Just in Time for Easter

It seems that even mainstream media 'get religion' at Christmas and Easter. That does not mean they necessarily carry stories supportive of the enterprise of faith, but they have more stories with a religious slant, even if the stories can be seen to be critical of religion.

In what I believe is the current edition of Newsweek, there is a story written by Jon Meacham entitled "The End Of Christian America" [found at URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/192583] in which Meacham comments on the reality of a "post-Christian" America and what that might mean. On the web, [at URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/192915], Daniel Stone has an article entitled "One Nation Under God?" that discusses results from an April 3 poll conducted by Newsweek through Princeton Survey Research Associates.

Among the poll results, I found these items of particular interest.
-- 48% agreed completely that prayer is an important part of daily life, while 9% completely disagreed.
-- 64% completely agree that "I never doubt the existence of God"; 7% completely disagree with the statement.
-- 68% think religion as a whole is losing its influence on American life; 19% think it is increasing its influence.
-- 62% think America is a Christian nation and 32% disagree.
-- 30% of the respondents consider themselves "Spiritual but not Religious"; 9% are "Religious but Not Spiritual"; 48% are "Religious and Spiritual"; 9% think of themselves as neither.

What does this tell us about the religious climate of our country? I don't know. Oft times, consulting polls is like using the entrails of animals to predict the future; you see in them what you want to see. I do think the titles of the articles are interesting and indicate how the writers view the results.

How would you have responded to these querys? Are you surprised by any of the results? What question would you have liked to ask?

Further Reflections on Marriage

Yesterday, I posed questions I have had for a number of years about marriage. I have not seen any of them addressed in any of the discussions about marriage I have read.

Two other points I would raise about marriage. One looks at the intersection of the civil and the religious authorities in determining who is allowed to marry. The other looks at that same intersection in the dissolution of marriage.

Historically, the state has defined who may or may not marry. For years, the civil government, at least in the south, denied people of different races the right to marry. Close relatives - how close being defined by law - are not allowed to marry even now. And, the civil authorities forbid a person engaging in multiple marriages. To the best of my knowledge, no main stream religious groups have challenged the states' rights to make such prohibitions.

And, when a married couple decides to divorce, it is the civil authority that is involved, not the religious. Couples may marry in a church with a minister performing a religious ritual and signing the license, but the couple divorces with a judge presiding in a legal ritual.

So, which realm - civil or religious - is the dominant one in defining marriage for our society? Which should be? What would it mean if the subordinate one were to try to trump the dominant one?

What is your opinion?

Reflections on Marriage

Two events within the past week have brought the issue of marriage back to center stage in our country. The first was the Iowa Supreme Court ruling that said prohibiting homosexuals from marrying was unconstitutional in Iowa. That set off the customary and usual firestorm of comments. The second was the conclusion of the semi-annual Conference of the LDS Church in Salt Lake City. As part of the report to the faithful, the LDS leadership defended their work to oppose same-sex marriages in California. So far, this has not generated much 'buzz', but it is still early.

While I am not going to propose any Solomon like answer for how our country can address this issue, I do want to share some questions I have had about marriage going back 25+ years. In the early 1980's, three friends of mine, who are also ministers, and I were on our way to a meeting. As we travelled, somehow, the subject of marriage came up. Several of the typical holy descriptions of marriage of the day were brought up: it is a sacrament; it is God-ordained; it is established by God in the Bible - particularly in the Book of Genesis; it is a divine institution.

Being the contrarian that I am, I questioned my collegues. I asked whether any marriage, even if it were formalized only by civic authority, could be considered a divine institution or a God-ordained relationship. They all said, "Absolutely." So, I said that this seems like humans beings were forcing God to put a stamp of approval on a relationships that may or may not have had any holy component. I then asked at what point does a marriage become a holy thing. Did it happen when the preacher showed up for the rehearsal, when the money was paid and the license was signed in the courthouse before any ceremony was held, when either or both of the couple said, "I do", or when the preacher signed the license after the ceremony was concluded? Or did it happen after years of commitment of living together in faithful relationship?

I think the questions I raised then are appropriate now. What is it that makes a marriage? Is it the commitment between two people? Is it when the words are said during a ceremony? Is it when the legal requirements of the state are satisfied?

What do you think?

Remnants from 2008 US Presidential election

I know that the US presidential election for 2008 is over. It seems, however, that the campaign for the 2012 and subsequent elections is going strong. Two items that actually deal with the 2008 election reached my attention this week.

First - Sarah Palin on prayer

In a widely reported speech, Governor Palin commented on her frustrations on the night of the Vice Presidential debate in finding someone with whom she could pray. She stated that she she felt she needed just a little extra boost. Looking around the room at all of the McCain staffers and Palin staffers and whoever else was there from the RNC, she said she realized that there was no one there with whom she could pray, so she prayed with her daughter.

Many have already weighed on this incident. Some have pointed out her insensitivity to her staff who believed in her, even though, they say, this shows that she did not believe in them. Others have decryed her needing to pray at all; they suggest she would have been better served dealing with issues. Still others wonder why she needed someone else; why couldn't she just pray by herself, they ask.

While I am not sure that an inspired prayer at that moment would have changed anything in the debate that night or in the election, I am certain that Governor Palin felt she needed to pray - perhaps to steady her nerves - and, thus, she should have the opportunity to pray with whomever she wants. There is a tradition within evangelical Christianity that prayers have more "oomph" when they are affirmed by another - "whenever two or three of you agree concerning any thing, it shall be done" approach - so having an agreeing partner was important for her.

I see this anecdote as one more piece of evidence given by party standard-bearers of how far the Republican Party has strayed from its conservative Christian base and how they must return to that base in order to be successful again. This line of thought was put forward by many within the RNC in the weeks following the election. It seems to me this story is an illustration of how far the RNC has "backslid" - to use evangelical Christian terms - and must repent before it can go forward.

Second - Conservative analyst pulls no punches

In a column on WorldNetDaily, Jill Stanek wrote a scathing article in the days immediately following the 2008 election criticizing the new President and the American people. The opening paragraphs of the article follow:
Barack Obama was elected president despite the fact he supports abortion into the fourth trimester.
Either the 63 million people voting for him didn't know about his radical record, which includes abandoning abortion survivors to die, didn't care, or didn't believe it.
Meanwhile all three state pro-life initiatives failed Tuesday: the California Abortion Waiting Period and Parental Notification Initiative, the Colorado Equal Rights Amendment (defining personhood as beginning at conception) and the South Dakota Abortion Ban Initiative.
And both state anti-life initiatives passed: the Michigan Stem Cell Initiative (allowing human embryo experimentation) and the Washington Death with Dignity Initiative (allowing physician assisted suicide).
Altogether, this means we are fooling ourselves if we think the United States is still a Christian nation. Its people just elected a barbarian as president, authorized the killing of both its youngest and sickest, rejected scientific fact that human life begins at conception, blocked parental intervention of abortions of young girls, and voted down the wording of an abortion ban they said only two years ago they would support.

Frankly, I am not aware of 'scientific fact' proving that human life begins at conception. There are a few other 'factual' statements Ms. Stanek made that I think are overblown as well. That said, I strongly object to her categorization of President Obama as a barbarian. This is one more instance of a defeated political party engaging in the same smear tactics that they criticized when they were in power.

As I said, the campaign for 2012 and beyond is in full bloom.

Countries that violate religious freedom

According to an AP story carried on Salon today, among the final acts of the Bush administration was the official identification of countries that violate religious freedom and the imposition of sanctions against them.

Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea and Sudan were identified as "countries of particular concern" for abuses of religious worshippers. Of these, however, the Bush administration waived sanctions against Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan.

Critics make two points. First, they wonder why other countries, like Iraq, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, and Vietnam, were not added. Second, they wonder why Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan escaped sanctions.

I do not know what criteria are used to determine whether countries violate religious freedom. Nor do I know what sanctions are imposed on those countries that are guilty of such abuses. that said, I do have to wonder how much political issues played in naming or not naming countries for the official list and for countries that were not penalized for abuses.

That leads me to speculate, should preserving and protecting religious freedom for people around the world be subject to political considerations or should it be determined purely by the criteria established? What do you think?

Horrific News

In today's Washington Post is a horrific story about the actions of a small religious group named One Mind Ministries. The full story can be found at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/28/AR2009032801936.html.

A young mother and her infant son became part of the group. The boy refused to say "Amen" at mealtimes. The leader of the group ordered that he be denied food and water as punishment, since his refusal was a sign of demonic possession. Ultimately and tragically, of course, the boy died. The leader then proclaimed that the boy would be resurrected if the group prayed and believed. When he wasn't, they said that there was a lack of faith in the group and packed his body in a suitcase, filled it with moth balls, and left it in a storage space in Philadelphia. Now, the leader of the group and four others, including the boy's mother, are on trial.

The mother was found to be competent to stand trial - and not criminally insane - since she was following the orders of her religious authority. She found it difficult to watch what was happening to her son, but she acquiesced because of her beliefs and the beliefs of the group.

One telling quote in the story is this:
"At times there can be an overlap between extreme religious conviction and delusion," said Robert Jay Lifton, a cult expert and psychiatrist who lectures at Harvard Medical School. "It's a difficult area for psychiatry and the legal system."

Certainly, all of us would affirm that we would never kill our child or any other child merely because some religious authority told us to do so. Yet, are there things we believe about others that are more destructive or hateful than loving? Are these things supported by or even commanded by what we see as our religious understandings?

More Reflection On Rilke

Rilke wrote,

Nothing good, once it has come into existence, may be suppressed. It assumes reality like a tree, on its own; it is, and it flowers, and it bears fruit. Nothing is lost: everything is passed along.

Do you believe that? Or, perhaps, is this more optimistic than you can accept? I struggle with subscribing to this view. It may be that I more readily see the power of those who oppose the good and who create their own reality to suppress the good. But then, as a Christian, I remember Easter. I affirm the good in the life and teaching of Jesus. I read in the Biblical account of the attempts to suppress that good. And, I see how that good has continued, despite times of it being diluted and perverted by human beings.

As we move into the climax of this Christian observance, reflect on Rilke's writings. Maybe, share this section with others. Commit yourself to helping create something good that will have long-lasting effects.