Troubling Church

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interfaith UN Conference

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

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

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

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

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

Religious Issues in Utah

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions of Life

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interesting Poll Results

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where do you fit in this?

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

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

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

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

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

One last piece of advice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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