Reflections ... 3rd Verse

I suspect that many in our country, both among the religious and the non-religious, are not as familiar with the Pentecostal-Assemblies of God-Independent Bible churches as they should be. The major Pentecostal and Assembly of God church 'denominational' groups have websites on which they sketch out their belief systems. They are a worth a look, but always remember that there will be individuals and churches who will likely have some deviation from any official statemet of beliefs and practices.

The Pew Center has posted a helpful thumbnail sketch of Pentecostals on its website. Let me summarize some of the more significant points:
*** While only slightly more than 4% of the country are in these groups, they account for at least 13% of evangelicals. The greatest concentration of these groups is in the South.
*** Pentecostals are very faithful in church attendance and prayer and they are very certain about their belief in God.
*** They believe that the Bible is the literal Word of God and have received direct answers to prayer.
*** On the hot button social issues, they have very conservative views. For example, 35% of Pentecostals believe that abortion should be illegal in all cases.
*** They believe that the government should do more to help the needy and that religion should play an active role in politics and public life.

******************
To restate a point I have made before, my intent in doing this blog is to present items that I hope will generate some thought on the part of the reader. It is impossible to do this, at least for me, without showing some of my perspectives, but I have chosen to present ideas with which I disagree as well.

One reader, Anonymous, has chosen to make several comments about my last posting that I would like to address.
1) Anon said, "I can't imagine that you would not want a public servant to have a strong sense of ethics and a moral compass." In re-reading my blog, I did not say anything about desiring a public official who did not have a strong sense of ethics and a moral compass. There is a difference, however, in having a strong sense of personal ethics based on one's particular religious interpretations and expecting or working for national policy to reflect that.
2) Anon said, "You talk about legislation, when in fact she is running on a ticket to take an executive role." That is true. Yet, we elect a President and Vice-President to lead the country, and both executive positions have a great influence on what happens legislatively as the past 8 years have shown. This does not even factor in the influence of Presidential signing statements on the implementation of legislation as used by President George W. Bush. I know that Sarah Palin will not be the President, but no one knows what influence she may have in a McCain administration.
3) Anon said, "Second, do you not believe that God has a plan for the world, and that things are unfolding according to his plan?" This is the second time that someone under the Anon banner asked this of me. The last time this question was raised was in response to my tirade about Kirk Cameron's assertion that everything, including catastrophic illnesses, like cancer, and natural diasters are attributed to the hand of God.

My answer is simple. It all depends on what you mean by a "plan for the world." Do you assert that God is the direct causal agent for absolutely everything that happens in the world? And, that, thus, all that does happen is part of a coherent and directed path for all of the people in the world? If so, then, - No, I do not believe that all things that have happened are according to God's plan.

Reflections on Faith and American Politics 2008 - 2nd Verse

I was asked in a comment to my last posting where to find a transcript to the Saddleback Forum. Several unofficial versions exist on the internet, but, at http://www.rickwarrennews.com/, you can find the 'official' final transcript. I know I will have other comments to make about the questions asked by Rick Warren, since there were so many questions that dealt explicitly or implicitly with issues of faith. You, though, may want to read the full transcript yourself.

Before delving more deeply into the Presidential candidates, I would like to join the fray about the Republican Vice Presidential candidate. It has been widely reported that Sarah Palin was raised in a Roman Catholic household, but she has spent most of her religious life in Pentecostal or Assemblies of God or Independent "Bible" type churches. Those on the political right have rejoiced over John McCain's choice; those on the political left have bemoaned the choice.

While I have major theological disagreements with that segment of Christianity, Governor Palin's personal religious affiliation does not bother me. From my perspective, she could be Ba'hai, Quaker, Muslim, Buddhist, Congregationalist, or anything else and that would be fine. Here, I am in agreement with Thomas Jefferson who wrote in a letter in 1813, "Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle." So, Governor Palin's personal religious views do not bother me unless her particular views become the basis for legislation that would then be applied to all people, even to those who do not share her views.

Will this happen? No one can know at this point. Governor Palin, of course, is quick to assert that she can separate her personal religious views from her public responsibilities. I hope she is correct. The fervency with which the Assemblies of God, Pentecostal, and Independent Bible folks I have met throughout my life hold to their religious views make me think that Governor Palin's views will have an impact on her. In a CNN interview, one of the Governor's former pastors declared that he has no doubt her religious beliefs will influence her decision making when it comes to government policy. Will this be good for the country? No one can know at this point, but I do not think it will be a good thing.

There have already been some public pronouncements about things that make me squirm. For example, her comfort level in having some form of intelligent design taught in science classes and her statement identifying the construction of a gas pipeline in Alaska with God's will make me uncomfortable. The next several weeks will certainly be interesting.

Reflections on Faith and American Politics 2008

Personal Note: My last post was intended to help me gauge whether or not to continue this endeavor. While I received very little feedback online, I will continue on for at least a while.

The last act of the American presidential contest for 2008 is underway. The major players are no longer the 'presemptive' nominees; the ratification of Barack Obama and John McCain by their respective parties took place. Each has selected their running mate, and, now, the game is afoot.

Much of the buzz from the GOP convention revolved around the selection of Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska, as the Vice-Presidential nominee. Experts from the right and the left have dealt with her religious background. The more conservative pundits are lavish in their praise of her religiosity; the more liberal ones issue warnings. While Governor Palin did not mention her religious views during her acceptance speech, it still seems that her religius principles and impulses will become a campaign issue, since she has spoken before of them.

Before I would address anything about Governor Palin, I want to go back to the Saddleback Valley Candidate Forum to consider one Q&A from it. Before that, however, a FULL DISCOSURE statement is in order. First, I have a lot of respect for Rick Warren and his wife for using much of the profits from his wildly successful book to help fund needful projects in third-world countries. Second, the fact that Reverend Warren acknowledges a broader agenda for people of faith beyond one or two hot button issues is a good thing. That said, I am not now, nor have I ever been, a fan of his book or his politics. Further, I regret the decision of both candidates to appear in that forum without making a similar appearance in a mainline Protestant church, a Catholic Church, a Jewish synagogue, a Buddhist Temple, and a Muslim masjid. This seems to put a great deal of power in the hands of one segment of American people of faith. Finally, I think I agree with an op-ed piece on the Saddleback Forum written by Martin Marty that appeared in the Washington Post in which Dr. Marty wrote, "It is almost impossible to stage events with a focus like this without falling into the trap of 'using' God." It seemed to me that the forum was designed to use God politically.

Now, on to the point.

During the forum Rick Warren asked: Does evil exist? And if it does, do we ignore it? Do we negotiate with it? Do we contain it? Do we defeat it?

Barack Obama's answer: Evil does exist. I mean, I think we see evil all the time. We see evil in Darfur. We see evil, sadly, on the streets of our cities. We see evil in parents who viciously abuse their children. I think it has to be confronted. It has to be confronted squarely, and one of the things that I strongly believe is that, now, we are not going to, as individuals, be able to erase evil from the world. That is God's task, but we can be soldiers in that process, and we can confront it when we see it. Now, the one thing that I think is very important is for to us have some humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil, because a lot of evil's been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying to confront evil. [WARREN: In the name of good.] In the name of good, and I think, you know, one thing that's very important is having some humility in recognizing that just because we think that our intentions are good, doesn't always mean that we're going to be doing good.

John McCain's answer: Defeat it. A couple of points. One, if I'm president of the United States, my friends, if I have to follow him to the gates of hell, I will get bin Laden and bring him to justice. I will do that. And I know how to do that. I will get that done. (APPLAUSE). No one, no one should be allowed to take thousands of American — innocent American lives. Of course, evil must be defeated. My friends, we are facing the transcendent challenge of the 21st century — radical Islamic extremism. Not long ago in Baghdad, al Qaeda took two young women who were mentally disabled, and put suicide vests on them, sent them into a marketplace and, by remote control, detonated those suicide vests. If that isn't evil, you have to tell me what is. And we're going to defeat this evil. And the central battleground according to David Petraeus and Osama bin Laden is the battle, is Baghdad, Mosul, Basra and Iraq and we are winning and succeeding and our troops will come home with honor and with victory and not in defeat. And that's what's happening. And we have — and we face this threat throughout the world. It's not just in Iraq. It's not just in Afghanistan. Our intelligence people tell us al Qaeda continues to try to establish cells here in the United States of America. My friends, we must face this challenge. We can face this challenge. And we must totally defeat it, and we're in a long struggle. But when I'm around, the young men and women who are serving this nation in uniform, I have no doubt, none.

I have always understood evil as a theological category. I have asked students in classes how they differentiate between something that is very, very bad and something that is evil. They have trouble responding to that and with good reason. That theological component comes in, and the students have difficulty in dealing with it. Typically, some act is seen as evil because of its scale. If a person kills one person, we know that is a bad thing, but we do not typically call the murderer 'evil'. A person kills 6 million people, and we call him evil.

Did you notice the differences in the responses of the two candidates to the question. Senator Obama recognized that evil occurs in many different ways in many different places - in Darfur, on the streets of our cities, and when parents abuse children. Yet, he recognizes that this is part of the human condition and that, as humans, we cannot presume to have the final answer to evil for that is God's province. Recognizing that does not excuse us from trying to right wrongs as we find them.

Senator McCain, on the other hand, identified one, and only one, source or example of evil in the world today - radical Islamic extremism, especially as embodied in Osama bin Laden. Further, he is confident that we - being the American people and specifically the American military - can face the challenge and defeat the evil.

While you may define evil as narrowly as Senator McCain does, I do not. I see evil impulses at work in human beings in myriad ways around the world. It is naive to think that, if bin Laden could be found and tried for his part in atrocities around the world, evil will be defeated and eliminated. Senator McCain may have scored points with the audience at Saddleback Valley with his answer as evidenced by the applause, but he failed miserably, in my opinion, in giving a thoughtful and reasoned answer to the question and in addressing all of the other instances of evil and what he would do to address them.