Bootleg Preacher

Will Campbell is unknown to many, but ought to be known by all. He is a self-described bootleg preacher. A Baptist, he spent much of his life offending the sensibilities of all Baptists, but especially those of the First Baptist Church type. I had the joy to see him lecture at Mobile College [now the University of Mobile], a conservative institution of higher education in Mobile, Alabama. It was so conservative that the powers that be did not consider me sufficiently orthodox to serve as an adjunct prof.

How did someone like Will Campbell get there? The rebels within the Philosophy and English departments, not the Religion department, conspired together to invite him to campus.

One of his major claims to fame, as far as I am concerned, is the fact that he was the inspiration for Doug Marlette's character, the Reverend Will B. Done, in the KUDZU cartoon strip. Unfortunately, Mr. Marlette was killed in a car accident last year, and KUDZU is no more. Obviously, Will Campbell is known for much more than that, but the KUDZU reference is still a thrill for me.

I mention Will Campbell because I came across an old issue of Christian Century (November 27, 2007) that has an interview with him. One of the Q&A's struck me.

Q: As you look back on your career as a minister, author, and activist, what gives you the greatest sense of satisfaction?
Just trying, you know - just showing up. I was no hero in the civil rights movement, but I was there, and that was something. If anything in our faith were taken literally, it would be so revolutionary that we wouldn't recognize it. And I don't mean just the Christian faith either, but the Jewish faith and the Muslim faith as well. We don't live by our own preachments. If we did, everything would change.

There is a lot to unpack in this, but I want to dwell on just one point. Just trying, just showing up, can be something of great power and influence. None of us is called to be a "superhero," but we are called to try. We are called to show up when folks are denied justice - to give them the support of our presence. We are called to do more than write a check; we are to stand with them as our sisters and brothers (whether we know them or not).

That is what Will Campbell means, I think, about living "by our own preachments." That is the hard part of this life of faith we claim.

Connections

Last Saturday, Vicki and I were in Dallas. I had been invited to officiate at the wedding of Jessica and Jason, two young adults from the Plymouth Congregational Church in Wichita, Kansas where I served as the Senior Minister for 9 years. Despite the day being infernally hot and humid - I could barely read the last part of the ceremony because of the quantity of sweat streaming into my eyes - and despite the fact that I forgot one of the wireless microphones I wore was not really wireless, it was a lovely ceremony, and, even better, it was a wonderful time of seeing good friends who were there for the wedding.

The weekend got me thinking about my relationship with the folks we saw at the wedding. 11 years ago, more or less, I had not even heard of these people, much less met them. But, since 1997, I had shared life with them. I had sat with them in hospital rooms, had celebrated weddings with them, had rejoiced at the births of their children, and had cried with them at the deaths of loved ones. We had worshipped together, eaten together, and laughed together. We talked about everything under the sun -- current events, sports, church life, bad bosses and co-workers, dreams for themselves and their families and their hopes for years to come.

Yet, I had done the same things with others. So, why had we forged such strong bonds with these folks and not with all others? I do not know. Somehow their souls touched mine and my soul touched theirs in some strong, but mysterious, way.

That is the way of human relationships. Who can understand how the bonds of friendship can be formed that are powerful enough to overcome time and distance and remain just as strong as ever? But, aren't we all glad that we humans have this capacity?

Christian Nations?

One of the on-going debates in America is whether this is, or ever has been, a "Christian nation." Regardless of your position on this question, you have to begin with the problem of defining your terms. Namely, you have to ask, "What defines a Christian?" Then, you wrestle with, "What is a 'Christian' nation?" Then, if you can come up with good answers to those, you have to decide how these definitions apply to the country in question.

In the United States, people have approached the topic from many different approaches. There are those who say America is a Christian nation because the majority of the population now claim membership in a Christian church. Then, there are those who say America's Christian identity goes back to the founding group of the country - usually identified as the Pilgrims and Puritans. Others point to the Christian origins of our legal system and its principles. And, then, there are arguments about whether America has lost her "Christian" bearings.

If you have read this blog for a while, you know I have definite ideas about this debate. I shall not recreate all of the previous posts. You will just have to search for yourselves. It is sufficient to say here that I do not think the arguments advanced to conclude that America is a Christian nation have any validity.

With this background, I found a recent article in The Times (of London) [from May 15, 2008] written by Camilla Cavendish considering whether Britain is still a Christian nation quite interesting. Looking only at numbers, the results are not too encouraging. It is predicted that there will be more Muslims than Christians in England in a few years. Others also project that Hindus will outnumber Christians there by mid-century. Currently, only about 6% of the Brits attend Christian worship services regularly. This number reflects a trend that began in the late 19th century when less than a third of the country attended services regularly. [Here again, you have to define what "regularly" is.]

The author of the piece writes: [T]he only point I want to make is that being a Christian country has always been about more than belief in God and Sunday worship. In the 2001 census, seven in ten people described themselves as Christian, to the astonishment of many bishops; 22 per cent claimed to be still going to church at least once a year.

Britain is still a Christian landscape, dotted with spires. It is still a place of Christian ritual, where people go to churches to mark marriages and deaths. It still has some heroic pastors who help people cope through terrible times. These things are part of the fabric, but they are strangely absent from much of the debate about national identity. ...

The hymns that we sang at school, the cadences of Bible stories, are part of my identity. What other identity can I have?

Thus, this British author defines Britain as a Christian nation primarily, if not solely, on the basis of tradition and the familiarity with Biblical stories held in common by most of the people. While that may satisfy her, I doubt very much that the more ardent Christians in America would accept that as being valid.

So, what does it mean for a nation to be "Christian"? Can a country be Christian if most of the people do not claim to be Christian? Or, can it be one if most people are not actively involved in the life of a Christian church? How would a "Christian" nation be different in policies and approaches than a "non-Christian" one?

What do you think?

A personal sea change is coming.

Even though it has been a week since I last posted, today's offering will not directly be religously oriented. Instead, it will be personal news.

Last Wednesday morning, May 14, Vicki and I flew to Salt Lake City. Our mission was simple - to take the next step in the intricate dance between minister and church, that is to preach at the First Congregational Church and await the vote of the congregation on whether or not to call me as their new minister.

I had been communicating with the Ministerial Search Committee for a few months. Both the Committee and I were trying to figure out whether I would be a good match for the church and whether the church would be a good match for me. This whole process can be filled with roadblocks and potholes. Luckily for me, the committee did a good job at working with me to navigate the road.

Frankly, such a weekend can be an intimidating process - for both sides. Pretty much on the basis of one sermon, though there is more information than that shared, the church decides whether to trust the judgment of the committee. On the basis of one weekend visit with the people, the ministerial candidate decides whether to believe that the search committee is a good representation of the church.

In my case, it was easy. The response of the church to us was overwhelmingly positive. Our response to the people we met was the same. So, there will be a complete change in our lives. We will be moving to SLC in June, and I will begin serving the First Congregational Church as their 14th minister.

First Amendment Issues

The First Amendment to the Constitution reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." To say that these words have been much debated in our nation is an understatement.

Because of the fundamental rights contained in this amendment, passions over legal decisions based on it run high. Supreme Court rulings on such issues as school prayer, moments of silence in school, inclusion of Bible readings, prayers at high school commencements, displays of nativity scenes on public property, and displays of the Ten Commandments on public property, among others are based on this amendment. Citizen protest against the Supreme court rulings have also been based on this amendment.

Legal scholars and religious experts have argued over what the framers of the Constitution meant when this amendment was proposed and ratified. More important to ask now, however, is: What does this amendment mean to us as citizens in a religiously diverse nation? Some would argue that the Constitution provided freedom for religious groups to be part of the public square not to guarantee freedom from religion in the public square. And, thus, if Christians wanted to lead prayers or read scriptures as part of the morning school-wide announcements in public schools, for example, they should be allowed to do so. That may sound good to you, but what about the rights of the myriad other religious groups in the community? Should Muslim students and Jewish students also lead prayers in the same way? If the Ten Commandments are displayed on the walls of a public school classroom, should The Laws of Manu also be displayed?

In the April 2008 issue of Report From The Capital, a publication of the Baptist Joint Committee, comes a story about a case to be considered by the Supreme Court in the 2008-2009 term that illustrates this dilemma. Pleasant Grove City, Utah allowed the Fraternal Order of Eagles to donate a Ten Commandments Monument in the 1960s that is displayed in a public park. Now, a group, based in Salt lake City, called SUMMUM is asking the city to display a monument listing its "Seven Aphorisms of Summum." The same deal would be applied. The Summum group would donate the monument and the city would put it in the public park next the Ten Commandment monument. The city refused. The governmental officials contend they could chose which monuments to display and which not to display. So, now, the Supreme Court gets to decide.

What do you think? If one monument relating to Judaism and Christianity is displayed, should any other religious group be allowed the same privilege? Should no religious group have a display on public property? Should the community be allowed to make the decision? If so, what does that say about the rights of groups that are in the minority in that area?

Stayed tuned. This issue will not go away.

A Touch of Aquinas

From an article in the July 24, 2007 Christian Century written by Ellen Chary and entitled "Happy Pursuits" is this quotation from Thomas Aquinas:

God is good;
The cosmos is God’s creation;
The creation is unified because each part belongs to and contributes to the whole and is in turn promoted, sustained, and perfected by the rest; …
As we become the very best creatures that we can become, we are not only obedient to God’s destiny for us, but we are also celebrating our own goodness in God; …
[F]eeling good is the result of doing good in ordinary and common choices of daily life; …
[The] key to happiness is the ability to love well even in face of tragedies of life.

I was most taken by the final two statements.

Too often in our culture, feeling good is the result of extraordinary events or external sensations - things outside of our normal experience. Instead, said Aquinas, we feel good when we make good choices in the common situations of our lives.

Again, our happiness is something we seek from others or from things external to us. Aquinas disputes that and asserts that our ability to love - to show our love to others - even in the face of the tragic circumstances of life.

This is deep wisdom - the kind that takes us many years of living to be able to appreciate.

The Dangerous, and Dismissive, Power of Labels

Catherine Wessinger, Professor of the History of Religions, and the Rev. H. James Yamauchi, S.J., Professor of Arts and Sciences, at Loyola University New Orleans, has an essay on Religious Dispatches, found at http://religiondispatches.org/Gui/Content.aspx?Page=AR&Id=219, on the use of the term "cult" as applied to religious groups on the margins of society, specifically referencing the Branch Davidians and the FLDS.

Professor Wessinger does not argue that there were not situations in each group that should have been investigated by the proper authorities. Rather, she believes that the use of the term "cult" affected how law enforcement officials saw the people and responded to them. As she writes: "The word “cult” originally referred simply to an organized system of worship; it is still used in that descriptive manner by scholars (especially in the study of the ancient world). Since the 1970s the word “cult” has been used in popular discourse as a pejorative term for religions people fear, or hate, or do not want to recognize as a “real religion.” The use of the word “cult” can also be seen to imply that it is only in small, unconventional religious groups that believers commit hurtful and illegal actions—socially dominant religious groups are somehow let off the hook, as if their members never transgress in this way. Use of the word conveys what sociologist James T. Richardson has called “the myth of the omnipotent leader” and the “myth of the passive, brainwashed follower,” both of which dehumanize believers. Moreover, once the label “cult” has been applied it tends to stick, and it can inhibit careful investigation of what is going on inside a religious group and its interactions with members of society; broadly speaking, it is assumed that people “know” what goes on in a “cult.”"

Further, "I do not argue here that there were not problems within both communities that were and are of legitimate concern to law enforcement authorities. I argue that the public perception of small religious groups and their behaviors as deviant is intensified when the “cult” stereotype is applied, and that has led law enforcement authorities to take actions against both the Branch Davidians and the YFZ community that could potentially, and in the Branch Davidian case did, cause harm to children instead of saving them from harm."

When a group is labeled a cult, mainstream, normal folks can dismiss them with a shrug and a smirk. After all, we all know all there is to know about cults. And, since it is a cult, then, any group of law enforcement officials are justified in doing whatever it takes to rid the community of them. Being labeled a cult can legitimize any sort of behavior toward the marginalized religious groups.

But, then, we use other labels in similar ways. If your religious understanding does not match mine, I can call you a "heretic," a "fundamentalist," or a "liberal who does not believe the Bible." Once I have you pegged, I no longer need to listen to you. I know all I need to know about you. Because I have put you in my own sorting box, I can say and think anything I want about you.

We often label others on the basis of a quick glance and a momentary encounter. In the grocery store today, I saw a fellow wearing cowboy boots, blue jeans, a "trucker hat" and a T-shirt that touted the "Redneck Union." Obviously, he is a redneck. As the holder of a PhD in theology, what more do I need to know about him? I could dismiss him as unworthy of my time; I could forget that he, too, is a human being with all of the hopes and fears that I have.

Funny thing about labels. Just as often as you or I may be tempted to apply them to others; others pin them on us. I speak here with direct experience, since I have been labeled by others quite a few times and dismissed as unworthy.

Labels are dangerous things. Be cautious in using them.