Taste of Raushenbusch

Not many people outside of theological circles know Walter Rauschenbusch. Yet, he was a major force at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th. He is credited with being one of the major leaders in the "Social Gospel" movement, which called the church to be active in alleviating social injustice.

In a very small way, let me introduce you who read this blog to him by sharing some quotes:

Christianity is in its nature revolutionary.

Every generation tries to put its doctrine on a high shelf where the children can not reach it.

Whoever sets any bounds for the reconstructive power of the religious life over the social relations and institutions of men, to that extent denies the faith of the Master.

Sin is a social force. It runs from man to man along the lines of social contact. Its impact on the individual becomes most overwhelming when sin is most completely socialized. Salvation too, is a social force. It is exerted by groups that are charged with divine will and love ... A full salvation demands a Christian social order which will serve as the spiritual environment of the individual.

The saving of the lost, the teaching of the young, the pastoral care of the poor and frail, the quickening of starved intellects, the study of the Bible, church union, political reform, the reorganization of the industrial system, international peace - it was all covered by the one aim of the Reign of God on earth.

Faith and Doubt

Peter Steinfels is a regular contributor on matters religious to The NY Times. I heartily recommend all who might read this blog to go to the Times website and search for his name. You will greatly rewarded.

In Saturday's on-line edition (July 19), he reflects on a 2007 book written by Charles Taylor entitled A Secular Age. Steinfels described the book as "[Taylor's] formidable exploration of how the conditions of religious belief — and of unbelief, too — have changed for modern Westerners."

One section from Steinfels' column was particularly striking to me. "Far more than in the past, Mr. Taylor writes, believers must live their faith 'in a condition of doubt and uncertainty.' Religious thinkers, of course, have long argued that uncertainty and faith are not the polar opposites often supposed; that indifference, and not doubt, for example, is the greater adversary of faith; that absolute certitude about God often reflects a dangerous arrogance."

I have long argued that faith and doubt can be held simultaneously by the religious person. I believe the confession of faith in Mark 9:24 - of the man who was seeking help for his son and who said "I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief" - is the most honest confession of faith contained in the Biblical text. Paul Tillich, one of the great 20th century theologians, wrote about the component of doubt in all faith.

The recent Pew Center study on the nature of religious thought among Americans stated that 92% of Americans believed in God or a universal Spirit. Of those, 71% claimed they were absolutely certain of this. While it would not fit in a phone interview format, I would want to ask, "What do you mean when you say that you are absolutely certain of this?"

So, let me ask you. Do you believe in a God or universal Spirit? If so, how certain of that are you - absolutely, fairly, not too, or not at all? Finally, does that certainty ever waver?

It's now official ...

a coalition of Evangelical leadership has endorsed John McCain as their candidate of choice. The meeting took place in Denver and was reported in Charisma Magazine online (at http://www.charismamag.com/cms/news/archives/0702081.php) and commented on by Randall Balmer on the Religious Dispatches site (http://religiondispatches.org/Gui/Content.aspx?Page=AR&Id=356). Despite the distaste for McCain that many conservative Christians seem to have and despite the efforts Obama has made to gain inroads into the evangelical community, I never doubted that such an endorsement would come.

What is surprising to me was some of the comments made at the meeting.

** Phyllis Schlafly was quoted as saying: The alternative is so bad we must support John McCain. She went on to lament the fact that this group should have mobilized in 2001 when VP Cheney made it clear he would not seek the Presidency. First, that is not what I call a ringing endorsement of McCain. Second, I fail to see how Cheney would be such a glowing Christian candidate that he would have swept the field and gained the endorsement.

** From the Charisma article: Gary Glenn, head of the American Family Association for Michigan, said he felt conservative Christians would be more enthusiastic for McCain if he put former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee on the ballot as vice president. He suggested that the group approve a motion recommending this, which would be hand carried to McCain. It was decided to have a committee approve the wording and e-mail to the participants to sign. Glenn asked for a show of hands of who would sign the document. Most of those in the group raised their hands. So, they seem to be saying, we will REALLY like you if you ask our favorite guy to the Dance.

** Rick Scarborough, founder and president of Vision America, predicted that laws would be passed that would essentially criminalize basic Christian beliefs. I do not see how Congress could pass a law that would criminalize "Love God with all you are. And, love your neighbor as yourself."

** Again from the article, More than an hour was spent listening to younger leaders tell the group that religious conservatives must be perceived "to care" about social issues and the environment to appeal to young people who are voting for the first time. This group listened to 'younger' leaders telling them to 'act like' they care about the environment and other social issues. If you read the Charisma article, you will notice that the group assembled in Denver did not even try to pretend. There were no statements about these social issues made.

** No where in the article did any of the evangelical leaders express concerns over any of the actions of the current administration. I wonder what this lack of comment may mean to John McCain who is supposedly trying to distance himself from President Bush.

Once again, I will attempt to generate some discussion. What are the issues in this Presidential campaign that you consider absolutely vital? Which of these emerge from your religous beliefs?

Religious odds and ends

There have been four stories that I have followed for a while. I have not drawn attention to them before, I guess, because I was hoping they would fade into obscurity. I may have been overly optimistic.

First is the "praying at the gas pumps" action. A member of an Assemblies of God church has convinced some folks that gathering at a local gas station, circling a bank of pumps, holding hands, and praying for God to lower the gas prices is the right and proper Christian thing to do. He started this effort when gas was still under $4 a gallon. The fact that gas prices have continued to increase has not hindered the campaign. I know some Christian folks who do sincerely believe that God is concerned about every thing we face and every choice we make, but I am not certain that the God of the universe does care about the price Americans pay at the pump.

Second is the story about Barack Obama being the anti-Christ. For those not aware of what this means, here is a simplified explanation: Many Christians believe that, before the second coming of Christ and the end of the world as we know it, a secular world leader will arise who will unite all the countries of the world under his rule and eventually cause all people to worship him, instead of God. Barack Obama's meteoric rise in politics and his charismatic speaking style have fueled the speculation. A Google search lists 650,000 web hits dealing with this possibility. I don't know whether to be glad or not that one of the people who discounts this story is John Hagee (remember him?), who believes the anti-Christ will be a homosexual male with Jewish ancestry. I can envision some whispering campaigns as the political season grinds on: "Vote Republican or vote for the Anti-Christ."

Third, Bruce Ware, a professor of theology at Southern Seminary, which is my alma mater [though I was long gone before he arrived and the seminary was much different then than now], claims that the reason men abuse their wives is because of her desire to 'have her own way.' In conjunction with this, Ware said the only two responses for a man to have to a woman who seeks her own path is to abuse her or to become a passive husband who is acquiesent to his wife.

In case you want to know what Ware thinks is the proper role for a 'real' Christian woman in this way. "It means that a woman will demonstrate that she is in fact a Christian, that she has submitted to God's ways by affirming and embracing her God-designed identity as - for the most part, generally this is true - as wife and mother, rather than chafing against it, rather than bucking against it, rather than wanting to be a man, wanting to be in a man's position, wanting to teach and exercise authority over men. Rather than wanting that, she accepts and embraces who she is as woman, because she knows God and she knows his ways are right and good, so she is marked as a Christian by her submission to God and in that her acceptance of God's design for her as a woman."

So, we have definitive Biblical proof, a la Ware, that the only reason women are abused is their own sinfulness.

Finally, from Oklahoma City, the Windsor Hills Baptist Church planned to give away an $800 semi-automatic assault rifle to an attendee at a weekend Youth Conference that was expected to draw teenagers from hundreds of miles away. The church did not do so because their Pastor Emeritus, who was to make the presentation, could not attend. Never fear, though, the church did give away such a weapon last year and plans to keep the gun as a 'door prize' for next year's conference. Gee, whenever I was involved in Christian Youth events, the only thing they gave away was Bibles and stuff like that.

I wish I could say that I am making up each of these stories, but I am not. You can chase the links yourself, or respond to this posting and I will give you the links.

Hijacking sacred texts?

Growing up in a Southern Baptist church, I was taught a healthy respect for the Biblical text. I heard the Biblical stories on Sunday, both in Sunday School and in sermons. I was taught how important it is to memorize portions of the text and to read the text. Because of this background, I have a high level of Biblical literacy. I appreciate that. Yet, I also know that I have different understandings of the meaning of some of the Biblical texts than many of my friends in the Baptist church.

One other group that has a strong sense of the importance of sacred texts is Islam. Muslims also hear the stories of the Qur'an and memorize the text, and read the text. Yet, some Muslims have different understandings of the meaning of some of the Qur'anic texts.

In the May 6 issue of Christian Century, Mona Siddiqui, an Islamic theologian, had some interesting comments to make. She recognizes, for example, that there is Qur'anic justification for husbands to beat their wives. BUT, she also says that Muslims cannot 'hijack' one verse from the Qur'an to justify the oppression of women and ignore the larger principles of Islam.

That is the part that most resonates with me. It seems that many people, in all faith traditions, latch onto, or hijack, one verse or one small section of verses that are indeed in the sacred text, but which violate the larger principles embodied in the entire text.

Wouldn't it be better for all people of faith to seek to have those over-arching principles define our life of faith and not some hijacked verses?

Staying in fellowship

I have many friends who are in the Episcopal Church and, thus, are affected by the protracted debates between various parts of the world-wide Anglican Communion on controversial issues. The Anglicans have been struggling lately with the questions on the proper role of women within the church hierarchy and with the issue of how or whether homosexuals can be part of the church.

Now, the Lambeth Conference in Canterbury, which is an every 10 year gathering of Anglicans from around the world, is on the horizon. Several prominent leaders of the church, mostly from the global south, though, are threatening to boycott Lambeth. So, at this conference that is supposed to demonstrate the essential unity of the church regardless of where in the world it is, the questions over what it means to be in fellowship with another in the context of a church are crucial.

Since I am not an Episcopalian, I do not feel qualified to speak much more about the specifics of their controversies. I can, however, relate to an incident in my own experience.

From 1993 to 1997, I served as the pastor of the Hillcrest Baptist Church in Mobile, Alabama. HBC was a relatively new church, having started about 10 years before I arrived. Despite its youth, though, the church had already caused much controversy in Mobile because the church decided to recognize the spiritual gifts of women and to ordain some women as deacons. [For those not steeped in Baptist (Southern, that is) lore, all who minister to others - both pastors and deacons - are ordained.] The overwhelming majority of Baptist churches in that Association [Baptist churches in the same geographical area are part of an association of churches] believed that to ordain women was to go against Biblical teaching. Thus, the move was made to "throw" HBC out of the Association, essentially to disfellowship HBC. The attempt did not succeed, then. Within the past few years, though, the issue was resurrected, and, this time, the defenders of Baptist purity won.

Interestingly, I had framed the parameters of this debate in the first Sunday night study I conducted at Hillcrest. I chose to use the Nicene Creed as a framework to lead a discussion on some basic and historic beliefs of the Christian Church. That decision was potentially controversial because Baptists are supposed to reject the use of creeds, but I did it anyway. On the first night of the study, I asked the questions, "What must you believe in order to be a Christian? What must you believe in order to be a Baptist? Are there differences between the two answers?" Implicit in this set of questions was one more: "What do you with someone who has a different list than you do?"

These questions, I believe, are still important for folks in churches to consider. Perhaps, the most important one is the implicit question. Can people worship together, work together, and serve together in the same local church or in a wider church body even though they may not agree on theological interpretations? OR, should churches only admit those who agree completely on everything? AND, what issues are important enough so that differences on them are sufficient to sever fellowship with other believers?

Multiculturalism? Not in my neighborhood!

I have had several opportunities to voice some of the things I have discovered about SLC that I did not expect. Most often I remark on the diversity of the city. This diversity includes both ethnic and national background and religion. Just down the hall in the apartment complex where we live is a Muslim family from India, for example. I am looking forward to being part of the interfaith community in the city.

Yet, I am aware of the continuing resistance to accept those who are different from them. I choose not to use the word 'tolerance' for I see that as suggesting the enlightened view of a majority toward those who are in the minority. If I tolerate you, I place myself in a position of superiority over you and hint that I could withdraw my gracious offer at any time. So, I think of acceptance -- the emotion expressed in the Civil Rights standard, "We Shall Overcome" with the verse, "We'll walk hand in hand ... some day."

Toward that end, it might be helpful to contemplate what one of my PhD seminary friends wrote nearly 10 years ago. Rob Sellers, and his wife Janie, served as Southern Baptist missionaries in one of the most religiously diverse countries of the world, Indonesia. When they left the mission field, he went to Hardin-Simmons University, in west Texas, to serve on faculty. On November 2, 1999, he addressed the college community in chapel. His title was "In Defense of Multiculturalism," and he asked the question of this very un-diverse community of why they should be concerned with multiculturalism.

Rob made the following points:
1. "First, because it is appropriate. This is the personal answer. Racial, religious, or social discrimination is our problem."
2. "Second, we should accommodate discussion about multi-culturalism because it is smart. This is the practical answer. ... We learn from others whose viewpoint differs from our own."
3. "Third, we accept others because it is right. This is the political answer. 'Justice for all' is our national heritage."
4. "[Fourth], we look out for others because to do so is good! This is the moral answer. Morality demands more of us than legality."
5. "[Finally], we reach out to others because it is compassionate. This is the Christian answer. Tolerance is the secular answer, the philosophical norm. But love is Jesus' way. And love is more demanding than tolerance."

In the midst of growing hatred and intolerance of people in our world, wouldn't it be wonderful if all of the people in America who believe in "God or a supernatural force" (that would be more than 90% of us) would embrace these values?