Apocalyptic Fervor

When I was in college, the hot book in the evangelical Christian world was Hal Lindsey's The Late Great Planet Earth. This was not the first time that end of time fervor had hit Christians. There have been any number of occasions since the First Century CE that the 'person in the street' just knew the end of the world as we know it was around the corner. Certainly, in more recent days, the immense popularity of the "Left Behind" books has shown that the public's interest in the topic has not waned. And, many conservative pundits - both religious and political - have joined the discussion with dire predictions of the end of the world as a result of the election of President Obama.

In 2006, the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life asked about people's understanding of the Return of Christ. The results were interesting for a nation filled with people who constantly read about the Second Coming in popular fiction and supermarket tabloids.

** 79% of the Christians polled affirmed their belief in the Second Coming of Christ. [I am surprised the % is not higher, given the influence of the religious right.]
** Yet, only 20% believed that this would happen in their lifetime, with 39% saying it would not happen in their lifetime. [The rhetoric of many in the Christian world is that, while no one knows precisely when this will happen, all the signs are in place for an imminent return.]
** Amazingly to me, only 33% of Christians believed that the time of the Second Coming was revealed in Biblical prophecies, which is a cornerstone of the premillenial dispensational theology, with 40% saying it was not.

So, what do you think? Or, do you think about it at all?

The Emergence of the Third Wave

Religious Dispatches, an on-line source, recently posted two stories about a major new movement in Christianity - termed the "Third Wave" or the "New Apostolic Reformation" - that is receiving little, if any, attention except for religious scholars. This movement is associated with folks like: C. Peter Wagner, Thomas Muthee, Ted Haggard, and Sarah Palin. Of these four, you have probably heard of the last two, though Wagner and Muthee are actually more important in the development and spread of the movement.

In an article entitled, "Fighting Demons, Raising the Dead, Taking Over the World" by Bruce Wilson, which can be found at: http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/religiousright/1273/, Wilson writes,
Erupting within postdenominationalism starting in the 1980s, Third Wave Christianity claimed, by 2000, some 295 million adherents. World Christian Trends calls the Third Wave a “new and disturbingly different kind of Christian renewal.” One very distinctive characteristic of Third Wave Christianity is its emphasis that average Christians can perform the same magnitude of healing miracles described in the New Testament to have been performed by Jesus Christ—including raising the dead.

Another article from RD interviews Bruce Wilson who is one of the more knowledgeable people on this movement. That article is entitled, "The New Christianity: What the Mainstream Media Has Missed" and is written by Bill Berkowitz. It can be found at:
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/religiousright/1275/. Wilson is quoted as saying:
Charismatic manifestations as extreme as raising the dead aren’t what is problematic about Palin’s religious tendencies; Third Wave and NAR theology is militantly anti-pluralistic and anti-democratic, the quintessence of Christian religious supremacy.
In fact, Third Wave and NAR proponents advocate utilizing almost any means to guarantee a theocratic government, read 'Christian run' government, for the United States. In many ways, TW and NAR are akin to the dominionist movements calling for the imposition of Biblical law - remember the stonings and such - for the United States.

Let me encourage you to go to Wilson's website Talk2Action and read about this.

Easter Prayer

Let me refer you to a posting on BeliefNet.com. Paul Raushenbush, Associate Dean for Religious Life at Princeton University offers a prayer for Easter at this URL:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/progressiverevival/2009/04/easter-prayer.html.

What would you pray for or, if you don't pray, what would you hope for - for yourself, your family, your friends, your community, your nation, and all those around the world?

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.