7 Points of Commonality Between Religions?

Jacqueline Leo, a Director at the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, asserts that Islam, Christianity, and Judaism share seven common beliefs:

The Seven Shared Beliefs

1. Monotheism--belief in one God. Christians believe in the Holy Trinity (The Father, Son and Holy Spirit), but the three are one according to the New Testament.
2. Divine revelation--truths are revealed through the word of God. 3. Daily Prayer--Muslims must pray five times a day; Jews are supposed to thank God every day for the gifts he bestows; and Christians who follow Catholicism are to pray seven times a day, while most simply say nightly prayers.
4. Muslims, Christians and Jews all participate in religious fasts. Christians have Lent, a 40 day period of denial leading up to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus; Jews fast during Yom Kippur; and Muslims fast during the month of Ramadan.
5. Prophetic Tradition--all three religions believe in "messengers of God." Jews and Christians believe in Moses among others in the Old Testament; Muslims acknowledge many prophets of Allah cited in the Qur'an, the most important being Muhammad. All three honor Abraham as great prophet. Abraham believed in the one and only God. So if all three religions believe in Abraham, they would logically believe in the same God.
6. All three believe in almsgiving and charity.
7. All three believe in holy sites: Jerusalem for Jews and Christians, Mecca and Medina for Muslims.

Do you agree that these religions share these points? Do you think others do? Is it significant that these concepts are shared? What conclusions, if any, could you draw from this?

Whither Christianity in America?

America has long been seen by sociologists of religion as an anomaly among the nations of the world for our adherence to religious beliefs. Religion within the other industrialized and educated countries in the world has been on the decline for decades. Many Western European countries see the number of regular and frequent attenders in church services in the single percentages. In fact, it was this observed decline that led many sociologists to posit a secularization of the Western nations with the expectation that America would soon join the others and experience a similar downturn in religious belief and religiosity.

Unfortunately for those sociologists and their predictions, America’s faithfulness to religion remained strong. Some of these scholars even acknowledged their error.

Yet, in 2009, there were some interesting poll results that call America’s faithfulness to religion in general and Christianity in particular into question. For example, the 2009 American Religious Identification Survey showed that the number of Americans who claim no religious affiliation rose from 8% to 15%. Further, the largest concentration of such religiously unidentified was in the Northeast, the home of the Pilgrims and Puritans.

An April 2009 Newsweek poll showed that only 48% of Americans believed that faith will help answer all or most of the country’s current problems. This was a decline from 64% in a 1994 poll. And, 68% in the current poll said religion was losing its influence on American life.

Most telling, perhaps, are the results from a December 2009 Pew Research Center poll showing the amalgamation of religious views among Christians in America. From this research come the revelations that 17% of Christians believe in the “evil eye [the casting of curses]”, 22% believe in reincarnation, 23% believe in astrology, and 26% believe there is spiritual power in such things as mountains, trees, and crystals. None of these beliefs are accepted in traditionally orthodox Christianity.

So, what does all of this mean for religion in America? And for Christianity in America? Do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing?

Old-Fashioned Christmas?

Most Americans have a romanticized view of Christmas celebrations fueled by Bing Crosby's White Christmas and Clement Clarke Moore's Twas The Night Before Christmas. We see Christmas as a time of universal joy and family accord, even if we know of instances when that does not happen. We wax eloquently about celebrating an "Old Fashioned" Christmas.

But, how old fashioned a celebration do we want to have? The Boston Globe ran a story last weekend reminding us all that our romantized, idealized view of Christmas did not always prevail. The story can be found at: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/12/20/christmas_was_a_riot/.

The author, Stephen Nissenbaum, reminds us that:
-- For about 25 years in the 17th century, the Puritans of Massachusetts banned any celebration of Christmas because, in part, there is no scriptural admonition for Christians to celebrate the birth of Jesus.
-- Boston minister, Cotton Mather, saw Christmas as merely being an excuse for dancing and drunkenness, chambering [sexual activities] and wantonness.
-- In the 18th century, gangs of men in disguise on Christmas Day roamed from house to house demanding money or alcohol at the threat of violence.
-- And, that the promotion of items to purchase to give to others as Christmas gifts can be dated to the early 19th century.

We may want a purer and more spiritual celebration of Christmas, but looking for an old-fashioned Christmas is not necessarily be the answer.

Merry Chistmas everyone!

New Way To Proclaim CHRIST-mas

For years, I have critized how our culture has commercialized Christmas. I shudder at the introduction of Christmas ornaments, decorations, and gift-giving ideas weeks before Halloween. I have worked diligently to communicate a better way to celebrate Christmas to churches I have served.

This week, I was alerted to a new company that seeks to provide the perfect solution to this dilemma by a member of our church. She had seen reference to www.bosscreations.net on The Colbert Report. According to their website:

The Christian holiday, Christmas, is intended to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. However, over the years the decorations and celebrations for this holiday have become increasingly commercial and unrelated to Christ. Unfortunately, the holiday has become less about Jesus and more about gifts and Santa Claus.

At Boss Creations, it is our mission to help you bring the Word of God into your home during the Christian holiday seasons. We hope that you will share the Word with your family and friends and that you will begin new holiday traditions with Christ as the central figure.

In recent years, our Christmas holiday has been made to become a generic holiday for all religions with many being forced to call it a "Holiday" season instead of Christmas season. We, as Christians, must take a stand and rescue our religious holiday. We at Boss Creations believe that one way to do this is to decorate with more Christian-themed holiday decorations including The CHRIST-mas Tree.

We have figured a way to enhance the tradition of decorating a tree for Jesus at Christmas by adding a cross that acts as a reminder of Him. By changing our tree to include a cross, we are making a statement that we want to keep our Christmas holiday! Our new tree and decorations ideas will not only help to enhance our celebration of the Christmas holiday but will help to enlighten those who may decorate for Christmas but may not be "Christians."

I would encourage you to visit their web-site to see their collection, including their CHRIST-mas tree.

This leads me to wonder. Are our options for the celebration of Christmas limited to excessive consumer spending or the use of evangelistic messages in our decorations? Is the use of such decorations the only way - or the best way - to honor Christ at Christmas?

This would certainly qualify as another battle in the War on Christmas, so what do you think? Would you use such a tree or do you have another way to honor Jesus the Christ at Christmas?

A New Front in the 'War On Christmas'

Rabbi Brad Hirschfield in his blog on Belief Net referenced an article in Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper. The article, written by Morten Bethelsen, can be found at: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1135512.html.

Seems that a group in Israel, the Lobby For Jewish Values, has been distributing fliers condemning the celebration of Christmas by Israeli Jews and calling for a boycott of restaurants and hotels that put up Christmas trees and use Christian symbols. Further, this group is trying to have the kashrut certification, the kosher certificate, of restaurants that utilize Christmas decorations. This, of course, would have a devastating affect on a restaurant in Israel.

Quoting from the fliers, The people of Israel have given their soul over the years in order to maintain the values of the Torah of Israel and the Jewish identity. You should also continue to follow this path of the Jewish people's tradition and not give in to the clownish atmosphere of the end of the civil year. And certainly not help those businesses that sell or put up the foolish symbols of Christianity.

What the foolish symbols are is not defined, but the intent of the warning is quite clear. These people believe that one cannot be a good Jew and have anything to do with Christmas. In this way, they are the mirror image of the conservative Christians in America who say that one cannot be a good Christian and wish someone a "Happy Holiday" instead of "Merry Christmas."

Again, from the Haaretz article, Samuel Scott, working at the Refuah Institute, raises this issue: The Jewish state wants to be two things: a Jewish state and a free, democratic state. But what is the solution when these competing priorities conflict? If all Israelis start celebrating Christmas (either as Christians or as secularized revelers), then it will arguably no longer be a Jewish state. If the government bans everyone from having anything to do with the holiday, then it will no longer be a free state.

Do those conservative Christians in our country believe that, if people quit saying "Merry Christmas", America will somehow lose some status as a Christian nation? And, what do we do with the reality of America as a country that welcomes all people of any faith or no faith? Do we want to force all of them to say "Merry Christmas" or else?

What do you think?

What qualities would you demand in an elected official?

Most of us, even in our most cynical moments, would hope that the people for whom we vote to represent us on school boards, city councils, state senates, or in Washington would be honest, fair, and concerned about their constituents. In North Carolina, according to the state constitution, such a person must also believe in God. The precise wording, as quoted in the Post article written by David Waters, is: Article 6, section 8 of the North Carolina constitution states: "The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God."

In a story carried by both the NY Times and the Washinmgton Post, we learn that Cecil Bothwell was elected to serve on the Asheville City Council, placing third in a six person field. Unfortunately for him, his political opponents raised the specter of his disqualification for office based on the state constitution. Unfortunately for them, the US Constitution trumps the state wording by affirming: "No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Also, unfortunately for Mr. Bothwell's opponents, he has affirmed that the exact wording of the North Carolina constitution wouldn't apply to him anyway. "I am not 'an avowed atheist.' . . . I don't 'deny the being of Almighty God.' I simply consider the question of denial or acceptance irrelevant."

So, do you think the NC provision should remain in force? Or, do you think that such a formal and official religious test for public office should be swept aside?

Are you still Christian or any other faith?

With the spate of aggressive campaigns deriding people of faith and the number of scandals relating to the church, an important question to consider is: If you are a person of faith, why do you still give credence to that faith. Diana Butler Bass, in an interview about her book, A People's History of Christianity, approached that question. This can be found in its entirety at the Religious Dispatches site, http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/mediaculture/1466/.

The interview opened with this question and answer:
What inspired you to write A People's History of Christianity? What sparked your interest?
A conversation with a friend prompted the writing of A People’s History. About a dozen years ago, she quizzed me as to why I was still a Christian. Although I actually tried to avoid answering her, I eventually realized that I had remained a Christian largely because I am held in faith by history—the past provides me with spiritual memory and a community that exists through time. Many people, of course, reject Christianity on the basis of its history. Of course, Christians have committed much historical mischief and done outright evil things. But that’s not the whole story. There’s much in the tradition to be both admirable and imitated. So, I decided to write “the other side of the story,” the sort of history that enables me to stay Christian.

So, if you are a person of faith, why are you still one? If you are not a person of faith, why have you maintained that resistance to faith?

Religious News Part II

The second item Joshua sent me reported on criticisms of President Obama for bumping the Charlie Brown Christmas Special from network TV with a side of innuendo about the President supposedly being a Muslim.

According to an article in the Memphis Commercial Appeal [ http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/12/president_obama_is_a_muslim_te.html with a link there to the original article written by Mark Memmott, Russell Wiseman], the mayor of Arlington, Tennessee posted the following on his Facebook page -
"Ok, so, this is total crap, we sit the kids down to watch 'The Charlie Brown Christmas Special' and our muslim president is there, what a load.....try to convince me that wasn't done on purpose. Ask the man if he believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and he will give you a 10 minute disertation (sic) about it....w...hen the answer should simply be 'yes'...."

The Commercial Appeal reporter notes that Glenn Beck also chimes in on the crtiticisms of the President for pre-empting Charlie Brown. Though, as I looked at the original article, Beck uses a decidedly different and more cutting approach.

Isn't it wonderful that people who do not support President Obama can continue to use baseless charges - President Obama is a Muslim; President Obama is not a US citizen; etc. - as legitimate ways to voice their criticism of the administration? I wonder how bumping the Charlie Brown Christmas Special can be equated with anti-Christian sentiment? True, Linus does quote from Luke 2, but the central theme of the show revolves around a forlorn Christmas tree, rescued by Charlie Brown, not anything about the gospel message.

Religious News

My son, Joshua, sent me links to two pieces of news relating to religion.

First, from Foreign Policy magazine, is a critique of New Atheism. New atheism is distinguished from regular old atheism by its militant stance against religion. No longer content to disbelieve, the proponents of New Atheism call for an active campaign to discredit religion and adherents of religion. The piece, written by Robert Wright, can be found at: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/11/30/the_anti_god_squad?page=0,1.

The concluding paragraphs of the piece follow:

And there's a subtle but potent sense in which New Atheism can steer foreign policy to the right. Axiomatic to New Atheism is that religion is not just factually wrong, but the root of evil, which suggests that other proposed root causes of the sort typically stressed on the left aren't really the problem. Sam Harris, in discussing terrorism, wholly dismisses such contributing factors as "the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza," "the collusion of Western powers with corrupt dictatorships," and "the endemic poverty and lack of economic opportunity that now plague the Arab world." The problem, Harris states, is religion, period.

Most New Atheists aren't expressly right wing, but even so their discounting of the material causes of Islamist radicalism can be "objectively" right wing (as in George Orwell's assertion that pacifists were "objectively pro-fascist" regardless of their views about fascism).

Dawkins, for example, has written that if there were no religion then there would be "no Israeli/Palestinian wars." This view is wrong -- the conflict started as an essentially secular argument over land -- but it's popular among parts of the U.S. and Israeli right. The reason is its suggestion that there's no point in, say, removing Israeli settlements so long as the toxin of religion is in the air.
All the great religions have shown time and again that they're capable of tolerance and civility when their adherents don't feel threatened or disrespected. At the same time, as some New Atheists have now shown, you don't have to believe in God to exhibit intolerance and incivility.

Maybe this is the New Atheists' biggest problem: As living proof that religion isn't a prerequisite for divisive fundamentalism, they are walking rebuttals to their own ideology.

It seems as if Dawkins, Harris, et al are guilty of making religion the scapegoat for all the problems of the world. Do you buy what they are selling?

Is Modernist Religion Doomed?

Father Longenecker, an Anglican convert to Catholocism who is serving a parish in South Carolina, asserts that modernist religion is doomed. Interested readers can read the entire post at: http://gkupsidedown.blogspot.com/2009/11/why-modernist-christianity-will-die.html.

His 10 reasons why he believes this is so include:
-- Modernists deny supernaturalism and therefore they are not really religious.
-- Modernism is essentially individualist and not communal. Each person makes up his own mind about matters.
-- Modernism is historically revisionist.
-- Modernists contracept and abort. They don't have enough children to train up in their religion, and those children they do have are often taught that freedom of choice is a higher virtue than commitment or duty in religion.
-- Modernists allow for moral degeneracy and that saps the strength out of real religion.
-- Modernists aren't actually much fun.
-- Modernists are dull. They've so little imagination and are so literal about everything. They do not rejoice over the seeming absurdity of religion.
I disagree with several of his points, and, in fact, think that his analysis could just as easily apply to his brand of "real" religion. But, what do you think?

Between Cox proclaiming the failure of fundamentalist and Longenecker the doom of modernism, who do you think is more accurate?

Is Fundamentalism failing?

In a recent essay for the Boston Globe, Harvey Cox asserted that fundamentalist religion is and will fail. Interested readers can access the article at: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/11/08/why_fundamentalism_will_fail/.

Cox believes that:
The very nature of human religiousness is changing in a way inimical to fundamentalist thought. The most rapidly growing spiritual groups today focus not on someone else’s authority, but on a direct encounter with the divine. Whatever else it may mean that so many people call themselves “spiritual but not religious,” it suggests they still yearn for contact with the sacred, but are suspicious of the scaffolding, the doctrines, and hierarchies through which it has often been conveyed.

He concludes:
But a tectonic shift in religion is underway, and the fundamentalist moment is ending. A new and promising chapter in the long story of human faith is beginning. Its untidiness often reminds me of the exuberant earliest years of Christianity. Maturity comes with time. Future historians may look back on the 20th century as a time when something called “fundamentalism” interrupted, but only briefly, the age-old human search for a way to live in the face of mystery, and to envision what Martin Luther King called a “beloved community.”

As one who came from a very conservative Christian community and who studied "fundamentalist" expressions of Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism and who has seen the power of that type of religion, I would not be as confident as Cox is. What do you think?

Culture Wars

Conservative Christians in America, and elsewhere, define the "life-or-death" issues for the world as: homosexuality (and all things relating to equal rights for the LGBT), abortion, and the perceived discrimination against conservative Christians.

In case you doubt that, an influential group of conservative Christians crafted and signed a declaration - the Manhattan Declaration - proclaiming they were no longer going to acquiesce to the depraved culture and were going to stand up for their rights. Quoting from said declaration:
While the whole scope of Christian moral concern, including a special concern for the poor and vulnerable, claims our attention, we are especially troubled that in our nation today the lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are severely threatened; that the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies; that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions.

I read this declaration this week as I read two other pieces. One was a news piece about pending legislation in Uganda. According to a story by Geoffrey York in the Globe and Mail,
The Commonwealth convenes for a summit this week amid growing furor over a proposed law that would impose life imprisonment on homosexuals in Uganda, whose President is chairing the gathering.

The law, proceeding through Uganda's Parliament and supported by some of its top leaders, would imprison anyone who knows of the existence of a gay or lesbian and fails to inform the police within 24 hours. It requires the death penalty for "aggravated homosexuality" – defined as any sexual act between gays or lesbians in which one person has the HIV virus.

The second was an essay written by John Shelby Spong who proclaimed,
The battle in both our culture and our church to rid our souls of this dying prejudice is finished. A new consciousness has arisen. A decision has quite clearly been made. Inequality for gay and lesbian people is no longer a debatable issue in either church or state. Therefore, I will from this moment on refuse to dignify the continued public expression of ignorant prejudice by engaging it. I do not tolerate racism or sexism any longer. From this moment on, I will no longer tolerate our culture's various forms of homophobia. I do not care who it is who articulates these attitudes or who tries to make them sound holy with religious jargon.

So, who do you think is right?

Scientology Debate Down Under

Senator Nick Xenophon demanded an investigation of the Church of Scientology. He asserted: "I also believe the activities of this organisation should be scrutinised by parliament because Australian taxpayers are, in effect, supporting Scientology through its tax-exempt status. I say to all Australians: as you fill in your tax return next July or August, ask yourself how you feel knowing that you are paying tax and yet this criminal organisation is not.
"Do you want Australian tax exemptions to be supporting an organisation that coerces its followers into having abortions? Do you want to be supporting an organisation that defrauds, that blackmails, that falsely imprisons? Because, on the balance of evidence provided by victims of Scientology, you probably are."

There are two articles that summarize the issues available at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/police-take-up-scientology-complaints/story-e6frg6nf-1225799494770
and
http://wl.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26378104-5014047,00.html.

I am not a supporter of Scientology, but the debate raises important questions in the modern world. Can, or should, the government define what is a legitimate religious organization? If so, what criteria do they use? If not, can any organization lay claim to the specific rights of a religious group? Should religious groups be granted tax-exempt status? If so, can any religious group be denied such status? Can, or should, the government forbid particular practices of a religion? If so, what standards should be used? If not, would this open the door to an "anything goes" on the religious front?

Why Go To Church?

In a column at EthicsDaily.com, Barry Howard shares what Teddy Roosevelt said on the subject in a 1917 article in Ladies Home Journal. According to Howard, here are President Rooselvelt's reasons:

1. In the actual world a churchless community, a community where men have abandoned and scoffed at or ignored their religious needs, is a community on the rapid downgrade.

2. Church work and church attendance mean the cultivation of the habit of feeling some responsibility for others and the sense of braced moral strength, which prevents a relaxation of one's own moral fiber.

3. There are enough holidays for most of us that can quite properly be devoted to pure holiday making. Sundays differ from other holidays, among other ways, in the fact that there are 52 of them every year. On Sunday, go to church.

4. Yes, I know all the excuses. I know that one can worship the Creator and dedicate oneself to good living in a grove of trees, or by a running brook, or in one's own house, just as well as in church. But I also know as a matter of cold fact the average man does not thus worship or thus dedicate himself. If he strays away from church, he does not spend his time in good works or lofty meditation. He looks over the colored supplement of the newspaper.

5. He may not hear a good sermon at church. But unless he is very unfortunate, he will hear a sermon by a good man who, with his good wife, is engaged all the week long in a series of wearing, humdrum and important tasks for making hard lives a little easier.

6. He will listen to and take part in reading some beautiful passages from the Bible. And if he is not familiar with the Bible, he has suffered a loss.

7. He will probably take part in singing some good hymns.

8. He will meet and nod to, or speak to, good quiet neighbors. He will come away feeling a little more charitably toward all the world, even toward those excessively foolish young men who regard churchgoing as rather a soft performance.

9. I advocate a man's joining in church works for the sake of showing his faith by his works.

10. The man who does not in some way, active or not, connect himself with some active, working church misses many opportunities for helping his neighbors, and therefore, incidentally, for helping himself.

This is not as snappy as one of Letterman's lists, but do you think any of the reasons are still valid?

The Devil Made Me Properous

In the BostonGlobe is an article [found at http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/11/15/the_curious_economic_effects_of_religion/?page=full] linking religious belief and, most particularly, a belief in hell to developing economies. Quoting from the article by Michael Fitzgerald,
Among the most provocative findings have come from Robert Barro, a renowned economist at Harvard, and his wife, Rachel McCleary, a researcher at Harvard’s Taubman Center. McCleary, the daughter of a Methodist missionary, felt that she had seen religion change people’s economic behavior, and wondered why economists didn’t look at it as a potential factor in economic development. Barro found the idea intriguing.

The two collected data from 59 countries where a majority of the population followed one of the four major religions, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism. They ran this data - which covered slices of years from 1981 to 2000, measuring things like levels of belief in God, afterlife beliefs, and worship attendance - through statistical models. Their results show a strong correlation between economic growth and certain shifts in beliefs, though only in developing countries. Most strikingly, if belief in hell jumps up sharply while actual church attendance stays flat, it correlates with economic growth. Belief in heaven also has a similar effect, though less pronounced. Mere belief in God has no effect one way or the other. Meanwhile, if church attendance actually rises, it slows growth in developing economies.

There is, of course, a classic book by Max Weber entitled The Prostestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism in which he relates the work ethic of Calvinistic influenced Protestant Christianity on the work ethic of the people. Simplistically speaking, it was the "work harder to win favor argument."

So, do you think that being a follower of Calvin, or a believer in God, or a fearer of hellfire and damnation makes any difference in economic success?

Bullying the LDS Church?

SLC made the news this week as the City Council endorsed an act guaranteeing civil rights protections for homosexual and transgender persons. The bigger news was the endorsement of the legislation by the leadership of the LDS Church.

Now, a fax is being distributed in SLC, and perhaps elsewhere, claiming that the LDS Church had no option but to give their support for the act. According to the fax, "The LDS Church had to Stand [sic] as an "Entity" and protect itself. (publically [sic] they cannot come out and say this)". Further, the fax proclaims, "SHAME on UTAH GAYS for persecuting, harassing, using intimidation tactics, and staging scenarios to corner The LDS Church into endorsing their movement and to use the LDS Church as a backbone to sway the LDS voters and legislators to vote for thyeir laws!"

To this, I would make the following points:
-- It is preposterous for anyone to claim that the Utah homosexual community has enough power and numbers to bully the LDS Church into doing anything! That would be like some small group in Rome being charged with bullying the Catholic Church into doing something the church did not approve.
-- At the time the legislation was being considered, the LDS Church issued its statement of support by affirming it always supported equal civil rights for people. The fax is essentially saying that the Church lied about its support as a politically motivated and expedient move.
-- The fax claims that "All anti-discrimination laws containing sexual orientation in them, [sic] are made with the sole intent to promote the acceptance of homosexuality and other sexual behaviors as a lifestyle to the children." It seems that these laws are to protect people from being fired or being thrown out of housing solely because of their sexual orientation. Further, this claim suggests that some child can be forced to become a homosexual.

Crypto-Christians

No, this is not part of the plot line of the next Dan Brown novel. It refers to a world-wide phenomenon of people who embrace the Christian faith, but, because of the threat of persecution, remain hidden among the general population.

Historically, adherents of various faiths, including Christians, have had to resort to extreme tactics to guarantee their safety. One needs only to think of the Jewish population in Spain in the 14th century or Christians in Japan in the 17th century to recognize that it has not always been safe to be a member of a particular religious group.

In a July 14, 2009 article in the Christian Century, Philip Jenkins writes:
The phenomenon of crypto-Christianity is likely to become much more common in the coming decades. Defensive tactics are scarcely needed when the vast majority of Christians live in self-defined Christian nations, but they become acutely relevant when millions of believers live in deeply hostile environments, in societies that are (for instance) predominately Muslim or Hindu.

The numbers of such clandestine Christians are not precisely defined, as you would imagine. Estimates put the size of this bloc of Christian belivers at 120 million. If this is true, writes Jenkins, crypto-Christians would constitute one of the world's largest religious groups.

It is extremely interesting to me that these groups of hidden Christians exist in an age when active, practicing Christians are almost extinct in Europe and are on the decline in America, the last bastion of religious adherence in the West. What does their existence say about the religious tendencies of human beings? What does their persistence in the face of persecution say about the nature and character of the religious enterprise in the West? Do they speak for the need of greater religious acceptance in all countries? Would they be as faithful if they were allowed to worship openly?

It's just the wrong thing to do.

I saw that a church in Dayton Tennessee has on its church sign the following message: Eric Berry for Heisman. For those who do not know, Eric Berry is the starting strong safety for the University of Tennessee Volunteers football team. He was named an All-American last year and will probably be an All-American this year. He is also among the semi-finalists for two other prestigious college football awards. By all accounts, he is as good a person as he is a good football player.

BUT, I do not think that using a church sign to support his chances to win the Heisman Award is the right thing to do.

Disclaimers are in order: I am a graduate of the University of Tennessee; I am a college football fan; I am a fan of UT football in particular; I do realize the truth that, for many Southerners, college football is the one true religion. That said, I still do not think a church sign is the proper medium to show support for a particular player or a particular team. Shouldn't the church use that space to promote something else of greater importance - like justice or equality or caring for people?

Finale for Armstrong's "Think Again about God"

The final two points that Karen Armstrong deals with science and politics. The statements she considered are simple: "God is the Enemy of Science" and "God is Incompatible with Democracy". The answers are equally simple: "He doesn't have to be." and "No".

Armstrong's comments on each topic are interesting. Looking at science, she wrote, The conflict with science is symptomatic of a reductive idea of God in the modern West. Ironically, it was the empirical emphasis of modern science that encouraged many to regard God and religious language as fact rather than symbol, thus forcing religion into an overly rational, dogmatic, and alien literalism.

And, in considering the relationship between religion and democracies, she centered on what many see as an inherent conflict between Islam and western style democrcy. She asserted: The 2007 Gallup poll shows that support for democratic freedoms and women's rights is widespread in the Muslim world, and many governments are responding -- albeit haltingly -- to pressures for more political participation. There is, however, resistance to a wholesale adoption of the Western secular model. Many want to see God reflected more clearly in public life, just as a 2006 Gallup poll revealed that 46 percent of Americans believe that God should be the source of legislation.

As a professional in the field of religion, I admit to a level of bias, but I think her concluding paragraphs are spot on:
Religion may not be the cause of the world’s political problems, but we still need to understand it if we are to solve them. "Whoever took religion seriously!” exclaimed an exasperated U.S. government official after the Iranian Revolution. Had policymakers bothered to research contemporary Shiism, the United States could have avoided serious blunders during that crisis. Religion should be studied with the same academic impartiality and accuracy as the economy, politics, and social customs of a region, so that we learn how religion interacts with political tension, what is counterproductive, and how to avoid giving unnecessary offense.

And study it we'd better, for God is back. And if "he" is perceived in an idolatrous, literal-minded way, we can only expect more dogmatism, rigidity, and religiously articulated violence in the decades ahead.

Thus, I agree that no one should buy into the argument that the things of God are passe in our society. This speaks to my belief that all people ought to become more informed of religious beliefs.

Parts IV & V

"God is for the poor and ignorant" and "God is bad for women" are the next two characterizations of religion that Armstrong considered. Her answers are "No" and "Yes."

Certainly, the example of America, even with an increasing number of people who claim to be an atheist or to disdain organized religion, is enough to dispute the first statement. The USA is both the richest country in the world and the most religious.

Looking deeper, the major world religions all "developed initially in a nascent market economy" to quote Armstrong. Max Weber's classic "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" linked the religious fervor of protestantism and the development of modern capitalism.

That is not to say that religions embrace the unbridled and self-centered greed that is a core driving force for many in business. As Armstrong notes, To recover from the ill effects of the last year, we may need exactly that conquest of egotism that has always been essential in the quest for the transcendence we call “God.” Religion is not simply a matter of subscribing to a set of obligatory beliefs; it is hard work, requiring a ceaseless effort to get beyond the selfishness that prevents us from achieving a more humane humanity.

As for religion and women, Armstrong notes, Even when a tradition began positively for women (as in Christianity and Islam), within a few generations men dragged it back to the old patriarchy. This leads to her affirmation of the initial statement.

Here, I would wonder whether it is the religion or the male's use of religion that is to blame. Just as human beings have been adept at using religion to justify their violent responses against others, so too, it seems, males have been adept to use religious rules of their own making to subjugate the female.

So, what do you think?

Thinking Again - Part III

God Breeds Violence and Intolerance . . . is the third point which Armstrong thinks has been too readily accepted.

Certainly, it is easy to go through the recitation of wars and acts of atrocity that have been laid at the feet of religion - think Crusades, 9/11, religious suicide bombers, Muslim-Hindu violence in India, Protestant-Catholic violence in Ireland, the Inquisition, et al - and conclude that to be religious leads to violent acts. But, as Karen Armstrong puts it:
No, humans do. For Hitchens in God Is Not Great, religion is inherently “violent … intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism and bigotry”; even so-called moderates are guilty by association. Yet it is not God or religion but violence itself -- inherent in human nature -- that breeds violence. As a species, we survived by killing and eating other animals; we also murder our own kind. So pervasive is this violence that it leaks into most scriptures, though these aggressive passages have always been balanced and held in check by other texts that promote a compassionate ethic based on the Golden Rule: Treat others as you would like them to treat you. Despite manifest failings over the centuries, this has remained the orthodox position.
In claiming that God is the source of all human cruelty, Hitchens and Dawkins ignore some of the darker facets of modern secular society, which has been spectacularly violent because our technology has enabled us to kill people on an unprecedented scale.

So, human beings may well be innately violent - nature red in tooth and claw - and that tendency may well be held in check by the power of religion. What do you think?

God and Politics Shouldn't Mix

The second point that Karen Armstrong addressed is whether one's politics should be informed by, shaped by, or decided by one's religious views.

Certainly, we think, Americans know the answer to that one. We look with disdain at those countries where religion and politics overlap. We point with pride to our separation of church and state; or, at least, some of us point to that ideal with pride.

Truth be told, we know of many people in our country, just like millions more in countries around the globe, whose political understandings and religious understandings are one and the same. The current GOP candidate for governor in Virginia has a history of involvement with Christian Reconstructionism, for example. If you do not know about that movement, you should.

Armstrong's answer to the consideration of "God and politics shouldn't mix" was "Not Necessarily." In her concluding paragraph, she made this point:
Of course, the manner in which religion is used in politics is more important than whether it’s used at all. U.S. presidents such as John F. Kennedy and Barack Obama have invoked faith as a shared experience that binds the country together -- an approach that recognizes the communal power of spirituality without making any pretense to divine right. Still, this consensus is not satisfactory to American Protestant fundamentalists, who believe the United States should be a distinctively Christian nation.

Obviously, if you are a person of faith or a person of no faith, that will have some bearing on your political views. That fact about you cannot not influence your perspective on some political question. Yet, the questions of how much, in what way, and what does this mean for those of other religious views continue to bedevil us. What do you think?

Thinking Again - About God

The magazine, Foreign Policy, regularly has a feature that seems designed to have its readers re-think an issue. Hence the name of the piece, Think Again. This piece posits a "conventional wisdom" position related to the issue and then gives reasons why the conventional wisdom may be wrong.

This month's Think Again is penned by Karen Armstrong. It can be found at: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/10/19/god_0. I thought it would be nice to feature the questions and counter-points in this forum.

The first piece of conventional wisdom to be debunked is "GOD IS DEAD." This idea goes back to Nietzsche in the 19th century and was the watchword of sociologists of religion in the 20th century. Many assumed that human beings would move beyond traditional beliefs about God and religion and become fully secularized.

This did not happen. In fact, at the end of the 20th century and into the 21st, the power of religion seems as strong as ever. This is true, despite the rise of the neo-atheists (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, et al) and the rising number of people who claim no religious affiliation.

Armstrong concludes this section of her essay with these words:
These writers are wrong -- not only about religion, but also about politics -- because they are wrong about human nature. Homo sapiens is also Homo religiosus. As soon as we became recognizably human, men and women started to create religions. We are meaning-seeking creatures. While dogs, as far as we know, do not worry about the canine condition or agonize about their mortality, humans fall very easily into despair if we don’t find some significance in our lives. Theological ideas come and go, but the quest for meaning continues. So God isn’t going anywhere. And when we treat religion as something to be derided, dismissed, or destroyed, we risk amplifying its worst faults. Whether we like it or not, God is here to stay, and it’s time we found a way to live with him in a balanced, compassionate manner.

Do you agree more with the neo-atheists or with Armstrong? Do you think the human search for meaning means that religion and God will always be part of the human endeavor?

WWJD?

Several years ago, the acronym "WWJD" was seen and heard everywhere within the conservative Christian communities. The premise was simple. Following the outline of the 19th century novel, In His Steps, written by the Kansas Congregationalist minister, Charles Sheldon, contemporary Christians were enjoined to base their actions on what Jesus would do. Books were written using the concept as the guiding principle; sermons were preached on it; classes were taught on it.

Now, though, it seems that many conservative Christians believe that what following Jesus means is to be abusive toward others who do not believe as you do. Devotees of talk radio and attenders of political meetings seem more adept at hate filled speech than 'divine-love-filled' speech. Of course, you may think that this type of discourse is what pleases God. And, you may believe that Jesus would join in and be better at it than you.

Interestingly, during his prayer at President Obama's inauguration, Reverend Rick Warren addressed God with this request: "As we face these difficult days ahead, may we have a new birth of clarity in our aims, responsibility in our actions, humility in our approaches, and civility in our attitudes, even when we differ."

You have to wonder if current actions and comments by those who say they are Christians, and who often portray themselves as the only true Bible-believing, God-fearing Christians around, should be seen as fulfilling the intent of this prayer.

Book Burnings for God

From North Carolina comes this story [as found at: http://www.wtkr.com/news/wtkr-pastor-bible-burning,0,7909354.story],

A church leader in North Carolina is burning versions of the Bible he doesn't agree with.

Pastor Marc Grizzard of the Amazing Grace Baptist Church in Canton is building a bonfire on Halloween to destroy Bibles that aren't the King James Version.

His reason for burning the holy books?

"What we're doing is we're burning books that are satanic. I believe the King James version is God's preserve, inspired, in erect, infallible word of God."

The pastor also says well-known Christian ministers like Billy Graham and Rick Warren are heretics whose books belong on a long list of negative influences and should be thrown to the flames.

I am not quite certain what Pastor Grizzard means by his description of the KJV Bible in the 4th paragraph of the story, but it is obvious that he is following many others who hold the inerrant and infallible, God inspired version of the Bible is the KJV. Having been in Canton, NC, I can believe he and many others hold that view. This position certainly eliminates the issues of textual variations and the meanings of the Greek and Hebrew words used. This position also gives ample justification to many who believe the society described in the KJV is the one they want to exist now.

I do not agree with this position. For my money, a person who is serious about being faithful to God ought to use a translation that is based on the best manuscripts available. The KJV does not.

Even with that, however, what purpose does it serve to burn other translations other than a self-seeking desire for publicity?

The Case for 'Faith', not 'Belief'

In an article written for the Washington Post "On Faith" section, noted author Karen Armstrong discussed her new book. Here are part of her comments:

Why did I write "The Case for God"? I was becoming increasingly concerned about the nature of the discussion that followed the publications of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam HarrIs and wanted to bring to the table some of the things that I have learned from my study of world religion during the last 20 years

First, on both sides, the discussion was often aggressive and antagonistic. To quarrel about religion is counter-productive and an impediment to enlightenment. When we are talking about God, nobody has the last word because what we call God lies beyond the reach of speech. It also violates the Western rationalist tradition: a Socratic dialogue was a spiritual exercise and, Socrates insisted, would not work unless it was conducted throughout with gentleness and courtesy. Nobody 'won' the argument: a Socratic dialogue always ended with participants realizing that they knew nothing at all, an insight that was indispensable to the philosophic quest.

Second, on both sides people were equating 'faith' with 'belief'. This is a recent aberration and one that is peculiar to modern Western Christianity. We do not find it in either Judaism or Islam. The Middle English 'bileven' meant 'love, trust, loyalty, and commitment' it was related to the German 'liebe' (beloved) and translated the Greek 'pistis' ('trust, commitment, engagement') in the New Testament and the Latin 'credo' which derived from 'cor do' ('I give my heart'). It was only in the late 17th century that 'belief' came to mean an intellectual assent to a rather dubious proposition. Just look up 'belief' in a good, historical dictionary!

At this time, truth was becoming more notional in the scientific West. We were losing the more traditional form of faith which saw religion as a practical activity. Like driving, swimming, dancing or gymnastics, you learn the truths of faith only by constant, dedicated practice - not by reading texts or adopting a metaphysical 'belief'. Like a myth, a religious doctrine is essentially a program of action. It makes no sense unless it is translated into practical action that helps you to dethrone egotism, selfishness and greed by practicing compassion to all living beings. In the book, I try to show how doctrines like the Incarnation or Trinity were originally a summons to selflessness and compassion and that we only discover their truth by making these qualities a reality in our own lives.

Finally, in the pre-modern world people knew that it was very difficult to speak about God, because God could not fit neatly into a human system of thought. People like Aquinas, Maimonides or Avicenna would find much of our modern certainty about God frankly idolatrous. They knew that we could not prove 'his' existence, that even revelation did not provide us with privileged information about the divine but simply made us aware of what we did not know, and that all our God-talk - even the language of scripture - could only be symbolic, pointing beyond itself to transcendence, because when we speak about God we are at the end of what words or thoughts can do.

And this only sounds amorphous and vague if you are not a dedicated practitioner. If you don't 'do' religion - you don't 'get' it!

This is the second discussion I have found in recent days - the other being from Harvey Cox - drawing a clear and sharp distinction between faith and belief.

Do you think such a distinction can be made? Do you agree with Armstrong that people like Aquinas would find our certainty about God 'idolatry'?

By the Numbers

Some interesting data has come my way.

First, there is a new Pew research survey that puts the number of Muslims in the world at 1.5 billion+. That means that 1 of every 4 people on the planet is a follower of Islam. Previous estimates had numbers that were similar - as in 1.1-1.2 billion - so this is not a complete shock. It does, though, underscore some realities for us. Christianity still has the largest number of adherents, but that numerical superiority is declining. That would speak to the need for us to know more about Islam and to understand it better.

Second, again according to the Pew Research Center, 57% of Americans support civil unions for homosexuals, while only 37% oppose it. Quoting from the report:
A clear majority of Americans (57%) favors allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into legal agreements with each other that would give them many of the same rights as married couples, a status commonly known as civil unions.
This continues a trend that started in 2004.

Third, another report from Pew Research on what we called the "Generation Gap" when I was a teenager. This investigated the number of Americans age 16 and over who say there is a big difference between young people and their parents on the following issues:
Moral Values - 80%
Work Ethic - 80%
Technology Use - 73%
Music Tastes - 69%.

Do any of these reports generate any comment on your part?

Finally, a push for a 'Conservative' Bible.

Scott Schlafly has a mission. He wants to produce a fully conservative Bible, free from all liberal bias. According to the Conservative Bible Project website (http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project):

As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible which satisfies the following ten guidelines:
1] Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
2] Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity
3] Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level
4] Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop; defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".
5] Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots"; using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census
6] Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.
7] Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
8] Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story
9] Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels
10] Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."

What do you think? Has your faith been corrupted by a "liberal" Bible? Do you think those early Christians who compiled the Biblical stories were guilty of liberalism? Do you see a need for this new version, which may or may not be true to the best manuscripts and principles of translations?

Health Care Thought Experiment

In the July 19, 2009 NYT Magazine was an article by the utilitarian philosopher, Peter Singer. Singer asserted in the article that health care should be rationed.

He begins the article with this hypothetical situation. Suppose you have advanced kidney cancer. Within the next year or two, it will kill you. Suppose there is a drug that will slow the spread of the cancer to the point that you might live an extra six months. But, the drug costs more than $50,000. Is the potential extra time alive worth the cost? Singer supposes that, if you had the money, you would probably pay for the drug.

He then alters the scenario. Suppose it is not you with the cancer, but some stranger who is covered by your health insurance. If this stranger gets the drug, and if others with the same diagnosis do as well, your premiums will increase. Do you still think the drug is worth it? But, suppose, the drug costs $1,000,000 or $10,000,000? Is there any monetary cost at which you would say the drug is not worth the possible extra 6 months - whether for yourself or anyone else?

Let me add some other variables. Suppose as a result of providing the drug, even at $50,000, the health insurance carrier raises its rates so much that the company for which you work and through which you have coverage drops all of its insurance coverage. Or, suppose the carrier tells your company to fire you or anyone else who used the drug. Would you still take the drug? Would you support having it available to anyone else?

What is the ethical decision in this case?

The Glad Scientist

In the Canadian magazine, The Walrus, is an interview with the Jesuit scientist Guy Consolmagno. It can be found at: http://www.walrusmagazine.ca/articles/2009.10-profile-the-glad-scientist/1/.

I am attracted to such conversations for many reasons. I have something of a scientific background and a scientific turn of mind. The battles between science and religion have a long history and have again become an important confrontation encounter between faith and doubt.

At the close of the article is this quote:

Consolmagno has little patience for intelligent design. “Science cannot prove God, or disprove Him. He has to be assumed. If people have no other reason to believe in God than that they can’t imagine how the human eye could have evolved by itself, then their faith is very weak.” Rather than seeking affirmation of his own faith in the heavens, he explains that religion is what gives him the courage and desire to be a scientist. “Seeing the universe as God’s creation means that getting to play in the universe - which is really what a scientist does — is a way of playing with the Creator,” he says. “It’s a religious act. And it’s a very joyous act.”

Reactions? Comments?

Faith Versus Belief, a la Harvey Cox

Harvey Cox has been a fixture on the American theological scene for more than 40 years. As a professor at Harvard and a prolific author, he has great standing within the religious community. In his new book, The Future of Faith, Professor Cox argues that Christianity is moving from an age of belief to an age of the Spirit. Religious News Service did an interview with him. Here is a snippet:

Q: What’s the difference between faith and belief?
A: I think of belief as having to do with subordination to ideas or doctrines, a kind of mental assent. Whereas faith is far more deeply rooted in life orientation. It comes from the Latin word “fides,” which means “loyal to.” I think the confusion of faith as loyalty or adherence to ideas or propositions is a mistake.

Would you agree with his distinction between belief and faith? Do you think Christianity has been characterized more by belief or faith? Which one describes you - are you a believer or a faither? What difference does it make to you and to your church?

Once more with Aurelius

Something to ponder for the weekend from Marcus Aurelius:

Were you to live three thousand years, or even thirty thousand, remember that the sole life which a man can lose is that which he is living at the moment; and furthermore, that he can have no other life except the one he loses. This means that the longest life and the shortest amount to the same thing. For the passing minute is every man's equal possession, but what has once gone by is not ours. Our loss, therefore, is limited to that one fleeting instant, since no one can lose what is already past, nor yet what is still to come--for how can he be deprived of what he does not possess? So two things should be borne in mind. First, that all the cycles of creation since the beginning of time exhibit the same recurring pattern, so that it can make no difference whether you watch the identical spectacle for a hundred years, or for two hundred, or for ever. Secondly, that when the longest-and the shortest-lived of us come to die, their loss is precisely equal. For the sole thing of which any man can be deprived is the present; since this is all he owns, and nobody can lose what is not his.

Doing Battle With Prayer.

Liberty Counsel has introduced a program encouraging their supporters to adopt a liberal. Among the liberals in need of prayer, with their own definition of why they need prayer, are: President Obama, Senator Snowe, Governor Schwarzennegger, Mayor Bloomberg, and the Unknown Liberal, to be selected by the pray-er. From their website (http://lc.org/media/9980/adopt_a_liberal.htm) they state: Please pray daily for the liberal(s) of your choice, so each can become a good influence on our Nation's culture. Prayer is powerful! It allows God to change the minds of those for whom we are praying. In fact, we fully expect that many of our adoptees will "graduate" from this prayer program with vivid testimonies of God having changed their lives and worldviews!

This follows Jim Wallis' call for his supporters to pray for Glenn Beck to change his mind on health care reform.

What do you think of using prayer in this highly public and politicized manner? Could this lead to public proclamations from one group or the other about which prayers were answered and, thus, showing which group God likes best? Or, do you think it is primarily a ploy by each group to pump up support from among their own faithful?

Maybe, we could pray for folks not to mis-use prayer?

My Prayer or No Prayer?

Last Friday, Muslims from across America gathered in Washington to pray. Quoting from a Washington Post story written by Jacqueline L. Salmon and William Wan,
The event, called "Islam on Capitol Hill," is designed to highlight how U.S. Muslims can coexist with their fellow Americans. Hassen Abdellah, the lead organizer of the event, called on people to come to the Capitol to "pray for peace and understanding between America and its Muslim community."

Now, what could be wrong with that? Evidently, a lot, at least according to many conservative Christians. Again, referencing the Post story,
But this week, some conservative Christians have called the event a threat to Christian values. In a statement, the Rev. Canon Julian Dobbs, leader of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America's Church and Islam Project, warned that the service is "part of a well-defined strategy to Islamize American society and replace the Bible with the Koran, the cross with the Islamic crescent and the church bells with the Athan [the Muslim call to prayer]."

Christian evangelist Lou Engle said the Friday event "is much more than a nice little Muslim gathering. It's an invocation of spiritual powers of an ideology" that "doesn't have the same set of values that our nation has had."

This criticism was in addition to forwarded e-mails bemoaning the loss of the "National Prayer Breakfast" and the mainline media support for the Muslim event.

Are we now to the point where only Christians can hold 'prayer meetings' to pray for our country or our leaders? If a Rabbi leads a prayer at the White House or at City Hall, is this part of a well-defined attempt to Judaize America? If the Dalai Lama prays for peace and understanding between Buddhists and Americans, is he trying to replace the Bible with the Dhammapada?

In a pluralistic society, and when last I looked America does not have an official state religion, we recognize that our citizens will be Muslim and Christian and Jewish and Biuddhist and Hindu and .... We also should recognize that each of our citizens has the right to pray within the framework of her or his religious tradition for our country, for our leaders, and for other citizens, even if they go to Washington to pray.

It really is about people.

In the maelstrom of rhetoric and protests, claims and counterclaims, assertions and refutations concerning the proposed health care reform, it seems one thing has been lost. People in our country live and die without adequate health care and health insurance and without the reasonable chance to get either.

60 Minutes has run stories of health care professionals who used to go to developing countries to give health care. Those health care professionals now run clinics in America because the need is so great here. News stories abound about the impact on health care costs for all Americans because of uninsured people seeking treatment in hospital ER's since that is the only option available to them. Other stories tell of people who lose coverage or are denied treatment options because of the dictates of the insurance companies.

This may all be theoretical to most of us because we may not know someone who has suffered in this way. On the Ethics Daily website (www.ethicsdaily.com), Jan Chapman tells the story of someone she knew, 25 y.o. Gaby Duffy who died. In Ms. Chapman's words:

Gaby saw her last sunset on May 9. She died in an Ottawa, Ill., hospital, where she'd taken herself after several days of high fever that she had tried to beat without the doctors she could not afford.

Gaby had no health insurance.

By the time she got to the Ottawa Regional Hospital and Healthcare Center on May 7, she had already lost the time needed to diagnosis and treat the fever. Tests were run to no good conclusion. On Saturday evening, after a good visit with her best friend, Gaby suffered an acute symptomatic seizure and died.

She was 25.

Would her survival been guaranteed if she had health insurance? Maybe not; we will never know. We do know she did not seek medical help until it was too late because she could not afford medical help because she had no coverage.

Should this happen in our country? Should young people and old people, children and senior adults, males and females, be denied medical help because they have no way to pay a doctor or their health coverage carrier - not a doctor - tells them they do not need a procedure or a medicine?

Do we have any responsibility for our sisters and brothers? Am I my sisters and brothers keeper?

News From The Fringe

Last week, the Federal Appeal Court in Richmond Virginia ruled that the protests conducted by the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka Kansas were protected speech accroding to the First Amendment. This case had originally been brought by the family of an American soldier killed in Iraq. The funeral was picketing by members of this church carrying placards that indicated their joy over the young man's death and their belief that his death was part of God's judgment on America.

A judge was quoted as saying: "Notwithstanding the distasteful and repugnant nature of the words being challenged in these proceedings, we are constrained to conclude that the defendants' signs and [what it has on its Web sites] are constitutionally protected," Circuit Court Judge Robert B. King wrote in the majority opinion.

This is the church that revels in its hate-filled rhetoric against homosexuals, those who do not condemn hmosexuals as they do, Jews, Catholics, and other Christians and ministers who do not preach as their minister, Fred Phelps, does. I was one of the ministers condemned by Rev. Phelps when I was in Kansas. I suspect I am still on their enemies list.

I had planned to share some of their rhetoric about the places they plan to picket from the website, but I could not bring myself to post the quotations. If you are interested, you can find it.

In their comments are the following observations:
** God hates the world.
** President Obama is the Anti-Christ and became president as part of God's judgment on America.
** President Obama will soon turn on the Jews and begin killing them.

While I recognize their constitutional rights to free speech, I still despair that someone spews forth so much hate in the name of God.

Wisdom from Marcus Aurelius

Wisdom for us all - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 2

Begin each day by telling yourself: Today I shall be meeting with interference, ingratitude, insolence, disloyalty, ill-will, and selfishness - all of them due to the offenders' ignorance of what is good or evil. But for my part I have long perceived the nature of good and its nobility, the nature of evil and its meanness, and also the nature of the culprit himself, who is my brother (not in the physical sense, but as a fellow-creature similarly endowed with reason and a share of the divine); therefore none of those things can injure me, for nobody can implicate me in what is degrading. Neither can I be angry with my brother or fall foul of him; for he and I were born to work together, like a man's two hands, feet, or eyelids, or like the upper and lower rows of his teeth. To obstruct each other is against Nature's law - and what is irritation or aversion but a form of obstruction?

Interesting Numbers

While I know that statistics can be - and often are - manipulated, mis-understood, and mis-interpreted, I came across two "survey" results this week that are interesting.

FIRST, from the website Worldwide Religious News, found at: http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=31607&con=4&sec=76, comes the story of a correlation between the level of "religiosity" of a particular state and its teenage birth rate. Citing a NYT story, which I have not been able to track, the states with the higher levels of "religiosity", defined as high levels of agreement with statements like, "There is only one way to interpret the teachings of my religion" or "Scripture should be taken literally, word for word", also have high numbers of teen pregnancies.

Why? Quoting from the article, "How to explain the disconnect? It could be that more religious teens are having sex than less religious teens, hence more of them become pregnant. It could also be that the percentage of teens who become pregnant in each state is similar, but the percentage who terminate in the less religious states is higher, leading to more reported pregnancies and births (although the authors did take some steps to adjust for that.) Or it could be, Strayhorn suggests, 'that religious communities in the US are more successful in discouraging the use of contraception among their teenagers than they are in discouraging sexual intercourse itself'."

SECOND, from an article in USA TODAY, [that can also be found at: http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=31605&con=4&sec=74] citing further research done on results of the American Religious Identification Survey by folks at Trinity College, the % of Americans who claim no religious affiliation is rising. Now, 15% of the American population, nearly 1/6 of the population, are not part of any religious group. This makes them one of the largest "religious" groups in the nation. Statistically, a "None" would more than likely be a young, white male, raised in a religious home who probably accepts the idea that there is or might be some spiritual power, but does not attend religious services or participates in religious rituals.

I don't know what to think of either of these numerical revelations. What do you think?

For Reflection

As we move into Sunday, the Washington Post had this article on Anne Graham Lotz, Billy Graham's daughter. This section caught my eye:

Lotz, 61, has been staying busy as an evangelist and author in her own right. Her new book focuses on the biblical story of Abraham. She said Abraham, considered the father of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, did not have a religion but a relationship with God.

"Religion is, I think, one of the biggest hindrances to finding God," Lotz said. "God described Abraham as a friend. . . . I want to know God in a relationship that one day he will describe as a friendship. God loves you and wants to know you. He's calling you to a personal relationship."

Christians too often feel their faith is fulfilled when they are saved and attend church, Lotz said. "That's such a shallow understanding," she said. A relationship can begin at church, she said, but it can't end there. "Being a Christian is a personal relationship with God, a thriving relationship, based on communication."

The problem, she said, is that too many people are "too reliant" on the church and that too many Christians "have fallen into a convenient pattern of allowing their church experience to be their sum total of experiencing God."

Growing up in the Graham house, Lotz said, she learned to keep Sunday as a day set apart. But people shouldn't rely on a kind of Sundays-only spirituality, she said. "If something happened and you could no longer go to church, if you were homebound and lost your friends at church, how strong would your relationship with God be?"

What do you think? Do you agree that religion one of the biggest hindrances to finding God? If so, what does that statement mean? Do you think attending church has become a convenient pattern for people? If so, what does that statement mean?

I know it has become en vogue to criticize churches and religion as somehow being the culprits in people's lack of spiritual experience. Yet, we must admit that anything can become a hindrance to deeper spiritual experiences. I would still say, however, that gathering as a family of faith can indeed be an important time in one's spirtual experience.

Divine Constitution, Part II

I hope you have read the comments posted to the original "Divine Constitution?". Those reactions should generate some more thinking about the assertion of the Constitution as something given to us by God.

I wondered then whether Glenn Beck promoted such an idea. It is very possible that he does. Salon.com posted a piece about Cleon Skousen whose writings and ideas seem to be a major influence on Mr. Beck, by his own admission. That article can be located at: www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/09/16/beck_skousen/.

In response to that last "Anonymous" comment on that previous post that I received, I would say this:

First, I stand by my comment that the words from the sign I mentioned were more in keeping with typical descriptions of Holy Scripture made by faithful believers than with someone who merely thinks the original writers may have been influenced by God. It suggests a level of divine truth that is meant to be seen as inerrant with every word given expressly by God - again, think of Holy Scripture - and that goes beyond mere human words.

Second, I have not read that any of the writers of the Constitution meant it to be more - or less - than a "Godless 'charter of negative liberties'". I know many people read their own views back into historic documents and those views may or may not be accurate.

Third, my reference to the 9 principles and the 12 values was only to set the stage for the sign. As I indicated, I have not paid any attention to the 9/12 project before, since I am not a devoted follower of Mr. Beck. I did find out, as I looked briefly at the website, that the project purports to be a call for all citizens to return to the sense of unity experienced in the country in the aftermath of the attacks of 9/11. Yet, in Utah at least, as the SLC Tribune reported, the rally was very much a partisan political event with the speakers calling for a return of the Republican Party to national leadership.

Divine Constitution?

Last weekend, SLC saw a 9/12 rally. For those of you who are like me and are not Glenn Beck fans, it would be instructive to search for the 9/12 project and read the 9 principles and 12 values that Beck says ought to define America.

The SLC Tribune ran a story about the rally with a picture. It is the picture that caught my eye. In it, there is a sign. While the wording on the sign is not all visible, the last phrase is. It reads:

We the People declare that We will Never
Yield to those who would place us in
bondage. We will live for the Constitution
and we will die for the Constitution, for we
know that it was inspired of God for all of his
Children.

Now, I am as ardent a supporter of the Constitution as any - though I come to different conclusions from the "patriots" on the airwaves about what the different phrases mean - and I marvel at the genius of those who produced it, but I question using that kind of language to describe the Constitution.

Asserting its divine inspiration places the US Constitution on par with holy scripture. It suggests that the Constitution should be considered inerrant. Implicit in such claims is that there is one and only one true way to read and understand the words.

Do we really want to make such claims? Is our country better served if we do?

I wonder whether those patriots who gathered at the state capitol in SLC believe that the original manuscript of the Constitution that relegated women and slaves to second or third class status was the way God intended it to be? I wonder if those patriots who gathered think that the amendments to the Constitution, with the exception of the "right to bear arms" of course, should be eliminated, since they were not part of the original "inspired by God" words? I wonder if this is what Glenn Beck is preaching to his faithful ones?

Death of James Pouillon

On Friday, a lone gunman, Harlan James Drake, shot and killed James Pouillon, an anti-abortion protestor, as he was protesting outside a public school using graphic anti-abortion placards and Mike Fuoss, the owner of a gravel business and was on his way to shoot a third man before being apprehended by the police.

I do not know what Mr. Pouillon's pictures looked like, but I have seen many used by Operation Rescue and other anti-abortion groups. I do not feel they are appropriate to be used in a protest where school children can see them. That said, Mr. Pouillon had the right to express his views in every legal way.

All people of faith ought to pray for the friends and family of Mr. Pouillon and Mr. Fuoss.

Alister McGrath on Limits of Science

In an interview that can be found at: http://blog.beliefnet.com/scienceandthesacred/2009/09/alister-mcgrath-on-science-and-religion.html, Alister McGrath says:

"For me, science is very, very good at answering lots of questions but ... not all questions. If you say to me let's talk about how the universe came into existence, we can talk about that scientifically. If we start talking about another question like 'What's the point of life?' or 'Why are we here?' that's a different kind of question. I don't think science answers that but I think there are answers we can find."

In this, McGrath stakes a position similar to many on the provinces of religion and science. Science helps explain processes in the natural world. Yet, science does not help us answer questions of meaning.

Dangerous Power of Religious Speech

I engage in religious speech constantly. Through sermons and articles for a church newsletter, I communicate about things religious to the congregation I serve. Because of my position as minister, it could be argued that everything I say and do has religious overtones.

I preach and teach hoping to get people to think about their beliefs and what those beliefs mean, and how those beliefs affect their daily lives. Thus, I preach and teach with the intent of influencing people.

What happens, then, if my sermons promote hatred for others? What happens, then, if my writings, proclaim divine judgement, to the point of death, on others? What happens, then, if someone in the congregation acts as God's judge, jury, and executioner on those others as a result of my words? Do I have any responsibility for those actions?

I have been thinking about this for a number of weeks. At the end of August, the Kansas City Star reported on the Bible study that Scott Roeder, the accused murderer of George Tiller, attended. The link to the article is: http://www.kansascity.com/637/story/1414950.html. Here is a quote from the article from Roeder's roommate who was part of the Bible study group:

Clayman said Roeder took the abortion issue to the extreme.
"Scott believed that the Bible was literal, the word of God," he said. "Where he went astray was he had this crazy, fanatic doctrine that you could somehow justify killing somebody just because they were an abortion doctor."
Clayman said Roeder talked often about his belief that killing an abortion doctor was an act of justifiable homicide.
"When he brought up that in theory — but he never did threaten anybody when I was around — I said, ‘How can you repay evil with evil?’"
Clayman said investigators won’t find any conspiracy behind Tiller’s killing, especially among the members of the study group.

Obviously, the members of the group do not think that anything they said in the discussions had anything to do with Roeder's actions, but how can they be sure?

Then, there is an on-going controversy surrounding the Reverend Steven Anderson of the Faithful Word Baptist Church of Tempe, Arizona. Frederick Clarkson has the best article I have seen, which can be found at: http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/religiousright/1801/%E2%80%9C%5Bi%5D_pray_for_barack_obama_to_die_and_go_to_hell%E2%80%9D%3A_the_story_the_media_missed_.

Anderson is the minister who has prayed for President Obama's death and has proclaimed to the congregation he serves that both he and God want the President dead. In the congregation is Chris Broughton, who showed up at a speech by the President with an AR-15 automatic rifle and a handgun strapped on. He took this action the day he heard his pastor preach on why he was praying for President Obama to die and go to hell.

Somewhat disingenuously, Reverend Anderson distanced himself from any actions taken by people who hear or read his sermons. In an interview, as cited by Clarkson,

Interestingly, nationally syndicated liberal radio talk show host Alan Colmes conducted a particularly penetrating interview. When Colmes asked Anderson what his response would be if someone killed Barack Obama in response to his sermon, he replied: “I wouldn’t cry about it.”
Colmes said to Anderson: “You want the president dead…”
“Absolutely,” Anderson agreed. “Now that doesn’t mean I’m gonna kill him. But you know what? I believe he should reap what he’s sown.”
“[Obama] deserves to die, because he’s a murderer.”
“I’m not going to take responsibility for other people’s actions,” said Anderson. “You know, it’s ridiculous how I’m supposed to be held accountable for what anyone who listens to my sermons does.”

On this day, it is well for us to remember that religious speech, particularly that which calls down God's judgement of death on people, has a dangerous power to influence people to act.

Potpourri

Responsibilities at church this week and some other things have affected my postings. I just realized that nothing has gone up since last Saturday. Here are a few items that have been rolling around in my brain.

First, as I was 'channel surfing' this week, I hit a commercial for a group of California Psychics. In the commercial was a guarantee that promised: if this was not the best psychic reading the customer had ever had, we will refund your money.

I was struck by that. How do you rate psychic readings? What constitutes a 'good' psychic reading versus a 'great' psychic reading? Aren't most psychic readings geared toward future events? If so, how long do you have to wait to be able to evaluate? I guess the only thing left for the psychics to promise is that their readings are 100% organic.

Second item. In the City Weekly, SLC's major alternative paper, was a story about Steven Jones, a former professor at BYU. Jones is a leading player in the alternative theories about 9/11. He is convinced that something more than the planes was involved in bringing down the buildings. His outspokenness in criticizing the official US government conclusions was a factor in his early retirement in 2006.

That raises a lot of questions for me. Is there an issue of academic freedom here? How closely do professors have to 'toe' the line - and whose line is it - in order to keep their jobs? What if Jones was denying the majority view on global warming or the Holocaust, would he have been able to stay at BYU or would he have been pushed out even earlier?

Third, there is a push to allow members of the Christian Church to be 'unbaptized.' This service is for folks who now do not believe and want to renounce their previous faith. There is a ceremony and an 'unbaptized' certificate.

I am thinking this is much ado about nothing. If a person no longer believes, then the original baptism should no longer have any significance for him or her. Why go through some ceremony to invalidate it? The 'unbaptism' rite seems to suggest that there is some inherent power in the baptism that must be deactivated.

Do you have any thoughts about any of this?

God and Weather

Over the years, I have been asked to pray for certain weather to happen or not happen. Usually, the requests have come from farmers or from folks who have scheduled important activities outdoors. I typically comply with the requests without actually thinking that my prayers influence the global weather patterns or that it matters to God whether the annual 'John Doe family' picnic gets rained out.

Over the course of the years, there has often been a conflict between the prayers I have offered. Such as, when a farmer in the congregation wants me to pray for one thing to happen - like rain - and another family wants the opposite to occur - like sunshine. I have prayed for both of them. And most often, one of them did take place.

In the past week, I have read of two people who evidently think there is a stronger connection between the weather patterns and divine prayer. A minister has seen the 'Hand of God' in the tornado that hit Minneapolis where the ELCA are struggling to resolve issues relating to homosexual clergy. This minister is certain that God was sending a strong message to the ELCA to repent of their sins and turn from their wicked ways. And, a governor of a southern state was saying this week that, since he has been praying for no hurricane to hit his state - including having prayers placed at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem, no hurricanes have hit his state.

I guess both of these men have more spiritual power and insight than I do. It seems to me that I remember reading about someone who said it rains on the just and the unjust alike, certainly suggesting that weather patterns are not used by God as punishment or reward. Maybe that person was not as spiritual as these two men either.

Same old stuff

Over the last few weeks, I have been reading Simon Schama's book, Rough Crossings: Britain, the Slaves, and the American Revolution, in bits and pieces. It chronicles the rise of the anti-slavery movement in England, the response of slaves in the colonies to the Revolutionary War, the promises made by the British Army to many slaves, and the attempts to establish a colony of freed slaves in Sierra Leone.

While I have read only about 75% of the book, it is a tragic story. Slavery itself was a horrific thing, but the people involved made the situation much worse. The story is one of promises made and broken to the freed slaves, of unscrupulous white men lying and cheating them, of those same white men being protected by the laws, all of which served to deepen the tragedy.

Through it all, so far, it has been interesting to read, and be reminded of, the rationales used by the people in power - the whites - for keeping a people enslaved. Most of the reasons had economic factors. "We cannot free the slaves because to do so would ruin the sugar cane industry, the tobacco industry, the cotton industry, etc." "We cannot give this particular land to them, even though we promised it and signed a contract to do so, because it is too valuable. They can have this other land, which is not as good." In many ways, I feel like I am reading the story of how the European settlers have always sought to gain the absolute advantage for themselves in their dealings with indigenous peoples or with slaves.

There was indeed a strong free market, capitalistic, pressure for the white landowners to keep things as they were. That is why people of conscience and morality have to look beyond the free market reasons for taking, or not taking, a particular action to try to discern what the right thing would be. I wonder if we have gotten any better at doing the right thing. I wonder if we are any better than the slave owners in the 18th century? Or, is it just the same old stuff?

Bearing Witness

One of the issues raised in opposition to interfaith dialogue by evangelical Christians relates to their desire to continue to bear witness to their faith. They wonder, "How can I share my faith with people who follow other religions if I engage in dialogue with them?"

The Christian Muslim Forum has proposed a set of guidelines that address this. The guidelines are:

1) We bear witness to, and proclaim our faith not only through words but through our attitudes, actions and lifestyles.
2) We cannot convert people, only God can do that. In our language and methods we should recognise that people’s choice of faith is primarily a matter between themselves and God.
3) Sharing our faith should never be coercive; this is especially important when working with children, young people and vulnerable adults. Everyone should have the choice to accept or reject the message we proclaim and we will accept people’s choices without resentment.
4) Whilst we might care for people in need or who are facing personal crises, we should never manipulate these situations in order to gain a convert.
5) An invitation to convert should never be linked with financial, material or other inducements. It should be a decision of the heart and mind alone.
6) We will speak of our faith without demeaning or ridiculing the faiths of others.
7) We will speak clearly and honestly about our faith, even when that is uncomfortable or controversial.
8) We will be honest about our motivations for activities and we will inform people when events will include the sharing of faith.
9) Whilst recognising that either community will naturally rejoice with and support those who have chosen to join them, we will be sensitive to the loss that others may feel.
10) Whilst we may feel hurt when someone we know and love chooses to leave our faith, we will respect their decision and will not force them to stay or harass them afterwards.

In my mind, the single most important statement in these guidelines is one that most witnessing faiths overlook. Satement 2 places the whole conversion process as a God thing. Our statements, techniques, or approaches may be helpful for someone to hear, but no human is the agent of conversion, despite claims made by many. The entire faith enterprise is God's bailiwick.

Having been "witnessed to" by any number of people from different faith or theological understandings, I wish more folks would adhere to these guidelines.

Are we all religious now?

The website, The Immanent Frame, posted an interview with Winnifred Fallers Sullivan, who is Associate Professor of Law and Director of the Law and Religion Program at SUNY-Buffalo, looking at the failure of the courts to deal adequately with the realities of lived religion in America.

Let me get you thinking by including two quotes. One from the interview and one from a previous post written by Professor Sullivan.

From the interview, which can be found at: http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2009/08/11/religion-takes-the-stand/,

One of your posts on The Immanent Frame you title with the claim, “We are all religious now.” Can you explain what that can mean, for instance, to the fifteen percent of Americans who claim to have no religious affiliation, or to the New Atheists?
Yes, I mean it to refer to the phenomenon I will be describing in my new book, a new openness to seeing Americans as naturally “faith-based,” enabled, I believe, by a convergence between a broad range of humanistic critiques of scientistic understandings of the person, social scientific and biological; social and political movements that originated in the mid-twentieth century; and a contemporaneous shift in religious authority and anthropology from the church to the individual. The exclusivity of materialist/medicalized understandings of the entire range of human capabilities and experience, as well as ecclesiastical capacity to insist on orthodoxy and particularity, are both fast eroding in the face of these changes. It’s a next step in the radical disestablishment of religion in this country. This shift toward locating authority in the individual means that it’s much easier for people to move among religious communities, religious ideas, and religious practices in a much more ambiguous way, a way that is less determined by someone outside oneself. If people want to call themselves atheists, that’s fine with me, and I’m not telling them they’re not atheists. What I’m saying is that I think it is becoming socially, politically, and legally the case that people are understanding themselves in terms of a new revival of a holistic image of the human being as, in some sense, basically spiritual. I think that many people who would not call themselves religious would also at least assent to that notion.

And, then, from the referenced post, We are All Religious Now, which can be found at: http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2007/11/27/we-are-all-religious-now/, and references a number of specific cases, is a comment on an opinion written by Justice Souter.

Souter’s dissent in Hein hearkens back to the Flast era, insisting that religion is special, that individual conscience must be protected by a high wall of separation, and that James Madison ought to still rule: “favoritism for religion,” says Souter, “‘sends the . . . message to . . . nonadherents’ that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community.”

Souter’s is increasingly a minority voice. We are all religious now. As a leading architect of integrating spirituality into medicine says, “our belief [is] that there is a spiritual dimension in every person’s life, even in those who deny that there is.”

So, do you think that, with a redefintion of religion to emphasize the individual dimension and not the institutional one, that all Americans, even those who would deny such identification, are religious?

2nd Verse of "Church Conflict"

Not too long ago, I remarked on the conflict that struck New York's Riverside Church and resulted in the resignation of its newly installed minister. Now, stories are emerging about conflict at Coral Ridge Presbyterian with its newly called minister.

The link to the full story is: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/broward/fort-lauderdale/sfl-coral-ridge-081009,0,1694944.story. The details are quite familiar to anyone who has ever made a study of such conflict.

The lead to the article sums up the story: Internal divisions at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church burst into the open this past weekend as six members were ordered to stay off the premises.

The six have called for the ouster of the Rev. W. Tullian Tchividjian, saying he is deserting the heritage of his revered predecessor, the Rev D. James Kennedy. In reply, the Fort Lauderdale church has accused them of spreading rumors and disrupting church unity. Among the six is Kennedy's daughter, Jennifer Kennedy Cassidy.

Stresses are common whenever a longtime pastor is replaced, observers say. But with a huge, successful church with long-entrenched traditions - and a new pastor nearly two generations younger - the effects are heightened.

The conclsion to the article is on target: To George B. Thompson Jr., of Atlanta, a specialist in church merger problems, the Coral Ridge ills are cultural. "We in society don't understand the complexity of organizations, religious or secular. People like Tchividjian could be doing what they think is right - even what they thought they were asked to do - and it still blows up."

Riverside and Coral Ridge are at two ends of the spectrum theologically. Riverside long known for its liberal ministers and liberal stances. Coral Ridge reached national prominence under D. James Kennedy as a politically and theologically conservative church. Yet, the storyline for each in this current controversy is remarkably the same - a new minister doing things differently than his predecessor sparks outrage among a small group of parishioners who then conspire to 'boot him out.' According to some statistics, 25% of all ministers will be forced to resign or retire. In the vast majority of cases, this effort is orchestrated by a small group of people in the church. Further, when a church does it once, it frequently does it more than once.

This revolving door for ministers is one of the tragedies of the contemporary Christian church in America. The most effective ministry by a pastor usually comes after she or he has been in a church for 10+ years. So, the church cuts off its nose to spite its face. The disruption in ministry that occurs when the church has to undertake a new search process has long-lasting effects on the life of the church.

Perhaps, someday, we will learn better. Till then, groups like Ministering To Ministers provides emergency care for the ousted pastor and family.

Religion Rejecting the World

In keeping with a dominant theme in the last few posts, I came across a story carried on Religon Dispatches - found at:
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/1618/my_womb_for_his_purposes%3A_the_perils_of_unassisted_childbirth_in_the_quiverfull_movement/ - dealing with a subset of the 'quiverfull' movement of conservative Christianity that calls for a complete rejection of any human system. After all, if you depend on any person, you are not depending on God.

I have commented about this patriarchal movement that rejects any birth control and depends on God to give or to withhold pregnancy before. In case you wonder about the name, there is a Biblical reference that refers to children metaphorically as 'arrows', hence to have a 'quiverfull' is to have many children. Part of the rationale given by some in the movement is to increase the number of children in Christian families and, thus, compete against the high birth rates among other religious groups.

The story from Religion Dispatches, though, looks at a more radical portion within this movement who hold more extreme views. In the 'Home In Zion Ministries' group, primarily influenced by Carol Balizet, who in turn is influenced by Kenneth Copeland and the 'name-it-claim-it' teachings, the true Christian is one who rejects all human institutions and depends solely upon God for all things.

In their words:
We’re Home in Zion Ministries, and as our name may indicate, our goal is to encourage separation from the counterfeits of the world, and entrance into what is symbolically called Zion. This is a life TOTALLY dependent on God alone. We advocate home childbirth, home schooling, home healing, often even home churching, and other things which accompany a separation from the world and a return to the God-centered reality of the kingdom. We want to share the experiences and testimonies of the many, many families we know who have victories in these and other areas of kingdom life. We reach out to the "seven thousand" who have not bowed the knee to Baal.’

‘Satan has built himself a seven-headed system (or a system built on seven mountains) as counterfeits for these seven revelations of our need-meeting God. Seven intricate, self-perpetuating, man-glorifying, unholy organizations: government, commerce, education, science, the arts, medicine and religion, which claim to provide all the things that God has promised.’

As the Religion Dispatch article and the other articles it references, this 'Zion' based teaching has led to deaths and abuses among the followers. This certainly seems to be an example of the misinterpretation and misapplication of scripture. Yet, the beliefs expressed by this group are not that far removed by what is proclaimed in many conservative, though more 'mainstream', Christian churches. I have heard many sermons extolling the faithful to depend upon God, to turn their back on the world, and to live faithful and holy lives separated from the world. It is a short step from those sermons to this mind-set.