It's now official ...

a coalition of Evangelical leadership has endorsed John McCain as their candidate of choice. The meeting took place in Denver and was reported in Charisma Magazine online (at http://www.charismamag.com/cms/news/archives/0702081.php) and commented on by Randall Balmer on the Religious Dispatches site (http://religiondispatches.org/Gui/Content.aspx?Page=AR&Id=356). Despite the distaste for McCain that many conservative Christians seem to have and despite the efforts Obama has made to gain inroads into the evangelical community, I never doubted that such an endorsement would come.

What is surprising to me was some of the comments made at the meeting.

** Phyllis Schlafly was quoted as saying: The alternative is so bad we must support John McCain. She went on to lament the fact that this group should have mobilized in 2001 when VP Cheney made it clear he would not seek the Presidency. First, that is not what I call a ringing endorsement of McCain. Second, I fail to see how Cheney would be such a glowing Christian candidate that he would have swept the field and gained the endorsement.

** From the Charisma article: Gary Glenn, head of the American Family Association for Michigan, said he felt conservative Christians would be more enthusiastic for McCain if he put former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee on the ballot as vice president. He suggested that the group approve a motion recommending this, which would be hand carried to McCain. It was decided to have a committee approve the wording and e-mail to the participants to sign. Glenn asked for a show of hands of who would sign the document. Most of those in the group raised their hands. So, they seem to be saying, we will REALLY like you if you ask our favorite guy to the Dance.

** Rick Scarborough, founder and president of Vision America, predicted that laws would be passed that would essentially criminalize basic Christian beliefs. I do not see how Congress could pass a law that would criminalize "Love God with all you are. And, love your neighbor as yourself."

** Again from the article, More than an hour was spent listening to younger leaders tell the group that religious conservatives must be perceived "to care" about social issues and the environment to appeal to young people who are voting for the first time. This group listened to 'younger' leaders telling them to 'act like' they care about the environment and other social issues. If you read the Charisma article, you will notice that the group assembled in Denver did not even try to pretend. There were no statements about these social issues made.

** No where in the article did any of the evangelical leaders express concerns over any of the actions of the current administration. I wonder what this lack of comment may mean to John McCain who is supposedly trying to distance himself from President Bush.

Once again, I will attempt to generate some discussion. What are the issues in this Presidential campaign that you consider absolutely vital? Which of these emerge from your religous beliefs?

Religious odds and ends

There have been four stories that I have followed for a while. I have not drawn attention to them before, I guess, because I was hoping they would fade into obscurity. I may have been overly optimistic.

First is the "praying at the gas pumps" action. A member of an Assemblies of God church has convinced some folks that gathering at a local gas station, circling a bank of pumps, holding hands, and praying for God to lower the gas prices is the right and proper Christian thing to do. He started this effort when gas was still under $4 a gallon. The fact that gas prices have continued to increase has not hindered the campaign. I know some Christian folks who do sincerely believe that God is concerned about every thing we face and every choice we make, but I am not certain that the God of the universe does care about the price Americans pay at the pump.

Second is the story about Barack Obama being the anti-Christ. For those not aware of what this means, here is a simplified explanation: Many Christians believe that, before the second coming of Christ and the end of the world as we know it, a secular world leader will arise who will unite all the countries of the world under his rule and eventually cause all people to worship him, instead of God. Barack Obama's meteoric rise in politics and his charismatic speaking style have fueled the speculation. A Google search lists 650,000 web hits dealing with this possibility. I don't know whether to be glad or not that one of the people who discounts this story is John Hagee (remember him?), who believes the anti-Christ will be a homosexual male with Jewish ancestry. I can envision some whispering campaigns as the political season grinds on: "Vote Republican or vote for the Anti-Christ."

Third, Bruce Ware, a professor of theology at Southern Seminary, which is my alma mater [though I was long gone before he arrived and the seminary was much different then than now], claims that the reason men abuse their wives is because of her desire to 'have her own way.' In conjunction with this, Ware said the only two responses for a man to have to a woman who seeks her own path is to abuse her or to become a passive husband who is acquiesent to his wife.

In case you want to know what Ware thinks is the proper role for a 'real' Christian woman in this way. "It means that a woman will demonstrate that she is in fact a Christian, that she has submitted to God's ways by affirming and embracing her God-designed identity as - for the most part, generally this is true - as wife and mother, rather than chafing against it, rather than bucking against it, rather than wanting to be a man, wanting to be in a man's position, wanting to teach and exercise authority over men. Rather than wanting that, she accepts and embraces who she is as woman, because she knows God and she knows his ways are right and good, so she is marked as a Christian by her submission to God and in that her acceptance of God's design for her as a woman."

So, we have definitive Biblical proof, a la Ware, that the only reason women are abused is their own sinfulness.

Finally, from Oklahoma City, the Windsor Hills Baptist Church planned to give away an $800 semi-automatic assault rifle to an attendee at a weekend Youth Conference that was expected to draw teenagers from hundreds of miles away. The church did not do so because their Pastor Emeritus, who was to make the presentation, could not attend. Never fear, though, the church did give away such a weapon last year and plans to keep the gun as a 'door prize' for next year's conference. Gee, whenever I was involved in Christian Youth events, the only thing they gave away was Bibles and stuff like that.

I wish I could say that I am making up each of these stories, but I am not. You can chase the links yourself, or respond to this posting and I will give you the links.

Hijacking sacred texts?

Growing up in a Southern Baptist church, I was taught a healthy respect for the Biblical text. I heard the Biblical stories on Sunday, both in Sunday School and in sermons. I was taught how important it is to memorize portions of the text and to read the text. Because of this background, I have a high level of Biblical literacy. I appreciate that. Yet, I also know that I have different understandings of the meaning of some of the Biblical texts than many of my friends in the Baptist church.

One other group that has a strong sense of the importance of sacred texts is Islam. Muslims also hear the stories of the Qur'an and memorize the text, and read the text. Yet, some Muslims have different understandings of the meaning of some of the Qur'anic texts.

In the May 6 issue of Christian Century, Mona Siddiqui, an Islamic theologian, had some interesting comments to make. She recognizes, for example, that there is Qur'anic justification for husbands to beat their wives. BUT, she also says that Muslims cannot 'hijack' one verse from the Qur'an to justify the oppression of women and ignore the larger principles of Islam.

That is the part that most resonates with me. It seems that many people, in all faith traditions, latch onto, or hijack, one verse or one small section of verses that are indeed in the sacred text, but which violate the larger principles embodied in the entire text.

Wouldn't it be better for all people of faith to seek to have those over-arching principles define our life of faith and not some hijacked verses?