE - In an AP story that I saw in the Washington Post, the doctors who verified the miraculous healings at Lourdes will no longer do so. Quoting from the story, written by Jamey Keaten, and contributed to by Nicole Winfield,

"It seems 'miracle' may not be the right word to use anymore," Bishop Jacques Perrier of the Diocese of Tarbes and Lourdes said in a telephone interview Wednesday. "It's no longer a black-and-white question." . . .
But last weekend, the panel, known by its French initials CMIL, decided from now on it will only rule on whether healing cases were "remarkable," leaving it to the church to decide whether they are miracles, panel secretary Dr. Patrick Theillier said.

So, when is a miracle not a miracle? When it might only be remarkable, I guess. I wonder what happens to one's status as a saint if all the miracles attributed to that person gets downgraded to remarkable events?

DATELINE FRANKFORT, KENTUCKY - In an item in the ON FAITH section in the Washington Post is the report that 10 citizens of the Commonwealth of Kentucky are suing Kentucky because of a law enacted in 2006 that requires the commonwealth's office of Homeland Security to acknowledge that the safety and security of Kentucky and its citizens cannot be achieved without reliance upon God.

The job description of the Director of Homeland Security begins by stating:
(a) Publicize the findings of the General Assembly stressing the dependence on Almighty God as being vital to the security of the Commonwealth by including the provisions of KRS 39A.285(3) in its agency training and educational materials. The executive director shall also be responsible for prominently displaying a permanent plaque at the entrance to the state's Emergency Operations Center stating the text of KRS 39A.285(3);.

KRS 39A.285 is a legislative finding that asserts:
39A.285 Legislative findings.
The General Assembly hereby finds that:
(1) No government by itself can guarantee perfect security from acts of war or terrorism.
(2) The security and well-being of the public depend not just on government, but rest in large measure upon individual citizens of the Commonwealth and their level of understanding, preparation, and vigilance.
(3) The safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God as set forth in the public speeches and proclamations of American Presidents, including Abraham Lincoln's historic March 30, 1863, Presidential Proclamation urging Americans to pray and fast during one of the most dangerous hours in American history, and the text of President John F. Kennedy's November 22, 1963, national security speech which concluded: "For as was written long ago: 'Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.' "
Effective: March 28, 2002
History: Created 2002 Ky. Acts ch. 82, sec. 2, effective March 28, 2002.

I know many Christians who believe that God is the ultimate guarantor of their health, their safety, and their well-being. But, it is one thing to believe that and another to enact a law that states such and requires it to be publicized. Should those who hold the belief ask for similar language to be posted on hospitals and in doctor affices?

DATELINE AMERICA - Over the last few weeks, I have come across several stories about churches - ones that once were attracting thousands upon thousands in worship just a few years ago - being sold and about large lay-offs within prominent Christian ministry groups and denominations. This says something, I think, about the depth and breadth of the economic downturn in our country.

Is there a religious response that can be made to the current situation? Are churches preparing their members to face what might be further economic declines? Are churches ready - or able - to provide a economic safety net for their own members and for the larger community?

As our nation moved into Thanksgiving weekend and prepared for the onslaught of Christmas shopping, many parts of the world faced inexpressible horrors. The attacks in Mumbai are well-known. There were other tragic situations that garnered limited news coverage, such as the floods and mudslides in Brazil killing scores, the political unrest in Bangkok, the discovery of a killing field in Eastern Congo containing hundreds of bodies, and the religious attaks in Jos, Nigeria, but, at least, there was some coverage of these events so the world could be aware.

Over the last 8 months, I have read a blog written by a young person in Gaza as she has detailed the continuing deterioration of life there. On November 22, she sent her last post. I feel it is noteworthy because the residents of Gaza seem to be a forgotten pawn in the geo-political maneuverings of the world's governments.

Saturday, November 22, 2008

My Final Post
You do not know when you lose a perfectly bad situation until it becomes worse. Any sense whatsoever in this sentence? Actually I do not know what's been holding me back from writing. I had all these ideas buzzing in my ears at night but articulating them was for some reason difficult.

The situation in Gaza, which was absolutely horrible, started to deteriorate day by day until we found ourselves again with no electricity , no clean water, no bread and a huge overwhelming fear of what's coming next.

First the Palestinian dialogue between Hamas and Fateh failed (as had been expected). And then the cease fire became history and a full closure was imposed, limiting fuel and food supplies to the Strip –and all that was accompanied by the Egyptian authorities strictly preventing the tunnel trade.

And what shall I say? I will not speak of my daily misery having to put up in Friday with a 24 hour power cut; nor will I like to mention my father standing in a long queue in front of the bakery at 7 a.m. to buy some bread; nor will I mention the 3 empty gas cylinders awaiting to be filled since a month; nor will I lament the patients living on respiratory support or kidney washing machines and are afraid the hospitals will have no electricity; I find it enough to say that all those I meet, including myself and my family, are psychologically and emotionally tired.

Since I do realize that writing about it is not actually contributing to changing any of it at the decision making level (I am perfectly aware that millions do have interest in our crisis and sympathize with us), I decided -in my blog second birthday- to end this beautiful fulfilling experience. I did consider contemplating as my baby but I can't nurture it anymore. I am no longer convinced that I should. Blogging worked out for me just fine for the last two years. It absolutely filled a void. Many of my posts were popular and well-read. However, I think I need to stop right here. I would like to thank heartily all those who read it and took the initiative to send supportive comments. Pray for Gaza.

May we all remember them and pray for them

The Issue Is Interpretation

In 2004, I wrote an op-ed piece for the Wichita Eagle in defense of one of the editorial board, Randy Scholfield, who was being criticized by some of the Christian religious conservatives. While the names will not mean anything to anyone who is not from Wichita Kansas, perhaps the piece will help generate some thought.

The Issue Is Interpretation

Most conservative ministers frame the debate on contemporary social issues, such as marriage for homosexuals, in these terms: A person is either faithful to the Word of God or that person is not. Abe Levy, in his story about the Reverend Joe Wright, of Central Christian Church wrote (July 4 front page), “Whether making public stands against abortion, homosexuality or other moral issues, Wright says he can’t afford to compromise his beliefs. ‘At the end of the day, I have to know God’s pleased with me,’ he said.” In one of his recent televised sermons, the Reverend Terry Fox, of Immanuel Baptist Church, deplored the liberal trends in society, called for removing liberal politicians from office and liberal ministers from their churches, and called for faithfulness to God’s way. The Reverend Patrick Bullock, Director of Missions for the Heart of Kansas Southern Baptist Association wrote (May21 My View), “As Bible-believing Christians, we have a standard of beliefs that cannot change, because the Bible is the revelation of who God is in all His holiness.”

In making such statements, these men suggest that anyone who disagrees with their views, that is “those liberals,” actually do not believe or follow God and God’s Word. That is a false assumption.

In using the Biblical text to inform the debate, the real issue is not in faithfulness to scripture or in who is a true Christian. The real issue lies in different perspectives on interpreting God’s Word.

Here, Randy Scholfield was correct in his article (May 12 opinion pages). All people, including ministers, have had a troubling history of misinterpreting scripture. As Mr. Scholfield noted, very sincere and faithful Christians in the 19th century used scripture to justify the use and continuation of slavery in the South and fervently believed that God had ordained the practice. Other Christians believed otherwise. For decades after the Civil War, on the basis of scripture, some faithful Christians believed they should prohibit inter-racial marriage. Other Christians, on the basis of their faith, disagreed.

Each of these issues, slavery and forbidding inter-racial marriage, was considered foundational to the preservation of society at that time. Christian clergy and laity on both sides believed they were correct in their view of what God required. The difference was in their interpretation. So it is today.

I would defend the right for each Christian to express her or his own view on such issues, whether that person agreed with me or not. Certainly, agreement with my interpretation would not be crucial to determining that person’s faith stance. I would want them to give me, as a Christian, the same right, whether I agreed with them or not.

Can we talk?

As a member of a minority group in Utah, I have thought even more about issues relating to the conversations between religious groups with different theological understandings than I did when I was part of the majority. Thus, it was with interest that I noticed two posts on BeliefNet.

One is from a member of the LDS church who quotes, with approval, Krister Stendahl on his blog, Mormon Inquiry. Take note of his comments:

Krister Stendahl died earlier this year (hat tip: Lehi's Library). He was a Swedish scholar and theologian, and also served for a period as the Lutheran Bishop of Stockholm. In LDS circles, he is fondly remembered as the author of three rules of religious understanding, which he propounded during public debate critical of a planned LDS temple in Sweden. They are good rules to follow in any religious or interfaith conversation. Here are Stendahl's three rules.

** When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.
** Don't compare your best to their worst.
** Leave room for "holy envy." (By this Stendahl meant that you should be willing to recognize elements in the other religious tradition or faith that you admire and wish could, in some way, be reflected in your own religious tradition or faith.)

The other is a column by a Jewish rabbi, entitled Windows and Doors, who critiques the Pope for the pronouncement that interfaith religious dialogue cannot really take place. Read a portion of his comments:

Perhaps Benedict has created a "strict definition" which precludes such conversation because his understanding of dialogue requires a level of spiritual connection/agreement between the conversants, which may not be possible for people who follow different faiths. That might be what he means when telling us that one must "put one's faith in parenthesis" in order to speak with those of other faiths. But that is an odd kind of faith which can only be present among those who share the faith.

The alternative understanding of the Pope's most recent comments is that he actually finds all other belief systems defective and their members best served by only a single outcome i.e. conversion to the Catholic faith.

Can it be that he finds real inter-religious dialogue impossible because at all costs any conversation which accords full and equal dignity to other's faith is impossible for him? That's a pretty scary thought from the leader of a billion human beings backed by real financial and political power.

It seems to me that real inter-religious and intra-religious dialogue, as shaped by Stendahl's points, should and must take place. Much of the divisiveness that is found in society occurs between people with different views of the world. In order to overcome that division, I must be in conversation with the Muslims, the Buddhists, the Hindus, the Jews, the LDS, and the fundamentalist Christians, to name just a few, so I can understand them better and they can better understand me. I will not agree with them on every point, nor will they agree with me. I do not have to become just like them, nor do they have to become just like me. Yet, by being in conversation, we acknowledge and honor the humanness of each and can learn something from each other.

Do you interact with people from other religious persepctives? About what do you talk? Do you share with them why you believe as you do and listen as they share with you why they believe as they do? If not, why not?

More Interesting News

First, from Bob Jones University in South Carolina. Bob Jones University is the classic example of a school of higher education that takes conservative (one could even say fundamentalist) Christian principles as its guiding principles. The school's statement of faith and moral code are indicative of how closely it remains true to its roots. For years, BJU refused to admit minority students and, even after relenting on this issue in 1971, prohibited inter-racial dating. Both positions, the school said, were based on clear scriptural principles.

Now, the school has issued a statement saying that it was wrong. You can access the full statement at the school's website, but let me quote just a part:
Bob Jones University has existed since 1927 as a private Christian institution of higher learning for the purpose of helping young men and women cultivate a biblical worldview, represent Christ and His Gospel to others, and glorify God in every dimension of life.

BJU’s history has been chiefly characterized by striving to achieve those goals; but like any human institution, we have failures as well. For almost two centuries American Christianity, including BJU in its early stages, was characterized by the segregationist ethos of American culture. Consequently, for far too long, we allowed institutional policies regarding race to be shaped more directly by that ethos than by the principles and precepts of the Scriptures. We conformed to the culture rather than provide a clear Christian counterpoint to it.

In so doing, we failed to accurately represent the Lord and to fulfill the commandment to love others as ourselves. For these failures we are profoundly sorry. Though no known antagonism toward minorities or expressions of racism on a personal level have ever been tolerated on our campus, we allowed institutional policies to remain in place that were racially hurtful.

The most telling part of the statement, in my estimation, is the admission that the school conformed to the surrounding culture of racism and prejudice rather than looking seriously at the teachings of scripture. I wonder what other positions taken by churches as scriptural might one day be rejected as cultural instead of scriptural. I know that BJU does not need or care about my support, but I applaud the school for having the moral courage to issue this statement.

The second item comes from Grapevine Texas. Ed Young, the minister of this mega-church, caused quite a stir nationally on November 16 when he told - commanded? - the married couples in the church, including all 5 satellite campuses, to have sexual intercourse every day for a week as a curative for the problems besetting their relationships. Last Sunday, November 23, he told them to continue the plan.

According to a New York Times story about the follow-up to the initial challenge, Pastor Young extolled the benefits of his plan, "But if you make the time to have sex, it will bring you closer to your spouse and to God, he has said. You will perform better at work, leave a loving legacy for your children to follow and may even prevent an extramarital affair."

I am not one to argue for marital abstinence, but I wondered about those couples where there has been spousal abuse or other acts of violence. Is increased sexual intercourse the answer to everything?

What opinions do you have about either of these news items?

Interesting News from South Carolina

In today's Washington Post On Faith section is a column reporting on the approval by the South Carolina legislature of a new Christian license plate. According to the piece, this is not the first action taken by officials in South Carolina with a religious twist. They have also "allow[ed] the Lord's Prayer to be added to civic displays on the "foundations of American law and government," allow[ed] public schools to teach courses in the Old and New Testaments, and allow[ed] legislative bodies to open with sectarian prayers."

South Carolina seems to be particularly open to actions of this kind. It was selected by the Christian Exodus organization in 2003 as the target location for Christians to live in order to secede from the United States and establish a true Christian government. According the Christian Exodus website, "ChristianExodus.org was founded in November of 2003 in response to the moral degeneration of American culture, and the rampant corruption among the powers that be. The initial goal was to move thousands of Christian constitutionalists to South Carolina to accelerate the return to self-government based upon Christian principles at the local and State level. This project continues to this day, with the ultimate goal of forming an independent Christian nation that will survive after the decline and fall of the financially and morally bankrupt American empire. We have learned, however; that the chains of our slavery and dependence upon godless government have more of a hold on us than can be broken by simply moving to another State.

As many like-minded Christian activists pursue independent Christian living without relocating, the scope has expanded to promote "personal secession" though many and various tracks, wherever they can be implemented. The long process of disentanglement from idolatrous dependencies includes such practices of moving towards a home-centered economy, with intentional community, home-schooling, home-gardening, house churches, health-cost sharing, private exchange, unlicenced ministry, and any other way in which we might live free and godly lives in Christ Jesus, without prostrating ourselves to eat from the hand of the imperial magistrate."

So, as you consider this intersection of Christian church and state, how do you feel about a state offering a license plate that is decidedly focused on one religion? How would you feel if the license plate emphasized Islam or Buddhism instead of Christianity? Would you join a movement to form a "Christian based" government in a particular state?

How much happiness have you had?

Buried deep within my files was this quote from a Muslim ruler in Spain in the 10th Century:

I have now reigned about 50 years in victory or peace, beloved by my subjects, dreaded by my enemies, and respected by my allies. Riches and honors, power and pleasure, have waited on my call, nor does any earthly blessing appear to have been wanting to my felicity. In this situation, I have diligently numbered the days of pure and genuine happiness which have fallen to my lot. They amount to fourteen.

Certainly, by his own description, Abd Er-Rahman, had everything we normally associate with happiness and had it in abundance. Yet, in 50 years, more than 18000 days, he believed that he had experienced only 14 days of "pure and genuine" happiness.

As always, that made me think. How many days of happiness have I had? What criteria would I use to evaluate my happiness? Would my standards necessitate a solid 24 hours of feeling happy or would 12 hours and 1 minute of happiness be enough to qualify as a day? Would a particular feeling define my happiness or would it be based on some more rational process?

What about you? How many days of happiness have you had? How do you evaluate what makes you happy?

Troubling Church

What would you say about church leadership who tells parents to throw their 16 year old son out of the house because he wanted to leave the church? Or, tells a mother to reject her son and her husband because they are not members? Or, refuses to allow two children to attend the church elementary school because their family had fallen behind on the church mandated tithing, even though the father had just lost his job?

The Washington Post has the chilling story of the Calvary Temple church in Loudoun, Virginia where all of these things and more took place. The URL to the story is: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/15/AR2008111502626.html.

The pastor, Star Scott, is able to do these things because he has absolute control over everything in the church, including the finances. No one in the church is able to challenge him without being expelled from the church, and that could be considered risky since, according to the story, "In his sermons, Scott teaches that his church is scripturally superior to others and views keeping people in the fold as a matter of their salvation. 'Anything that's other than a member in harmony has to be identified and expelled,' Scott preached in May 2007."

Why do people acquiesce to such treatment? In part, I suspect, because they have convinced themselves that their minister, this charismatic person, has a special pipeline to God.

Would you be part of a church like that? I know I wouldn't, but I have seen and attended some evangelical churches that have come dangerously close to this extreme example of pastoral abuse. In those churches, the 'true believers' see nothing wrong. And, I have seen some church groups that follow similar patterns of discipline and control.

What would you say to one of your friends who was part of a church like this? What would you say if they asked you to visit their services? Is this anyway to be church?

Interfaith UN Conference

During this last week, the United Nations was the host of a conference on Religious Tolerance, which had been initiated and promoted by the King of Saudi Arabia. King Abdullah gave a well received speech calling for greater tolerance and understanding between all religions.

While the King was saying all the right things about religious tolerance in New York, the reality in Saudi Arabia is much different. 100% of the population is Muslim. More than that, the dominant form of Islam observed in Saudi Arabia is Wahhabism, which is a conservative Sunni form of Islam. There are no Christian churches nor Jewish synagogues there, since there are no Christians or Jews who are citizens.

In Saudi Arabia, even other forms of Islam face persecution. There are a number of stories of Shi'a and Sufi Muslims, for example, being forbidden to practice their faith as they understand it.

As I read about this conference and the King's speech, I wondered what it would be like to live in a religiously monolithic country. There are neighborhoods and regions in our country that are close to that, but there is great religious diversity across the country, even in Salt Lake City Utah. If I did live in a country where I wass like everyone else and everyone else was like me, I wondered how I would feel about people of other faiths. Would I want to know how they understood things religious? Would I want to know how they practiced their faith, or would I be content to ignore them, since they must be wrong. I will never know what it would be like to live in a country like that, of course, but I wonder how that change my own understanding of my faith.

I thought about the folks who read this blog. Would you like to live in a country where everyone else is whatever you are? Why or why not?

Religious Issues in Utah

The news brought two stories of particularly interesting religious issues that are linked to Utah.

Back in May (specifically May 13) I mentioned in this blog about the court case involving one of the small cities south of Salt Lake and the religious group, Summum. The town had accepted a stone monument engraved with the Ten Commandments from a private group and placed it in a public park. The Summum people then proposed to donate a similar monument engraved with their Seven Aphorisms, which they claim were given to Moses first. The town declined to accept; Summum sued; and now the case will be heard in the Supreme Court tomorrow (November 12).

The town raises some logical and practical concerns about their reluctance to accept monuments from just anyone and everyone promoting just anything. The officials of Summum raise some interesting points concerning a town accepting a monument extolling one faith tradition and not another one.

I, for one, will be interested to read the oral arguments presented and to hear the decision, once it has been made. This, of course, raises the issue of religiously oriented items being accepted and displayed by governmental entities in this religiously plural culture.

The other issue involves the LDS practice of baptism by proxy. According to LDS teaching, a member of the LDS church can undergo baptism for someone who has died. This enables the deceased person to have the chance to make a choice to follow the "right" way in the afterlife. Several years ago, Jewish groups objected when Holocaust victims were being "baptized by proxy." The Jewish groups objected to the practice, and the LDS church took steps to stop it. Except now, there is some evidence that the practice continues. From the Jewish perspective, this whole process showed lack of regard for the victims and essentially diminished the Jewish identity of the Holocaust dead. From the LDS side of things, only LDS members who happened to have Jewish relatives could be baptized for them; thus, this was a sign of love for that dead Jewish relative by their now LDS descendant.

Is this different from an evangelical Christian or a Jehovah's Witness witnessing to a Jewish relative? I think so because, obviously, the dead cannot make their wishes known, but a living relative can tell you what they think. Is it right for one religious group to tell another one to ban a practice that is such an integral part of their theological framework?

Both of these incidents will be interesting to follow, especially since I am here at the epicenter. If you were to make a ruling on either or both, which way would you rule?

Questions of Life

The modern world struggles with defining when life begins and when life ends. This remains one of the troubling ethical/moral questions of our age. In some ways, due to ever more sophisticated medical technology, the question gets harder to answer.

Certainly, we are all familiar with the debate on the beginning of life as it relates to the legality or morality of abortions. Through the centuries, various answers to the question of "when does life begin?" have been given, ranging from the very moment of conception to the moment of birth. And, that presumes being able to define one specific moment at which the fetus has passed from non-life to life. Obviously, your understanding of this fundamental issue will affect your view of the ethics/morality of abortion.

Questions of "alive or not alive" at the other end of the continuum of human existence - as one is dying - are not any easier to answer. When I was a pastor in Mobile Alabama, I had the occasion to talk with a Catholic theologian who was a consultant to the court in a case of a nursing home resident who showed no life functions, but had not signed a Living Will document. While the doctor had advised the family that there was no hope for the person recovering and was recommending turning off the life-support, a nurse's aide at the care home, not related to the patient, sued to have the patient remain on life support. The judge was in a quandry.

In 1980, a bill was proposed, the Universal Determination of Death Act, that was eventually accepted in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, which defined death in this way: "An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem is dead." There are many terms in this definition open to interpretation, but, at leasst, it provides a framework.

What happens, though, when one's religious community chooses not to accept this definition. In the Washington Post's On Faith this weekend is the story of a 12 year old Orthodox Jewish boy who meets the criteria of the UDDA, but whose family does not accept these standards because of their faith. The family says that, as long as his heart is beating, even if it is on a machine, the boy is still alive.

Do you struggle with questions of life? How does your faith inform your understandings? How do you respond to those who disagree with your understandings?

Interesting Poll Results

At this website is an interesting poll:
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20081023/survey-most-americans-believe-god-uniquely-blessed-u-s_pageall.htm. According to the results, "Most Americans strongly believe that God has uniquely blessed America, and a similar majority believe that the United States should set the example as a Christian nation to the rest of the world, a survey released Wednesday found. Sixty-one percent agree that America is a nation specially blessed by God, and 59 percent believe the United States should be a model Christian nation to the world, according to a poll conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research Inc. for the PBS news program Religion & Ethics Newsweekly and the United Nations Foundation."

The more religiously active respondents - as in those who attend services weekly - more strongly affirmed such an idea. 86% of evangelical Christians agreed with this idea, but only 48% who attend services less regularly than that agree.

Along with this notion of a uniquely received blessing from God is a sense of responsibility. From the article, "People who strongly believe that America is blessed by God and should set a strong Christian example are also more likely to say that the United States is morally obligated to play a significant role in world affairs. Overall, most Americans also believe the United States has a responsibility to be very engaged (24 percent) or moderately involved (70 percent) on the global stage. However, most Americans believe (67 percent) the United States’ relation with the rest of the world is on the wrong track."

This poll was taken at the end of October, prior to the election. I wish we could know how these folks voted and whether they would change their response now compared to then.

A deeper question for me, though, is how did the respondents understand the concept of "being uniquely blessed by God"? Many might point to the natural resources America has; others could tout the religious liberty we enjoy; still others may suggest that our democratic system is the evidence of God's blessings. Or, you could say the whole package shows it.

One other question I have relates to how these folks believe America should be engaged in world affairs. What values do we want to promote for the rest of the world and how will we promote them? What leverage will we employ to get other nations to do what we think should be done? What will we do if these values we promote are not embraced by other countries?

What do you think? Where would you weigh in on the question of unique divine blessings for our country that no other country has? How would you advise the new administration to engage in global diplomacy? What issues should drive our foreign policy in the years to come?

Where do you fit in this?

Back in September, Baylor University's Institute of Studies of Religion issued another set of findings from its biennial study of Americans and religion. Among them are the following:

** One in five Americans reported hearing God speak to them.

** Forty-four percent felt God had called them to do something.

** More than half believe they are protected from harm by a guardian angel.

Do these findings reflect your experiences? Do they represent what the people in your family and your church believe? Do you think these experiences represent "normative" Christianity, however you define that term?

One last piece of advice

Mark DeMoss is featured as a guest columnist for Stev Waldman's blog on BeliefNet. Mr. DeMoss offers four lessons from Tuesday's elections for evangelicals. You can read the entire column at: http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/stark-lessons-for-evangalicals.html.

DeMoss begins by giving his bona fides:
I am an evangelical Southern Baptist who worked for a Mormon candidate in the primaries and voted yesterday for John McCain. According to exit polls some 72 percent of white evangelicals joined me in a losing effort. While there is much we can learn from this historic election--I'll propose just four lessons.

Then, the lessons (in the full article, DeMoss gives commentary which is worth reading):

First, a positive, inspiring, uplifting campaign can actually lead directly to the White House.

Second, no candidate or party is always right, and none is always wrong.

Then, evangelicals must accept and embrace the reality that money is the fuel which drives campaign machines.

Finally, I'd like to see evangelicals look for competent, qualified candidates who share our values, whether or not they share our faith or theology.

I wonder how many within the conservative community believe these are actually worth learning?

Whither the evangelical vote?

Much of the post-election slicing and dicing to tell us what really happened on election day and why centers on the question of what happened to the power of the Evangelical, read "Conservative Christian", voters. Since the Reagan Presidency, at least, when ministers like the Rev. Robertson and the late Rev. Falwell, claimed that the Republican Party was triumphant because of the voter turnout and loyalty of this group, the "Religious Right" has been seen as a core constituency of the GOP, and its social agenda was seen as the bottom-line definition of what America should be.

Now, with the Democratic victories of Tuesday, various theories have been advanced about just why the GOP lost ground and the Dems gained. Some say that Obama cast himself in such a way that he appealed to the evangelicals; some suggest that America repudiated conservative Christian values; some say the economy trumped every other consideration; some say that the "Religious Right" may be down now, but it is not out; some say that the current Republican administration failed to remain true to the "true values".

So, what can we know? From Christianity Today (see: http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpolitics/2008/11/the_evangelical.html) comes a report that Obama only received 25% of the evangelical vote, which is about what Kerry got. That does not suggest an evangelical groundswell for the Democrats. A Pew Center report (http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=367) confirms that, while the Democratic ticket realized some gains among evangelicals, the largest gains for the Dems were among Catholics and those unaffiliated with any religion. The Pew report also indicates that there was an increase in evangelical voters from 2004 to 2008 of 3%. That suggests this group is still strong.

So, what does all of this mean? Who really knows? I am convinced that the leadership of the evangelicals believes the GOP lost its way during the Bush Presidency and that now is the time to regroup and refocus. In fact, a pre-election story from the LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-gop28-2008oct28,0,3963149.story) reports:
The social conservatives and moderates who together boosted the Republican Party to dominance have begun a tense battle over the future of the GOP, with social conservatives already moving to seize control of the party's machinery and some vowing to limit John McCain's influence, even if he wins the presidency.

In skirmishes around the country in recent months, evangelicals and others who believe Republicans have been too timid in fighting abortion, gay marriage and illegal immigration have won election to the party's national committee, in preparation for a fight over the direction and leadership of the party.

This will be an on-going story at the intersection of religion and politics.

A Hope Expressed For The Future

The polls in Utah have been open for several hours now. Our church is a polling place - I vote here in fact - and I have been pleased to see a pretty steady stream of people coming to vote.

After today, though, the hard part begins. Regardless of who wins, the issues facing our country seem so daunting that I cannot imagine how they can be addressed. Worse still, it seems that our country is even more divided than ever before.

So, it was with great interest that I read this guest editorial on the Washington Post On Faith site. It was written by Tim Harrison. Let me let him speak for himself:

I'm a conservative Christian - what the media calls an evangelical. I believe in creationism, oppose gay marriage, and think abortion is the killing of a life ready to change the world. I'm a leader in my church and I volunteer to better my community by serving others. ...

If we are going to tackle the huge, complex issues and problems facing our country today, we are going to have to check our religion-based stances at the door. This country is too large and too diverse to apply one set of religious absolutes to every citizen. If we are a country that has been a "melting pot" for generations, and will continue to be --- if we are a country that embraces diversity, then we must build a new bridge of common ground across divisive religious issues. At the very least, we must be able to see the one who disagrees with us (no matter what their religious beliefs) as a partner in overcoming the huge problems (our new common ground) that we face as a nation--problems such as alternate energy sources, the financial markets, national security, Iraq, healthcare, and poverty (both here and abroad).

This is a message of reconciliation. It's a message of trying to set aside the partisan politics and instead, pick up the mantle of responsibility to solve the serious problems facing America and the world. Why can't we all do that? Why can't we quit trying to prove we're right and the other side is wrong, whatever side the "other" side happens to be?

This is all a new thought for me. I'm still not totally comfortable with it yet. However, I know that I've been part of the problem. I've done my part in vilifying those who disagree with me. But things must change, both in my family, my workplace, and in my nation. One thing's for sure, I want to do my part and put aside the religious issues while I play my part in solving the larger issues, whatever they might be.

May his tribe increase. The only way we are going to be able to tackle the issues facing our country is for all people to work together, despite their differences with each other. Surely we can agree that the campaign slogan for the McCain/Palin ticket is applicable here - "Country First".

That is certainly a hope for the future.

Saturday Night Reflection

I thought it would be appropriate to consider this comment from Reinhold Niebuhr:

The tendency to claim God as an ally for our partisan value and ends is the source of all religious fanaticism.

Last Ditch Political Tactics ... with a religious overlay

These four items caught my eye:

** Voter Guides, Part I
It has been common for conservative Christian groups to provide voting guides to help their church members make the "right" choices for important races, as if the faithful did not know before hand. These were not, strictly speaking, endorsements because the guides merely laid out a candidate's position on issues, but, as everyone knows, once you define what issues to include, the guides become de facto endorsements.

Now, the leadership of the FLDS has published a voter's guide rating candidates' views on issues important to the polygamous group. Not surprisingly, the Utah Attorney General and two district court judges, each of whom had been involved in a high profile case involving FLDS members that did not go well for the FLDS people, received a negative rating.

** Voter Guides, Part II
Not to be outdone by the religious community, the John McCain campaign has issued its own "voter guide" to help the undecided voters in key swing states. The issues McCain chose to highlight, though, are all of those that are always common in the religious guides, like defense of traditional marriage, against "activist" judges, and for school choice. Many within the conservative Christian community applauded the publication, but said it should have been distributed much earlier.

** More aspersions against the Democrats
Bishop Finn of the Kansas City-St. Joseph Diocese called for the faithful to ask Mary to intercede in the upcoming Presidential election and duplicate the overwhelming victory Christian forces experienced before. In Bishop Finn's words, "In 1571, in the midst of the Battle of Lepanto, when the future of Christian Europe was in the balance and the odds against them were overwhelming, prayer to Our Lady of the Rosary brought the decisive victory. We ask her now to watch over our country and bring us the victory of life."

For those who are not up on 16th century European conflicts, the Battle of Lepanto was a decisive victory by the armies of Christian Europe against the Ottoman Turks, the Muslim invaders. Bishop Finn did not indicate whether his allusion to the Muslim invaders referred to Obama and Biden only or to all Democrats.

** Can a godless candidate win?
The news out of North Carolina is not pretty. The Republican incumbent in the Senate race, Elizabeth Dole, has aired an ad claiming her opponent took money from a group of atheists. Quoting the CNN story, "'Godless Americans and Kay Hagan,' the ad continues. 'She hid from cameras. Took 'Godless' money. What did Kay Hagan promise in return?' The ad ends with a picture of Hagan and a voice that sounds like hers declaring, 'There is no God.'"

Of course, the ad skirts lightly around some facts. Senator Dole's challenger, Kay Hagan, is a Sunday School teacher and an Elder in a Presbyterian church. The ad does not mention any of this.

What issue relating to the operation of the American government did this ad address?
What do you think Senator Dole was hoping to achieve with this ad? Do you think it was a legitimate issue to raise? It will be interesting to see how North Carolinians respond to this type of ad.

Remember Praying to Lower Gas Prices?

Back in the spring, I referenced a story about a group who decided the way to deal with the escalating gas prices was to go to the local gas station, circle the pumps, and pray for God to lower the prices. In August, the BBC ran a follow-up story on the group at a time when prices had declined by about 5%.

As you would imagine, the group asserted that God was the one who caused the prices to decline. According to the article, "Mr Twyman [this is Rocky Twyman who started the group] is sceptical that market forces might be responsible for the lower prices. But he and his prayer warriors have changed their motoring habits. 'We believe not just in prayer - because we believe that faith without works is dead. So we've encouraged people to car-pool more and organise their days more, because it's a combination of faith with these other factors.' Pray At The Pump plans to build on its success and drive gasoline prices even lower. In the words of Rocky Twyman: 'We just thank God for blessing us with small victories and we expect greater things to come.'"

Now, of course, we know that market forces have played a role. In fcat, in the face of the world-wide financial crisis, gas prices in America have declined even more. I wonder how Mr. Twyman feels about the falling gas prices now?

Franchising Your Church

In August, the Wall Street Journal ran a piece about a new trend in American Christianity. To quote from the August 15 article, written by Andrew Park, "American megachurch pastors are starting up video-based branches overseas to spread their faith, and their faces, to places where evangelical Christianity is just taking hold, using Starbucks as their model for rapid expansion. But here at home, where houses of worship are already as plentiful as suburban strip centers, the same strategy of high-tech franchising is emerging, despite objections from many Christians that it's the wrong way to reach new converts.

You read it correctly. Many churches are operating multiple campuses with many of them as video venues where the service is available on screen and the congregation needs to do little more than watch. According to the WSJ article, somewhere between 2000 to 2500 churches have multiple campuses now, with estimates of more than 30000 in a few years.

The rationale for this is simple. With many people in our country not involved in church anywhere, the lure of a "big-name, high-powered" preacher appearing at a screen near you might be enough to get the bodies in the seats. Also, the "building and grounds costs" of such a church campus are relatively modest. To their credit, I guess, at least most of these churches have an "on-site" minister to address pastoral care issues, but this person does not do the preaching.

So, does this sound like church to you? Would you attend such a church? Would you rather attend a church like this than a traditional service? Does this further elevate the status of celebrity ministers? Is this a good thing?

A Troubling Intersection of Politics and Religious Affiliation

The US Presidential election is next week. It seems that issues relating to religion and religious affiliation are even more important now than before.

The news outlets are swirling with reports that Christian evangelicals and conservatives might not support the Republican ticket because of long-standing distrust of Senator McCain, despite the appeal of Sarah Palin as the VP candidate. Then, other pundits predict that most of the "undecideds" at this point in the race are Christian evangelicals who WILL support the Republican ticket. In either case, Governor Palin seems assured of a continuing high profile status among the Republicans because of her conservative religious views.

The disaffection of the traditional Conservative Christian base of the Republican Party for John McCain has been a story since the 2000 Presidential race. It is interesting that it has become a major story again. It will be even more interesting to see whether that group continues to be enthralled with Governor Palin long enough for her to launch her own bid for the Presidency at some point in the future.

One other story with religious overtones that seems to be gaining ground again is the question of whether Barack Obama is a Muslim. This, of course, was a significant enough issue that Colin Powell, in his remarks supporting Senator Obama for President, addressed it.

In a story from this weekend's Lexington Herald-Leader comes the news that "Despite heavy national media attention about Obama's faith, more than half of likely Republican voters — 54 percent — and one of every four Democrats in the state do not know that the Democratic presidential nominee is a Christian, the poll found. The poll showed that 14 percent of likely Kentucky voters — 28 percent of Republicans, 4 percent of Democrats and 11 percent of independents — think Obama adheres to the Muslim faith." And, in a story from the Agence France-Presse, carried on the Pew Forum website, comes this report, "US Muslims are facing tough times fearful about growing suspicions of Islam amid false rumors that Democratic nominee Barack Obama is a Muslim and could have links to terrorists. ... 'This is part of an islamophobic hate campaign that fuels prejudice against Americans who practice their Islamic faith and Muslims worldwide,' [said a group of Islamic scholars]. In September, a controversial DVD on Islam was circulated in Florida, adding fuel to the fire of the US election campaign. The video, titled Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West and released more than a year ago by a group called Clarion Fund, showed images of young children reciting appeals for jihad mixed with archival footage of Hitler Youths."

{Sidenote to this report - the group that has been bombarding my office with fax messages to ensure that I do the "right" thing for my congregation and tell them how horrible Obama is and how they should vote for McCain sent me a packet of material just in time, containing a 'sample sermon' - to tell me exactly what to say - a copy of the Obsession DVD, and another DVD to drive home the point. I hope to have enough time in the next few days to look at all the material.}

So, let me ask you some questions. Since identification of what religion a candidate holds is important to some folks, at least, in this campaign: Is John McCain considered enough of a Christian, whatever that means, to be supported by the evangelical/conservative Christian groups? However you answer that question, would that affect your support for him? Is Barack Obama considered enough of a Christian to have the support of the Christian majority in America? Do you think Barack Obama is a Muslim? Either way, would that have an impact on your support for him? And, in a question I have raised in this blog before, even though there is no religious test for public office defined in the Constitution, do you think there should be or do you think that there is an unwritten religious expectation for people seeking office?

The Democrats will get you if you don't watch out!

Perhaps in honor of Halloween and other spooky and scary stuff, Focus on the Family - that's James Dobson's group - is helping distribute a "what if" letter from the year 2012 after an Obama-Biden victory. The writer of the letter is a good Christian.

Should you want to read a story about it and read the entire 16 page letter, here is a link: http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/election08/653/the_religious_right%E2%80%99s_apocalyptic_visions_of_an_obama_presidency_%C2%A0/.

Focus grants that this is a speculative enterprise, but notes that, "This letter is not “predicting” that all of the imaginative future “events” named in this letter will happen. But it is saying that each one of these changes could happen and also that each change would be the natural outcome of (a) published legal opinions by liberal judges, (b) trends seen in states with liberal-dominated courts such as California and Massachusetts, (c) recent promises, practices and legislative initiatives of the current liberal leadership of the Democratic Party and (d) Senator Obama’s actions, voting record and public promises to the far-Left groups that won the nomination for him."

Among the predictions are the kinds of social changes that terrify conservative Christians like:
-- We are not “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” Many of our freedoms have been taken away by a liberal Supreme Court and a Democratic majority in both the House and the Senate, and hardly any brave citizen dares to resist the new government policies any more.
-- The most far-reaching transformation of American society came from the Supreme Court’s stunning affirmation, in early 2010, that homosexual “marriage” was a “constitutional” right that had to be respected by all 50 states because laws barring same-sex “marriage” violated the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Suddenly, homosexual “marriage” was the law of the land in all 50 states, and no state legislature, no state Supreme Court, no state Constitutional amendment, not even Congress, had any power to change it. The Supreme Court had ruled, and the discussion was over.
-- The Boy Scouts no longer exist as an organization. They chose to disband rather than be forced to obey the Supreme Court decision that they would have to hire homosexual scoutmasters and allow them to sleep in tents with young boys.
-- Elementary schools now include compulsory training in varieties of gender identity in Grade 1, including the goodness of homosexuality as one possible personal choice. Many parents tried to “opt out” their children from such sessions, but the courts have ruled they cannot do this, noting that education experts in the government have decided that such training is essential to children’s psychological health.
-- The Bible can no longer be freely preached over radio or television stations when the subject matter includes such “offensive” doctrines as criticizing homosexual behavior.
-- Church buildings are now considered a “public accommodation” by the Supreme Court, and churches have no freedom to refuse to allow their buildings to be used for wedding ceremonies for homosexual couples.
-- Tens of thousands of young churches suddenly had no place to meet when the Supreme Court ruled that public schools in all 50 states had to stop allowing churches to rent their facilities — even on Sundays, when school was not in session. The court said this was an unconstitutional use of government property for a religious purpose.
-- It is illegal for private citizens to own guns for selfdefense in eight states, and the number is growing with increasing Democratic control of state legislatures and governorships.
-- Parents’ freedom to teach their children at home has been severely restricted. The Supreme Court, to the delight of the National Education Association, followed the legal reasoning of a February 28, 2008, ruling in Re: Rachel L by the 2nd District Court of Appeal in California (although that ruling was later reversed). In the later case, the Supreme Court declared that home schooling was a violation of state educational requirements except in cases where the parents (a) had an education certificate from an accredited state program., (b) agreed to use state-approved textbooks in all courses, and (c) agreed not to teach their children that homosexual conduct is wrong, or that Jesus is the only way to God, since these ideas have been found to hinder students’ social adjustment and acceptance of other lifestyles and beliefs, and to run counter to the state’s interest in educating its children to be good citizens.
-- Since 2009, terrorist bombs have exploded in two large and two small U.S. cities, killing hundreds, and the entire country is fearful, for no place seems safe. President Obama in each case has vowed “to pursue and arrest and prosecute those responsible,” but no arrests have been made.
-- In mid-2010, Iran launched a nuclear bomb that exploded in the middle of Tel Aviv, destroying much of that city. They then demanded that Israel cede huge amounts of territory to the Palestinians, and after an anguished all-night Cabinet meeting, Israel’s prime minister agreed. Israel is reduced to a much smaller country, hardly able to defend itself, and its future remains uncertain. President Obama said he abhorred what Iran had done and he hoped the U.N. would unanimously condemn this crime against humanity.

Obviously, in 16 pages, there are many more doomsday scenarios detailed in the letter. The letter writer places much of the blame for what happened on evangelicals who voted for the Democrats, in particular, and on all Christians who voted for the Democratic ticket. These 'misguided' Christians foolishly hoped that Obama would make positive changes for the country. This 'Christian from 2012' regretfully asserts, Christians didn’t take time to find out who Barack Obama was when they voted for him. Why did they risk our nation’s future on him? It was a mistake that changed the course of history.

The letter paints a picture of an almost apocalyptic collapse of America based on religious failures of the liberal politicians who were elected in 2008. Could it happen? Are the predictions made by this attempt to influence likely? Do you think this effort to influence Christian voters will make a difference at the polls?

The Judeo-Christian View gets national attention.

The organization about which I complained a few blogs ago has been cited in the FundamentaList, published by American Prospect and written by Sarah Posner.

The link to the full list is at http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_fundamentalist_102208. Here is the item about the group.

More Islamofascism -- and Child Sacrifice! -- Coming to a Church or Synagogue Near You.

The incendiary propaganda DVD Obsession, produced by the Clarion Fund, a non-profit organization founded by employees of the Orthodox Jewish group Aish HaTorah, made news last month when Clarion paid to have millions of copies of the DVD inserted in Sunday newspapers in swing states around the country. Now, the DVD is being sent to 325,000 clergy through a new publication called The Judeo-Christian View.

The Judeo-Christian View, in addition to advising clergy to preach on the "dangers" of "Islamofascism," offers a free model sermon for them to use to preach against gay marriage and "child sacrifice" (late-term abortion). The video contrasts the two presidential candidates' positions on both those issues, and obviously favors McCain.

The Judeo-Christian View is run by O'Neal Dozier, a Florida pastor who claimed in 2006 that God revealed to him that Charlie Crist would become that state's governor. Later that year, Jeb Bush, then Florida's governor, removed Dozier from a Judicial Nominating Commission to which he had appointed him in 2001, and Crist tossed him from serving on his campaign's "Strengthening Florida's Families" advisory group after Dozier called Islam a "cult." When Dozier served on the judicial commission, he and other members asked prospective nominees if they were God-fearing, their views on the 2003 Supreme Court decision striking down Texas' anti-sodomy law, and how they would feel about posting the Ten Commandments in their courtroom.

"Our nation faces a fork, a divergence between the high road and the low road," reads The Judeo-Christian View letter to clergy, "and you and your congregation could very well determine the direction we take. The high road upholds America's peaceful tradition of Judeo-Christian tolerance and morality. The low road marches us toward militant secular-paganism, militant Islam, or both."

Criticizing McCain's campaign tactics.

In the 1970's, Francis Schaeffer was a conservative Christian icon. He was the first I knew about who gave an intelligent sounding critique of popular culture. Among many other books, Schaeffer wrote How Should We Then Live that has recently been reworked by more contemporary conservative Christian pundits. Working with Francis Schaeffer was his son Frank (or as he was known then, Frankie). Sometime in the last 10 years or so, Frank repudiated his Father's religious stance and converted to Orthodox Christianity.

In an op-ed piece for the Baltimore Sun, published on Oct. 10, Frank Schaeffer was scathingly critical of the tone of comments made by the McCain-Palin campaign. You can read the whole piece at www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.mccain10oct10,0,7557571.story.

One section that I would share here is the following:
John McCain, you are no fool, and you understand the depths of hatred that surround the issue of race in this country. You also know that, post- 9/11, to call someone a friend of a terrorist is a very serious matter. You also know we are a bitterly divided country on many other issues. You know that, sadly, in America, violence is always just a moment away. You know that there are plenty of crazy people out there.

Stop! Think! Your rallies are beginning to look, sound, feel and smell like lynch mobs.

Do you think the rhetoric from the McCain-Palin campaign has contributed to any sense of the divisiveness in our country? Do you think the comments from their crowds that have not been challenged by either of the candidates - though Senator McCain did correct one person at a rally - is indicative of the true mood of our country or an election year aberration? Have you seen or heard similar types of comments made at Obama-Biden rallies?

More importantly, do you think our country can ever become more unified or are we forever split into different interest groups that has no desire to work with those who disagree with them?

A Familiar Story

From an AP story dated October 4, though it has not seen a lot of attention in the American media, comes this report:

In recent weeks, self-styled "modesty patrols" have been accused of breaking into the apartment of a ... woman and beating her for allegedly consorting with men. They have torched a store that sells MP4 players, fearing devout ... would use them to download pornography.

The story also details how gangs would throw rocks at women and spit at them for wearing red clothes because that color is considered particularly provocative. And, how gangs broke into a store, scattered gasoline around and set it on fire because it sold clothes they considered immodest.

We are familiar with stories like these in Muslim countries. We almost expect them in those countries. These incidents took place in Israel, just outside of Jerusalem. The gangs were composed of Haredim - the very, very, conservative Jews.

This is in addition to other stories from Israel about Jewish settlers from the West Bank communities, which are considered illegal by the international community, setting off pipe bombs to threaten Israeli legislators who have voted to dismantle the illegal settlements.

Religious zealots of every stripe share far more characteristics - as in hatred, intolerance, and self-righteousness - than they would admit.

Sticks and stones ... I guess

Churches are not immune to having unsolicited fax messages clog up their machine. Last week, I received one such unsolicited fax and noted the "if you received this fax in error" and want to unsubscribe, do this. So, I made the request to have our fax machine removed from their calling list.

Now, there have been duplicate messages received from The Judeo-Christian View in our church fax. The Judeo-Christian View espouses a very conservative agenda in both religion and politics. They have their right to hold such a view, though I would disagree with many of their positions that I have read. My contention with them is not with me disagreeing with them, but that they keep sending me stuff I do not want.

In the latest broadside from the group who evidently considers itself the sole keeper of the one and only Judeo-Christian understanding of the world - after I have asked them TWICE to remove our number from their automated call robot - all the ministers who do not agree with their perspective is deemed something less than a person of integrity. Let me quote: "Has your Pastor/Rabbi/Father joined the courageous Signatories yet ...? Has he offered up a single prayer seeking Sen. Obama's repentance for these policies, so desperately at odds with Scripture? Has your Shepherd spoken even one clear word on these monumental matters from the pulpit? Is your Shepherd a man of God ... or just a "holy pontificator" ... a church mouse ... a WIMP?

I will not even get into the male-dominated presumption of ministry they hold. This website is agitating against the Democratic Presidential nominee for his alleged social policies AND demanding that all true Christian ministers do the same, as all TRUE Christian ministers would be glad to do.

So, there it is, folks, you are evidently reading the words of a holy pontificator, church mouse, and WIMP, since I do not engage in any political haranguing from the pulpit. I guess this also puts me among those in America who do not love our country and who are not patriotic and who do not love God, as defined by Senator McCain and Governor Palin.

I would contact this site yet again, but who knows what more they would send me. I cannot wait for the election to be over, but I fear that this type of inflammatory rhetoric from the more conservative politically and religiously ones will only continue, regardless of who wins the election. I keep thinking that it is only words, but words can sometimes lead to hurt.

Can you believe it?

A story from the religion page of The Times of London about the sad state of Christian unity caught my eye.

The Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, recognized as the site of the crucifixion and burial of Jesus, is jointly controlled and maintained by six different Christian groups - Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox, Coptic, Syrian Orthodox and Ethiopian - as a result of an agreement under the Ottoman Empire from 1757. Through the years, there have been a number of conflicts between the Christian groups over seemingly small things, like disagreements over brooms and ladders. Interestingly, the keys to the church have been held by a Muslim family since the 12th century because the competing Christian groups do not trust each other to have them.

Now, though, there is a very serious problem facing the groups. On the roof of the Holy Sepulchre is a small monastery that has been an object of contention between the Ethiopians and the Copts since 1970. That is when the Copts left the monastery and went to the church below for prayers and the Ethiopians rushed to the roof and changed the locks to the structure. The need for repairs to the roof where the monastery is located threatens the entire structure. According to engineers who studied the structure, if repairs to the roof are not made, the monastery could crash through the roof. Unfortunately, so far, the competing Christian groups, particularly the Copts and the Ethiopians, refuse to cooperate to make certain the repairs are made.

Is this anyway to show the love and unity preached by Jesus?

Saturday Night Reflection

This is from Dennis Patrick O'Hara, the Director of the Elliott Allen Institute for Theology and Ecology at the University of Toronto:

Anyone in theology who has to have absolute certitude shouldn't be in theology. We're about faith.

Tribal Politics

With the election less than three weeks away, it seems appropriate to return to this endeavor with a political blog.

Most often, the confluence of religious orientation and politics is considered to be the "Religious Right" and "everybody else." In 2004, BeliefNet, in collaboration with John Green at the Bliss Institute of the University of Akron, devised a more comprehensive system of looking at how politics and religion interact. Using a familiar Biblical typology of 12 Tribes, they classify folks into these groupings: the "Religious Right", Heartland Culture Warriors, Moderate Evangelicals, White Bread Protestants, Convertible Catholics, the "Religious Left", Spiritual but not religious, Seculars, Latinos, Jews, Muslims & Other Faiths, and Black Protestants.

You can view the full descriptions of these twelve at:
http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Politics/The-Twelve-Tribes-of-American-Politics-in-the-2008-Election.aspx.

Let me encourage you to look at the BeliefNet site. Which group do you think fits you? Do you think the analysis of each group is accurate and fair? Would you add or delete any groups from the listing? Do you think this list with its multiple divisions of the American people says anything about how divided or unified the nation is?

Quotes For Reflection

As I am finishing up some writing assignments for a commentary series from WJK Press, my blog pieces will be few and far for a week or so. With that in mind, let me share two quotes with you for your pondering. The first is from Marcus Borg; the second is from Josiah Strong.

In an interview, Borg said:

Faith is not primarily about believing a set of claims to be true-that's what goes with the earlier vision of Christianity. The understanding of faith that goes with the emerging vision is about a relationship of trust in God and faithfulness to God. The ancient meaning of the word "believe" is "to commit oneself, to be loyal to." The Middle English word is "beleve," and that means to love or be loved. So faith is about loving God and loving that which God loves--which is the whole of creation.

Would you agree with this definition of faith that Borg proposes?

Josiah Strong was the secretary of the Congregational Home Mission Society in the late 19th century. He wrote:

There are many in the Church as well as out of it who need to learn that Christianity is neither a creed nor a ceremonial, but a life vitaly[sic] connected with a loving Christ.

Would you agree this understanding of Christianity that Strong proposed?