Veritable Compendium of Items

There have a number of interesting items related to religion to hit the news over the last few days.

DATELINE PARIS, FRANCE - In an AP story that I saw in the Washington Post, the doctors who verified the miraculous healings at Lourdes will no longer do so. Quoting from the story, written by Jamey Keaten, and contributed to by Nicole Winfield,

"It seems 'miracle' may not be the right word to use anymore," Bishop Jacques Perrier of the Diocese of Tarbes and Lourdes said in a telephone interview Wednesday. "It's no longer a black-and-white question." . . .
But last weekend, the panel, known by its French initials CMIL, decided from now on it will only rule on whether healing cases were "remarkable," leaving it to the church to decide whether they are miracles, panel secretary Dr. Patrick Theillier said.

So, when is a miracle not a miracle? When it might only be remarkable, I guess. I wonder what happens to one's status as a saint if all the miracles attributed to that person gets downgraded to remarkable events?

DATELINE FRANKFORT, KENTUCKY - In an item in the ON FAITH section in the Washington Post is the report that 10 citizens of the Commonwealth of Kentucky are suing Kentucky because of a law enacted in 2006 that requires the commonwealth's office of Homeland Security to acknowledge that the safety and security of Kentucky and its citizens cannot be achieved without reliance upon God.

The job description of the Director of Homeland Security begins by stating:
(a) Publicize the findings of the General Assembly stressing the dependence on Almighty God as being vital to the security of the Commonwealth by including the provisions of KRS 39A.285(3) in its agency training and educational materials. The executive director shall also be responsible for prominently displaying a permanent plaque at the entrance to the state's Emergency Operations Center stating the text of KRS 39A.285(3);.

KRS 39A.285 is a legislative finding that asserts:
39A.285 Legislative findings.
The General Assembly hereby finds that:
(1) No government by itself can guarantee perfect security from acts of war or terrorism.
(2) The security and well-being of the public depend not just on government, but rest in large measure upon individual citizens of the Commonwealth and their level of understanding, preparation, and vigilance.
(3) The safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God as set forth in the public speeches and proclamations of American Presidents, including Abraham Lincoln's historic March 30, 1863, Presidential Proclamation urging Americans to pray and fast during one of the most dangerous hours in American history, and the text of President John F. Kennedy's November 22, 1963, national security speech which concluded: "For as was written long ago: 'Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.' "
Effective: March 28, 2002
History: Created 2002 Ky. Acts ch. 82, sec. 2, effective March 28, 2002.

I know many Christians who believe that God is the ultimate guarantor of their health, their safety, and their well-being. But, it is one thing to believe that and another to enact a law that states such and requires it to be publicized. Should those who hold the belief ask for similar language to be posted on hospitals and in doctor affices?

DATELINE AMERICA - Over the last few weeks, I have come across several stories about churches - ones that once were attracting thousands upon thousands in worship just a few years ago - being sold and about large lay-offs within prominent Christian ministry groups and denominations. This says something, I think, about the depth and breadth of the economic downturn in our country.

Is there a religious response that can be made to the current situation? Are churches preparing their members to face what might be further economic declines? Are churches ready - or able - to provide a economic safety net for their own members and for the larger community?

As our nation moved into Thanksgiving weekend and prepared for the onslaught of Christmas shopping, many parts of the world faced inexpressible horrors. The attacks in Mumbai are well-known. There were other tragic situations that garnered limited news coverage, such as the floods and mudslides in Brazil killing scores, the political unrest in Bangkok, the discovery of a killing field in Eastern Congo containing hundreds of bodies, and the religious attaks in Jos, Nigeria, but, at least, there was some coverage of these events so the world could be aware.

Over the last 8 months, I have read a blog written by a young person in Gaza as she has detailed the continuing deterioration of life there. On November 22, she sent her last post. I feel it is noteworthy because the residents of Gaza seem to be a forgotten pawn in the geo-political maneuverings of the world's governments.

Saturday, November 22, 2008

My Final Post
You do not know when you lose a perfectly bad situation until it becomes worse. Any sense whatsoever in this sentence? Actually I do not know what's been holding me back from writing. I had all these ideas buzzing in my ears at night but articulating them was for some reason difficult.

The situation in Gaza, which was absolutely horrible, started to deteriorate day by day until we found ourselves again with no electricity , no clean water, no bread and a huge overwhelming fear of what's coming next.

First the Palestinian dialogue between Hamas and Fateh failed (as had been expected). And then the cease fire became history and a full closure was imposed, limiting fuel and food supplies to the Strip –and all that was accompanied by the Egyptian authorities strictly preventing the tunnel trade.

And what shall I say? I will not speak of my daily misery having to put up in Friday with a 24 hour power cut; nor will I like to mention my father standing in a long queue in front of the bakery at 7 a.m. to buy some bread; nor will I mention the 3 empty gas cylinders awaiting to be filled since a month; nor will I lament the patients living on respiratory support or kidney washing machines and are afraid the hospitals will have no electricity; I find it enough to say that all those I meet, including myself and my family, are psychologically and emotionally tired.

Since I do realize that writing about it is not actually contributing to changing any of it at the decision making level (I am perfectly aware that millions do have interest in our crisis and sympathize with us), I decided -in my blog second birthday- to end this beautiful fulfilling experience. I did consider contemplating as my baby but I can't nurture it anymore. I am no longer convinced that I should. Blogging worked out for me just fine for the last two years. It absolutely filled a void. Many of my posts were popular and well-read. However, I think I need to stop right here. I would like to thank heartily all those who read it and took the initiative to send supportive comments. Pray for Gaza.

May we all remember them and pray for them

The Issue Is Interpretation

In 2004, I wrote an op-ed piece for the Wichita Eagle in defense of one of the editorial board, Randy Scholfield, who was being criticized by some of the Christian religious conservatives. While the names will not mean anything to anyone who is not from Wichita Kansas, perhaps the piece will help generate some thought.

The Issue Is Interpretation

Most conservative ministers frame the debate on contemporary social issues, such as marriage for homosexuals, in these terms: A person is either faithful to the Word of God or that person is not. Abe Levy, in his story about the Reverend Joe Wright, of Central Christian Church wrote (July 4 front page), “Whether making public stands against abortion, homosexuality or other moral issues, Wright says he can’t afford to compromise his beliefs. ‘At the end of the day, I have to know God’s pleased with me,’ he said.” In one of his recent televised sermons, the Reverend Terry Fox, of Immanuel Baptist Church, deplored the liberal trends in society, called for removing liberal politicians from office and liberal ministers from their churches, and called for faithfulness to God’s way. The Reverend Patrick Bullock, Director of Missions for the Heart of Kansas Southern Baptist Association wrote (May21 My View), “As Bible-believing Christians, we have a standard of beliefs that cannot change, because the Bible is the revelation of who God is in all His holiness.”

In making such statements, these men suggest that anyone who disagrees with their views, that is “those liberals,” actually do not believe or follow God and God’s Word. That is a false assumption.

In using the Biblical text to inform the debate, the real issue is not in faithfulness to scripture or in who is a true Christian. The real issue lies in different perspectives on interpreting God’s Word.

Here, Randy Scholfield was correct in his article (May 12 opinion pages). All people, including ministers, have had a troubling history of misinterpreting scripture. As Mr. Scholfield noted, very sincere and faithful Christians in the 19th century used scripture to justify the use and continuation of slavery in the South and fervently believed that God had ordained the practice. Other Christians believed otherwise. For decades after the Civil War, on the basis of scripture, some faithful Christians believed they should prohibit inter-racial marriage. Other Christians, on the basis of their faith, disagreed.

Each of these issues, slavery and forbidding inter-racial marriage, was considered foundational to the preservation of society at that time. Christian clergy and laity on both sides believed they were correct in their view of what God required. The difference was in their interpretation. So it is today.

I would defend the right for each Christian to express her or his own view on such issues, whether that person agreed with me or not. Certainly, agreement with my interpretation would not be crucial to determining that person’s faith stance. I would want them to give me, as a Christian, the same right, whether I agreed with them or not.

Can we talk?

As a member of a minority group in Utah, I have thought even more about issues relating to the conversations between religious groups with different theological understandings than I did when I was part of the majority. Thus, it was with interest that I noticed two posts on BeliefNet.

One is from a member of the LDS church who quotes, with approval, Krister Stendahl on his blog, Mormon Inquiry. Take note of his comments:

Krister Stendahl died earlier this year (hat tip: Lehi's Library). He was a Swedish scholar and theologian, and also served for a period as the Lutheran Bishop of Stockholm. In LDS circles, he is fondly remembered as the author of three rules of religious understanding, which he propounded during public debate critical of a planned LDS temple in Sweden. They are good rules to follow in any religious or interfaith conversation. Here are Stendahl's three rules.

** When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.
** Don't compare your best to their worst.
** Leave room for "holy envy." (By this Stendahl meant that you should be willing to recognize elements in the other religious tradition or faith that you admire and wish could, in some way, be reflected in your own religious tradition or faith.)

The other is a column by a Jewish rabbi, entitled Windows and Doors, who critiques the Pope for the pronouncement that interfaith religious dialogue cannot really take place. Read a portion of his comments:

Perhaps Benedict has created a "strict definition" which precludes such conversation because his understanding of dialogue requires a level of spiritual connection/agreement between the conversants, which may not be possible for people who follow different faiths. That might be what he means when telling us that one must "put one's faith in parenthesis" in order to speak with those of other faiths. But that is an odd kind of faith which can only be present among those who share the faith.

The alternative understanding of the Pope's most recent comments is that he actually finds all other belief systems defective and their members best served by only a single outcome i.e. conversion to the Catholic faith.

Can it be that he finds real inter-religious dialogue impossible because at all costs any conversation which accords full and equal dignity to other's faith is impossible for him? That's a pretty scary thought from the leader of a billion human beings backed by real financial and political power.

It seems to me that real inter-religious and intra-religious dialogue, as shaped by Stendahl's points, should and must take place. Much of the divisiveness that is found in society occurs between people with different views of the world. In order to overcome that division, I must be in conversation with the Muslims, the Buddhists, the Hindus, the Jews, the LDS, and the fundamentalist Christians, to name just a few, so I can understand them better and they can better understand me. I will not agree with them on every point, nor will they agree with me. I do not have to become just like them, nor do they have to become just like me. Yet, by being in conversation, we acknowledge and honor the humanness of each and can learn something from each other.

Do you interact with people from other religious persepctives? About what do you talk? Do you share with them why you believe as you do and listen as they share with you why they believe as they do? If not, why not?

More Interesting News

First, from Bob Jones University in South Carolina. Bob Jones University is the classic example of a school of higher education that takes conservative (one could even say fundamentalist) Christian principles as its guiding principles. The school's statement of faith and moral code are indicative of how closely it remains true to its roots. For years, BJU refused to admit minority students and, even after relenting on this issue in 1971, prohibited inter-racial dating. Both positions, the school said, were based on clear scriptural principles.

Now, the school has issued a statement saying that it was wrong. You can access the full statement at the school's website, but let me quote just a part:
Bob Jones University has existed since 1927 as a private Christian institution of higher learning for the purpose of helping young men and women cultivate a biblical worldview, represent Christ and His Gospel to others, and glorify God in every dimension of life.

BJU’s history has been chiefly characterized by striving to achieve those goals; but like any human institution, we have failures as well. For almost two centuries American Christianity, including BJU in its early stages, was characterized by the segregationist ethos of American culture. Consequently, for far too long, we allowed institutional policies regarding race to be shaped more directly by that ethos than by the principles and precepts of the Scriptures. We conformed to the culture rather than provide a clear Christian counterpoint to it.

In so doing, we failed to accurately represent the Lord and to fulfill the commandment to love others as ourselves. For these failures we are profoundly sorry. Though no known antagonism toward minorities or expressions of racism on a personal level have ever been tolerated on our campus, we allowed institutional policies to remain in place that were racially hurtful.

The most telling part of the statement, in my estimation, is the admission that the school conformed to the surrounding culture of racism and prejudice rather than looking seriously at the teachings of scripture. I wonder what other positions taken by churches as scriptural might one day be rejected as cultural instead of scriptural. I know that BJU does not need or care about my support, but I applaud the school for having the moral courage to issue this statement.

The second item comes from Grapevine Texas. Ed Young, the minister of this mega-church, caused quite a stir nationally on November 16 when he told - commanded? - the married couples in the church, including all 5 satellite campuses, to have sexual intercourse every day for a week as a curative for the problems besetting their relationships. Last Sunday, November 23, he told them to continue the plan.

According to a New York Times story about the follow-up to the initial challenge, Pastor Young extolled the benefits of his plan, "But if you make the time to have sex, it will bring you closer to your spouse and to God, he has said. You will perform better at work, leave a loving legacy for your children to follow and may even prevent an extramarital affair."

I am not one to argue for marital abstinence, but I wondered about those couples where there has been spousal abuse or other acts of violence. Is increased sexual intercourse the answer to everything?

What opinions do you have about either of these news items?

Interesting News from South Carolina

In today's Washington Post On Faith section is a column reporting on the approval by the South Carolina legislature of a new Christian license plate. According to the piece, this is not the first action taken by officials in South Carolina with a religious twist. They have also "allow[ed] the Lord's Prayer to be added to civic displays on the "foundations of American law and government," allow[ed] public schools to teach courses in the Old and New Testaments, and allow[ed] legislative bodies to open with sectarian prayers."

South Carolina seems to be particularly open to actions of this kind. It was selected by the Christian Exodus organization in 2003 as the target location for Christians to live in order to secede from the United States and establish a true Christian government. According the Christian Exodus website, "ChristianExodus.org was founded in November of 2003 in response to the moral degeneration of American culture, and the rampant corruption among the powers that be. The initial goal was to move thousands of Christian constitutionalists to South Carolina to accelerate the return to self-government based upon Christian principles at the local and State level. This project continues to this day, with the ultimate goal of forming an independent Christian nation that will survive after the decline and fall of the financially and morally bankrupt American empire. We have learned, however; that the chains of our slavery and dependence upon godless government have more of a hold on us than can be broken by simply moving to another State.

As many like-minded Christian activists pursue independent Christian living without relocating, the scope has expanded to promote "personal secession" though many and various tracks, wherever they can be implemented. The long process of disentanglement from idolatrous dependencies includes such practices of moving towards a home-centered economy, with intentional community, home-schooling, home-gardening, house churches, health-cost sharing, private exchange, unlicenced ministry, and any other way in which we might live free and godly lives in Christ Jesus, without prostrating ourselves to eat from the hand of the imperial magistrate."

So, as you consider this intersection of Christian church and state, how do you feel about a state offering a license plate that is decidedly focused on one religion? How would you feel if the license plate emphasized Islam or Buddhism instead of Christianity? Would you join a movement to form a "Christian based" government in a particular state?

How much happiness have you had?

Buried deep within my files was this quote from a Muslim ruler in Spain in the 10th Century:

I have now reigned about 50 years in victory or peace, beloved by my subjects, dreaded by my enemies, and respected by my allies. Riches and honors, power and pleasure, have waited on my call, nor does any earthly blessing appear to have been wanting to my felicity. In this situation, I have diligently numbered the days of pure and genuine happiness which have fallen to my lot. They amount to fourteen.

Certainly, by his own description, Abd Er-Rahman, had everything we normally associate with happiness and had it in abundance. Yet, in 50 years, more than 18000 days, he believed that he had experienced only 14 days of "pure and genuine" happiness.

As always, that made me think. How many days of happiness have I had? What criteria would I use to evaluate my happiness? Would my standards necessitate a solid 24 hours of feeling happy or would 12 hours and 1 minute of happiness be enough to qualify as a day? Would a particular feeling define my happiness or would it be based on some more rational process?

What about you? How many days of happiness have you had? How do you evaluate what makes you happy?