Saturday Night Reflection

This is from Dennis Patrick O'Hara, the Director of the Elliott Allen Institute for Theology and Ecology at the University of Toronto:

Anyone in theology who has to have absolute certitude shouldn't be in theology. We're about faith.

Tribal Politics

With the election less than three weeks away, it seems appropriate to return to this endeavor with a political blog.

Most often, the confluence of religious orientation and politics is considered to be the "Religious Right" and "everybody else." In 2004, BeliefNet, in collaboration with John Green at the Bliss Institute of the University of Akron, devised a more comprehensive system of looking at how politics and religion interact. Using a familiar Biblical typology of 12 Tribes, they classify folks into these groupings: the "Religious Right", Heartland Culture Warriors, Moderate Evangelicals, White Bread Protestants, Convertible Catholics, the "Religious Left", Spiritual but not religious, Seculars, Latinos, Jews, Muslims & Other Faiths, and Black Protestants.

You can view the full descriptions of these twelve at:
http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Politics/The-Twelve-Tribes-of-American-Politics-in-the-2008-Election.aspx.

Let me encourage you to look at the BeliefNet site. Which group do you think fits you? Do you think the analysis of each group is accurate and fair? Would you add or delete any groups from the listing? Do you think this list with its multiple divisions of the American people says anything about how divided or unified the nation is?

Quotes For Reflection

As I am finishing up some writing assignments for a commentary series from WJK Press, my blog pieces will be few and far for a week or so. With that in mind, let me share two quotes with you for your pondering. The first is from Marcus Borg; the second is from Josiah Strong.

In an interview, Borg said:

Faith is not primarily about believing a set of claims to be true-that's what goes with the earlier vision of Christianity. The understanding of faith that goes with the emerging vision is about a relationship of trust in God and faithfulness to God. The ancient meaning of the word "believe" is "to commit oneself, to be loyal to." The Middle English word is "beleve," and that means to love or be loved. So faith is about loving God and loving that which God loves--which is the whole of creation.

Would you agree with this definition of faith that Borg proposes?

Josiah Strong was the secretary of the Congregational Home Mission Society in the late 19th century. He wrote:

There are many in the Church as well as out of it who need to learn that Christianity is neither a creed nor a ceremonial, but a life vitaly[sic] connected with a loving Christ.

Would you agree this understanding of Christianity that Strong proposed?

Who gets to decide who is what?

At the end of August - yes, I am that far behind, and more, on some of the items I have saved for inclusion in the blog - the Washington Post ran a story about a woman who had converted to Judaism in 1992 and lived in Israel for the last 15 years. She and her husband sought a divorce, which, in Israel, meant that they had to appear before a court made up of Ultra-orthodox rabbis. After appearing before the court, the woman was told the shocking news, at least it was to her, that she did not need a divorce because she had never really been married because she had never really been Jewish. In one fell swoop, the court of rabbis waved a 'religious wand' and made the last 15 years of her life disappear and made her children less than respectable.

The decision of the rabbinical court was based on the woman's faithfulness in obeying all of the Jewish law. For those who are not aware, there are generally considered to be 613 commands in the Hebrew scripture. This woman was found to be negligent in her obedience and, thus, not really a true convert.

That, of course, sparked some questions for me. I do not agree with the decision of the Ultra-orthodox rabbis in Israel, but my objection to their decision does not matter at all. They obviously followed what they believed to be the clear teaching of their scripture.

This incident caused me to reflect on other people in other faiths, as in Christianity, who have taken on the same mantle of authority and made similar pronouncements of who is and who is not really a Christian. Too frequently, these pronouncements are based on more subjective criteria than the corpus of Jewish law. For example, on more than one occasion, someone has presumed to tell me that I am not a Christian because I have not agreed with their particular interpretation of some doctrinal point. I think I am glad that there is no similar human court of orthodoxy within Christianity. I am much more comfortable to leave such decisions for God.

Missed this one.

In a story on the Religious News Service website, I discovered a "special" day that I did not know existed. According to the story, Guideposts Magazine has designated October 2 as "Guardian Angel Day." The magazine has even provided a website (guidepostsmag.com/guardianangel/) to honor them online.

Again, quoting the story, "Most surveys show that somewhere between 70 to 75% of Americans believe in Guardian Angels. An even more compelling number was revealed in a recent Baylor University Institute for Studies of Religion poll that showed 55% of the survey respondents answered affirmatively to the statement, 'I was protected from harm by a guardian angel.' What that means is that a majority of Americans have had actual experiences with Guardian Angels. These findings confirm that a very large number of people absolutely believe someone is looking out for them."

Are you of the 70-75% who believe in guardian angels who protect and guide you? Are you one of the majority of Americans who would say that you have been protected from harm by a guardian angel? If so, how do you know that it was an angel who protected you - did ypou see one or did you just feel that it was one? Or, are you one of the skeptical minority who would not affirm either statement. If not, why not?

VP Debate on Deck

Since Senator Biden and Governor Palin will engage in their first and only debate tomorrow night, the experts are beginning to pontificate on what should be asked of them. In the Washington Post's On Faith section some of their regular columnists are asked to weigh in on the topic of questions about their faith. I think their responses are interesting.

First, Susan Jacoby writes:
My consistent position is that a candidate's religious beliefs are relevant to political campaigns only if he or she wishes to impose those beliefs on other American citizens--whether by administrative fiat, legislation, or attempts to reshape the judiciary in a particular religious image. I do not care whether Joseph Biden believes in the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, which states that bread and wine are actually transformed into the body and blood of Christ during the Mass. I would care very much, however, if he suggested that this religious belief should be presented as a fact in a public school science class. And I do not care that Sarah Palin has worshipped at a church where she received a blessing to guard her against witchcraft during her campaign for the governorship of Alaska. I would care very much, however, if Palin wanted students to open their school day with an invocation against witchcraft.

Yet, she would propose these questions:
Do you interpret our Constitution as an instrument intended to separate church and state?
Do you believe that the founders established a Christian government and that America should be considered a Christian nation?
Do you think that religious theories, such as creationism and intelligent design, should be taught along with evolution in public school science classes?
Do you believe that parents who wish their children to attend religious schools should receive a tax break to defray the tuition?
You have both said that your religions teach--and you believe--that life begins at the moment of conception. Why do you, Gov. Palin, think that your personal beliefs should set the legal standard for Americans who do not share them? Why do you, Sen. Biden, draw a distinction between what your faith tells you and the legal standards your government should set for others?
What do you consider the proper approach for judges to take on legal disputes involving the relationship betwen religion and government?
Do you believe that religious interference with government is as dangerous as government interference with religion?

Cal Thomas proposes the following:
My question for both of them would be: "How does your faith influence, even mandate, your positions? Senator Biden, do you believe it is mainly up to government to follow the principles in Matthew 25 to "do unto the least of these," or is that primarily a command for the church? And Governor Palin, how do the "end times" described in the books of Daniel and Revelation, among others, influence your view of the Middle East, of Russia and your own worldview and which policy matters might be influenced by your conservative Christian beliefs?

Michael Otterson, the Head of Public Affairs for the LDS Church would ask nothing aboutb their faith of them writing:
It does matter to me that a presidential candidate reflects values of decency, honesty, reliability, steadfastness and trustworthiness. But whether he or she draws those values from celebrating mass or attending a synagogue or from some other source entirely is quite irrelevant to me.

So, would you ask either of these people who are known for their faith about their faith? If yes, what would you ask? If no, why not?

Is the wrong now right ... or at least accepted?

At the end of August, the George Barna organization released the results of a new poll that suggests Americans have adopted a new standard of behavior. Barna asked how many of the poll participants had engaged in at least one of the following behaviors in the previous week: "exposure to pornography, using profanity in public, gambling, gossiping, engaging in sexual intercourse with someone to whom they were not married, retaliating against someone, getting drunk, and lying."

To Barna's dismay, a majority of the 1003 people polled had engaged in at least one of the behaviors. The most common 'naughty' behavior was cussing; the least mentioned was retaliation and having sexual intercourse with someone to whom they were not married. Barna said, "We are witnessing the development and acceptance of a new moral code in America."

That survey and results raised some questions for me.
*** While I would not argue that any of the behaviors are 'good' ones, I wonder how Barna decided to use these as his criteria. They do not match any of the recognizable behavioral lists in the Biblical text, as in the Ten Commandments or the Greatest Commandment. If you were to design this poll, what behaviors would you include to measure the moral behavior of Americans?
*** What defines profanity in our society? When I was growing up, there were certain words one must never say. Most everyone I knew, though, developed 'substitute' words. The intent was the same, but the words were different. So, for example, someone would say, "Sugar" instead of "Sh*t" or "Goldurn" instead of ... well you know. Does using the substitute word constitute profanity? Or, are some words so bad that merely speaking them constitute a 'sin?'
*** Other polls indicate that the vast majority of Americans consider themselves Christian and believe in God. What does a poll like this one from Barna, who is a conservative Christian, say about the depth of belief in America?

I will be curious to see your reactions to this.