Civil Disobedience ... from Conservative Christians

I normally associate civil disobedience with more liberal causes and people, like Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., but, tomorrow, Sunday, September 28, approximately 36 ministers from 20 states will preach overtly political sermons and challenge the law restricting 501(c)(3) charitable groups from engaging in partisan political activity. These ministers are being encouraged in this course of action by the Alliance Defense Fund, the conservative answer to the ACLU.

According to Erik Stanley, a lawyer for the ADF, in a story published by the Washington Post, "The sermon will be an evaluation of conditions for office in light of scripture and doctrine. They will make a specific recommendation from the pulpit about how the congregation would vote. They could oppose a candidate. They could oppose both candidates. They could endorse a candidate. They could focus on a federal, state or local election."

Somewhat disingenuously, Mr. Stanley went on to say, "We're not encouraging any congregation to violate the law. What we're encouraging them to do is exercise their constitutional right in the face of an unconstitutional law." Actually, the ADF is encouraging the ministers and the congregations to violate the law. Whether an individual likes a law or not or thinks the law is constitutional or not is beside the point. If you disobey the law, you have violated the law. If you encourage someone to flaunt the law, you are encouraging them to violate the law.

In a Pew Forum Q&A, Robert W. Tuttle, David R. and Sherry Kirschner Berz Research Professor of Law and Religion, The George Washington University Law School, explained the issues involved. The first response sets an historic overview for the issue.

Before 1954, section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code permitted nonprofit organizations to endorse political candidates while remaining exempt from federal income tax. But in 1954, the U.S. Congress amended this part of the code to say that a charitable organization loses its tax-exempt status if it intervenes in a political campaign. Why did Congress add this restriction?
Many members of Congress, including Lyndon B. Johnson, a senator at the time, voted for the amendment because they were concerned about nonprofit organizations funding their opponents' political campaigns. But because there was little debate over the amendment or how it would influence churches, we don't know precisely why Congress enacted the amendment.

Notably, the 1954 amendment is often misunderstood as limiting political advocacy, but the rule's actual purpose has to do with political contributions. Under the Internal Revenue Code, there are many different kinds of tax-exempt organizations. For example, section 527 of the code exempts all sorts of political organizations from federal income tax. But organizations that qualify as charitable groups under section 501(c)(3) are special because donors to these organizations may deduct their contributions from their own federal income taxes. So a primary purpose of the 1954 amendment was to prevent donors from deducting political contributions from their taxes.

I have been in parish ministry for 28 years now. In all of that time, I have never felt constricted by the IRS ruling that I could not engage in partisan politics from the pulpit. As an opinionated private citizen, I always had a political view and shared that with folks as a private citizen. I never saw a need to stand in the pulpit and, invoking the authority of God, say to the congregation, "Vote for this slate of candidates." I will say I have incurred the wrath of some church members because I would not endorse particular candidates or political parties from the pulpit.

What do you think? Should ministers be able to stand in the pulpit between now and November 4 and say to the people, "Vote for Obama/Biden or vote for McCain/Palin?" If so, why? If not, why not?

David Foster Wallace Quote

Roughly two weeks ago, the news emerged of the apparent suicide of novelist David Foster Wallace. I confess that his style never appealed to me so I never finished any of his novels. After his death, his commencement speech at Kenyon College in 2005 began to hit the internet. I was struck by this portion of his remarks:

"Because here's something else that's true. In the day-to-day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And an outstanding reason for choosing some sort of God or spiritual-type thing to worship -- be it J.C. or Allah, be it Yahweh or the Wiccan mother-goddess or the Four Noble Truths or some infrangible set of ethical principles -- is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive. If you worship money and things -- if they are where you tap real meaning in life -- then you will never have enough. Never feel you have enough. It's the truth. Worship your own body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly, and when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths before they finally plant you. On one level, we all know this stuff already -- it's been codified as myths, proverbs, clichés, bromides, epigrams, parables: the skeleton of every great story. The trick is keeping the truth up-front in daily consciousness. Worship power -- you will feel weak and afraid, and you will need ever more power over others to keep the fear at bay. Worship your intellect, being seen as smart -- you will end up feeling stupid, a fraud, always on the verge of being found out. And so on.

Look, the insidious thing about these forms of worship is not that they're evil or sinful; it is that they are unconscious. They are default-settings. They're the kind of worship you just gradually slip into, day after day, getting more and more selective about what you see and how you measure value without ever being fully aware that that's what you're doing. And the world will not discourage you from operating on your default-settings, because the world of men and money and power hums along quite nicely on the fuel of fear and contempt and frustration and craving and the worship of self. Our own present culture has harnessed these forces in ways that have yielded extraordinary wealth and comfort and personal freedom. The freedom to be lords of our own tiny skull-sized kingdoms, alone at the center of all creation. This kind of freedom has much to recommend it. But of course there are all different kinds of freedom, and the kind that is most precious you will not hear much talked about in the great outside world of winning and achieving and displaying. The really important kind of freedom involves attention, and awareness, and discipline, and effort, and being able truly to care about other people and to sacrifice for them, over and over, in myriad petty little unsexy ways, every day. That is real freedom. The alternative is unconsciousness, the default-setting, the "rat race" -- the constant gnawing sense of having had and lost some infinite thing."

While I may not agree with all of his points, he makes a strong case against the typical 21st century idols. How do his comments strike you?

Messianic type rhetoric in politics

I read a piece by Steven Waldman on BeliefNet about an e-mail he had received. He has it posted on his blog and made comments about it; his article can be accessed at: http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/09/was-sarah-palin-sent-by-god-to.html.

I went to the originating website to see the original piece in its entirety. Should you choose to verify my posting, it is at: http://www.injesus.com/index.php?module=message&task=view&MID=YB007F5G&GroupID=2A004N9G.

Barack, Sarah, and the Bible
Jim Bramlett
Sep 1 2008 07:54PM
Dear friends:

Barack Hussein Obama has taken the nation by storm. From obscurity, with zero executive experience, or much of any kind, he has vaulted into the position of Presidential frontrunner. It is stunning. On the surface, it appears attributable only to his eloquent oratory and his race. But an invisible factor may be a strong spiritual force behind him, causing some people to actually swoon in his presence.

I have been very concerned that he has publicly said that he does not believe Jesus is the only way to heaven. This makes both the Bible and Jesus a liar, and it means that Christ has died in vain. A person cannot be a true Christian who believes that there are other ways of forgiveness, salvation, and eternal life with God. Only Jesus has paid the price for that.

Therefore, there is, indeed, another spirit involved. And this spirit has come into our national life like a flood. Last week at Obama's acceptance speech, that spirit exalted itself in front of a Greek temple-like stage, and to a huge audience like in a Roman arena. Omama was portrayed as god-like. His voice thundered as a god's voice.

At the end, Democratic sympathizer Pastor Joel Hunter gave the benediction and shockingly invited everyone to close the prayer to their own (false) gods. This was surely an abomination, but it was compatible with Obama's expressed theology, and Hunter's leftist leanings.

God was not pleased.

And God says, "When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him" (Isaiah 59:19).

Enter Governor Sarah Palin. With incredible timing, the very next day, Sarah Palin also appeared out of nowhere. Her shocking selection as John McCain's running mate stunned the world and suddenly took all the wind out of Obama's sails.

We quickly learned that Sarah is a born-again, Spirit-filled Christian, attends church, and has been a ministry worker.

Sarah is that standard God has raised up to stop the flood. She has the anointing. You can tell by how the dogs are already viciously attacking her. But they will not be successful. She knows the One she serves and will not be intimidated.

Back in the 1980s, I sensed that Israel's little-known Benjamin Netanyahu was chosen by God for an important end-time role. I still believe that. I now have that same sense about Sarah Palin.

Today I did some checking and discovered that both her first and last names are biblical words, one in Hebrew the other in Greek:
Sarah. Wife of Abraham and mother of Isaac. In Hebrew, Sarah means "noble woman" (Strong's 8283).
Palin. In Greek, the word means "renewal." (Strong's 3825).

A friend said he believes that Sarah Palin is a Deborah. Of Deborah, Smith's Bible Dictionary says, "A prophetess who judged Israel…. She was not so much a judge as one gifted with prophetic command…. and by virtue of her inspiration 'a mother in Israel.'"

Only God knows the future and how she may be used by Him, but may this noble woman serve to bring renewal in the land, and inspiration.

Jim

The language of this piece amazed me. First, in intimating that there is some demonic type force involved in the Obama campaign, see the first and third paragraphs above, Mr. Bramlett goes beyond the line, as far as I am concerned, in couching this election as the forces of God versus the forces of the evil one. That certainly identifies all Republicans as being on God's side, and God being on theirs, and all Democrats as being of the 'other side' in the cosmic struggle, and we all know who that is. He is suggesting that Senator Obama is taking an anti-Christ approach, if not making an anti-Christ identification for himself. Second, Mr. Bramlett compounds that language with messianic-type language in suggesting that Governor Palin has the anointing and that God is the one who has placed her in this role and that the Governor has been chosen for an important role in the end-times. Third, he misuses the Greek language just a touch. While I am sure that he is quoting his sources correctly, the Greek word PALIN has a primary meaning of "back," as in to turn back to a place. Even with that, to suggest that her very name underscores her being chosen by God goes too far for me.

How do you respond to this language? If you support Governor Palin, do you agree with using this type of language in describing her?

Response to Evil

I have been taken to task somewhat - again by an anonymous responder - for not developing my differentiation between something that is bad and something that is evil more fully. Anon wrote: "I'm still wondering how you discriminate between evil and just really bad from back on September 7. Apparently you have to ask at least twice to show that you are serious about seeking an answer."

The number of askings have nothing to do with it. I have responded to very few of the comments made to my postings because I started this blog with the primary intent to provide fodder for others to reflect. Additionally, human beings have wrestled with the question of evil for millennia and produced thousands of pages devoted to the topic. I do not think I could adequately address all of the questions related to evil in this brief forum. Finally, I alluded, at least, to my differentiation in my original posting on September 7. In my view, there is a theological component in evil. this means that I hold a theological understanding of evil being related to sin, which certainly would require many thousands more pages to discuss.

With that said, let me attempt a brief response. When a tsunami or an earthquake or a hurricane hits and many hundreds or thousands of people are killed or when a one year old child is diagnosed with a rare brain cancer, that is a bad and tragic thing to happen. I would not, though, classify these things as evil, though there are some theologians who have devised a classification of evil to include such events. I do not, however, because there is no human rebellion against God - that is sin - involved nor is there even a human component in causing the event. Is a flash flood that kills 10 people a bad thing? Yes. Is it evil? I do not think so.

You, of course, can have your own definition of evil. You can even believe that any tragic thing that happens to any person or group of people is the direct result of human sin - since all humans are inherently sinful, anything bad that happens to them is deserved and is a result of their sinfulness. I don't.

I would throw this back to others who might want to comment. Do you see a difference between something bad and something evil? If so, how do you define the difference?

Getting to Heaven

The Institute for Studies of Religion based at Baylor University has put out survey results on who Americans think will get to heaven. Interestingly, most of us are willing to think that a lot of folks are going to make it.

According to the results:
Percentage of people who said they thought "half or more" of the following
will get into heaven:
Average Americans: 54%
Christians: 72%
Jews: 46%
Buddhists: 37%
Muslims: 34%
Nonreligious people: 29%

So, a a majority of people in America, a nation that is overwhelmingly Christian, feels that at least half of all "average" Americans will make it to heaven; nearly half of Americans think that at least half of all Jews will go there too; roughly a third of those surveyed believe that half of all Buddhists and Muslims will make it, and nearly a third believe that half of all non-religious people will make it to heaven.

Rodney Stark, one of the premier sociologists of religion who is a co-director of the Institute, notes that, in earlier such surveys, as in the 1960's, the dominant belief was that only Christians would go to heaven. Opinions have obviously changed. There is one other result of interest in this survey; 29% of people had no opinion about the ultimate fate of people.

So, how do you feel? Do you think that at least 50% of the 'average' Americans will go to heaven? Do you think that even non-religious people will get there whether they believe in heaven, or in God, or not? Do you think people from non-Christian faiths will be in heaven?