(Return to my home page) : Blog Home : November 2006
Election Day
November 7, 2006 11:08
Today, as hopefully you go to the polls, do not make the mistake of thinking that by voting for one party or the other, you are voting for the "party of morality". The truth of the matter is that both of the major American parties emphasize some of the things that are emphasized in the Bible as part of their plan for the nation, and leave other things up to personal choice.
I was rather astonished when I read a letter to the editor in the Indianapolis Star emphasizing that taking care of the poor is not the responsibility of government, but of the church. I presume, however, that the person who wrote this letter votes for a party that does try to legislate, and thus make the government responsible for, certain elements of traditional religious ethics. The difference between the two parties is thus the question of which elements of morality the government should mandate and legislate.
Theodore Roosevelt famously argued that, while freedom from government interference may have been an important end in itself in earlier times, in the age of big business, ordinary people need government protection from corporations whose interest in profit trumps concerns for human welfare. I wholeheartedly concur. While matters of sexual ethics and religious diversity must be left up to individual choice in a democracy such as our own, matters of social and economic justice cannot be left up to personal choice. These are social problems and can only be addressed effectively with social responses. This is why the crafters of the Book of Leviticus instituted not only laws about what individuals should do, but also legislated the Jubilee year as a social practice on the level of the society as a whole.
Such matters are appropriate areas for government involvement and legislation even in our democratic context because they relate to general principles of morality and not the ideals of a single specific religion (or even a group of religions). Social and economic justice are matters of human morality in general, and it is noteworthy that the prophet Amos addressed his contemporaries about these concerns without appealing to the specific laws and covenant of Israel. These matters are simply matters of right and wrong, that anyone who accepts the Golden Rule or something like it will consider important.
As you vote today, my own recommendation is that you vote for those who show the greatest concern for those who cannot help themselves, and for addressing in a united way as a society the issues of poverty and injustice. Matters of personal morality we can each handle on our own. But clearly in America we cannot rely on individuals to take care of the poor, the oppressed, the minorities, the exploited - we have demonstrated time and again both that while some of us are very generous, we do not really want our money directed to such individuals and groups. Were that not the case, we would not object to paying higher taxes in order to address social issues of this sort! We are a society based on greed and self interest, and for those of us who believe in God and in the value of human lives, we should support those parties that show concern for living human beings. Of course, for some the 'pro-life' party is the Republican party because of its opposition to abortion. Yet the truth of the matter is that, for those who appeal to the Bible as their authority, the Bible decisively does not treat abortion as murder (Exodus 21:22-25; Numbers 5:11-31) but as a mere misdemeanor, while it emphatically does consider the mistreatment of the poor which leads to slavery, starvation and death as a heinous sin on the same level as murder. Neither science nor the Bible can tell us precisely when we have moved from a cluster of cells to a human being; but on the sufferings of those who are full-fledged human beings living human lives, their treatment and their needs are matters that are far more clear cut, from any standpoint, whether scientific or Biblical. Those who defend the rights of the unborn and ignore the plight of the already born have no real claim to be the pro-life party.
Saudiana
November 13, 2006 10:26
One subject I've been exploring in several classes lately is the short-sightedness of much of our foreign policy particularly in the Middle East and South Asia. Just think about who we supported: radical Islamicists in Pakistan and Afghanistan (because they were either fighting against, or at least aligned against, the Russians during the Cold War; the dictatorship of the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia, because they supply us with much of our oil. The former developed into and/or supported the Taliban; the latter support Wahabi Islam, the fundamentalist group that was of little significance until it got Saudi oil money supporting it and could establish schools and thus influence Islam's direction all over the world. The latter is compared by Bernard Lewis to a hypothetical scenario in a U.S. context to give us an idea of what this means:
"Imagine that the Ku Klux Klan gets total control of the state of Texas," Lewis told Princeton’s Alumni Weekly. "And the Ku Klux Klan has at its disposal all the oil rigs in Texas.
"And they use this money to set up a well-endowed network of colleges and schools throughout Christendom, peddling their peculiar brand of Christianity. You would then have an approximate equivalent of what has happened in the modern Muslim world." [Quoted at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1410293/posts; original source The Road To 9/11 documentary. See also http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/653wwewi.asp?pg=1]
We claim that our ultimate aim in our foreign policy and our involvement in world affairs is the promotion of democracy. One thing that is clear is that this has not been our chief concern consistently in the past or in the present, and the results have come back to haunt us. We ourselves supported the groups that had the most direct influence leading to a bunch of people flying planes into buildings in this country. We did this, in a very real way, to ourselves, but blindly supporting groups because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". I would rather pay more for gas and know that we were not supporting oppressive, undemocratic regimes. I know that for some of my fellow American citizens it will be impossible to bring themselves to support democracy if it raises gas prices dramatically, but can you really not bring yourself to care enough about whether planes are flown into buildings and acts of terrorism are carried out against your fellow American citizens, and potentially against you yourself? Ideally, it would be wonderful if we could simply stand consistently for what we claim to be our fundamental values. But it is beyond that now, and so even motivated by self-interest it behooves us to take a firm stand against oppressive regimes whatever the cost to our economy. And ultimately, what is needed is a new source of energy so that oil money cannot continue to prop up undemocratic, autocratic governments.
Christians United for Israel
November 14, 2006 11:20
I must be honest that I find today's New York Times article "For Evangelicals, Supporting Israel Is 'God's Foreign Policy' " deeply disturbing. It is not that I think supporting Israel is in itself a bad thing - far from it. But the combination of a number of specific features of American right-wing fundamentalist Christians' support of Israel I find problematic as a Christian when viewed specifically in light of the Bible.
First, these American supporters are pro-Israel unconditionally, even though in the Biblical tradition Israel is depicted as being denounced and at times even punished and exiled by God, in spite of Israel's consistent confidence that as the chosen people God is on their side. This unconditional support is perhaps illustrated by the fact that Israeli news is the only national news program that is broadcast to Americans on one of our local Christian TV stations. Throughout the Bible, however, Israel's blessings and dwelling in the land are viewed as absolutely conditional on behavior, including among other things their treatment of the foreigners in their midst.
Second, these Christians somehow fail to see the irony in supporting a Zionism that is akin to the zealot movement in the first century that was determined to fight for Jewish freedom from Rome, when the early Christians who produced the Bible rejected the zealot option with absolute consistency.
Third, these supporters view Israel's success as a blessing from God, and fail to acknowledge that the direct cause of Israel's success is precisely American support. It is as though Joshua, at the walls of Jericho, gets on the phone to the U.S. president, who sends in bombers. The walls come tumbling down, and the people cry "It is a miracle! God is blessing us!" Now I'm absolutely willing to acknowledge the possibility of God working through secondary causes, but these individuals seem not to realize that it is also possible that in the present context they are defying God's will rather than serving as the agents thereof. It is not the viewpoint itself that troubles me most, but the way it is accepted uncritically and without any awareness that it is but one possible interpretation of what is happening.
Fourth, there is a failure to take seriously the historical circumstances of modern Israel and the motivating factors behind the animosity of its neighbors. The Jewish inhabitants of Israel are not simply people who have lived there since Biblical times. They are mostly European Jews who fled persecution in Europe. The creation of the modern state of Israel coincided with the end of the colonial era, and it is surely not surprising that the inhabitants of the Middle East viewed the creation of yet another new country, which would be inhabited by European immigrants whose ancestors had not lived in this region for millenia, was a ploy by the European powers to keep a foothold in the region.
Fifth, this whole view of Israel is based on a particular interpretation of the Bible that is seriously dubious. They refuse to acknowledge the plain meaning of the Book of Revelation as referring to events in the author's time (although Revelation 17:10 indicates very clearly that not only are some of the things referred to present realities for the author and original readers, but some are even already past!). Instead they concoct an elaborate system in which one must recreate the situation in the time the book was written so that these events can refer to our future rather than that of the author. This leads to the expectation that there will be a new Roman empire, a new nation Israel, a new Temple, etc. For people who claim to read the Bible and take it literally, it is ridiculous just how much of it they ignore. It should also be noted that Balfour, the very representative of the British government who most influenced the creation of the state of Israel was himself influenced by this sort of interpretation of the Bible, which was an innovation that was first produced in Britain among the Plymouth Bretheren.
Why am I taking the time to comment on this? Because I am a Christian, a born-again Christian, an Evangelical Christian, who is tired of the very vocal groups in the United States today who are giving everyone the impression that Christianity = Evangelical Christianity = Fundamentalism = Republican Politics = Right-wing social views (and so on and so on). In fact, Evangelical Christians historically have often been on the liberal/progressive side when it came to social issues. I am proud to stand in that tradition - the tradition that acknowledges that for me to have religious freedom, so must those I disagree with; the tradition that fought for the emancipation of slaves because it realized that while there are statements that endorse slavery in the Bible, historically it has been acknowledged that one must focus on principles, and that anyone who takes seriously the injunction to do to others what we would have done to us simply cannot support slavery.
I do not oppose the existence of Israel as a nation, and I do not think that military conflict will sort out the problems any more than in other places where lines were drawn by departing colonial powers. One cannot undo the past. What is needed urgently is reconciliation, forgiveness, and cooperation to forge a peaceful future - these ideals, rather than "might makes right", are the ones that are in fact truly Christian.
Save Wal-Mart or Save America? Your choice.
November 14, 2006 15:30
Someone just drew to my attention the site http://www.savewalmart.com, where a group of fundamentalists are trying to put pressure on Wal-Mart to not grant to homosexuals the same rights that other employees have. It is terrifying that individuals who are able to proclaim their message more freely than anywhere else on earth because of the first amendment nonetheless do not understand how it works. It protects the freedom of everyone equally, because unless those you disagree with are protected, then you are not protected. Many Christians came to the new world in the early days of our country fleeing from persecution by other Christians in Christian countries. Whenever a particular religious viewpoint is aligned with the government, the result is potentially the persecution of others who disagree, and the widespread belief that one's own interpretation of the Bible or of Christianity is the only valid one.
I thus decided to send the following e-mail to the e-mail address on the site:
To whom it may concern,
As a born again Christian and a citizen of the United States of America who deeply values the religious freedoms our nation provides, I fail to understand how you can be opposed to a store selling books reflecting opposing viewpoints...or treating others...as equal citizens deserving of respect and protection. That Christians who can proclaim their message so freely because of the first amendment can nonetheless have failed to understand it is deeply disturbing to me. Do you really understand from the Bible that the way to proclaim the Gospel message, to reduce sexual immorality in society, and to promote righteousness generally is to harass those with whom you disagree, or to get stores or even the government to discriminate against them? As someone whose life has been changed by the power of God's spirit, and who values the freedoms that he has in this country precisely and only because all viewpoints are protected by our constitution, I am deeply grieved by your movement and the way it perverts the Gospel of Jesus Christ into a message of harassment and discrimination rather than good news about salvation. I sincerely hope that you will repent before you do more harm to the reputation of Jesus Christ and his teachings!
Sincerely,
James McGrath
In taking this viewpoint I am standing firmly in the heritage of the Baptist tradition. Thomas Helwys famously wrote the following words to King James I of England in 1612:
"For we do freely profess that our lord the king has no more power over their consciences than over ours, and that is none at all. For our lord the king is but an earthly king, and he has no authority as a king but in earthly causes. And if the king’s people be obedient and true subjects, obeying all human laws made by the king, our lord the king can require no more. For men’s religion to God is between God and themselves. The king shall not answer for it. Neither may the king be judge between God and man. Let them be heretics, Turks, Jews, or whatsoever, it appertains not to the earthly power to punish them in the least measure. This is made evident to our lord the king by the scriptures" (The Mystery of Iniquity 53).
This is the same King James under whose auspices the famous translation of the Bible was made. He imprisoned Helwys for speaking out in this way about the king's persecution in particular of Roman Catholics. Helwys, like the American Founding Fathers, realized that in order for one's own freedoms to be guaranteed, the freedoms of all viewpoints had to be guaranteed. It is distressing to see not only how many Americans and how many Christians, but how many even among Baptists have abandoned their confidence in the power of the Gospel in exchange for attempts to instead manipulate, harass, legislate and in other ways impose their views on others in a way that flies in the face of the spirit of both American democracy and the Christian message.
Antidisestablishmentarianism
November 21, 2006 09:46
OK, although it proves I'm a nerd (as if any of you had any doubts) I will come right out and admit it: ever since I was a child and first learned about the longest word in the dictionary I have been eagerly awaiting an opportunity to use it in a sentence. I suppose that is the silver lining I can find in the religious right - they have given me the opportunity to use the word.
Establishment, as those who know the first amendment are aware, refers to having an established church or religion that is state sponsored and state approved. Disestablishment thus represents the removal of such a status, the separation of church and state (as Thomas Jefferson famously and accurately put it). Antidisestablishmentarianism is thus the point of view that is opposed to the separation of church and state, and thus the American religious right is very clearly (if I may be so bold as to try to outdo the dictionary in length of words) antidisestablishmentarianistically-oriented! :-)
A book I've just finished reading that eloquently takes the religious right to task for denying the historic values of American Christianity, undermining the foundations of both American democracy and the Baptist tradition to which many among the religious right claim to belong. Yet the Baptists historically were the key proponents of the separation of church and state, because they saw both the persecution and the empty formalism that resulted from state-sponsored religion, and realized that both were detrimental to the health of true Christianity. Indeed, it is hard for many who have experienced the Southern Baptist Convention in its modern form to believe that the words of George Washington Truett, spoken in 1920 from the steps of the Capitol, could once have been true: "Baptists have one consistent record concerning liberty throughout their long and eventful history. They have never been a party to opression of conscience" (quoted in Randall Balmer, Thy Kingdom Come: An Evangelical's Lament, New York: Basic Books, 2006, p.69).
Balmer's book's strongest point, however, is in highlighting the irony of the religious right's claims to be concerned about the Gospel, about Biblical values, and so on. When asked where they stood on the issue of TORTURE, right-wing religious groups either said they had no particular view or statement, or parroted the rhetoric of the current administration. Appalling! How can you possibly claim to be a Christian and yet focus all your attention on matters about which the Bible says relatively little (e.g. abortion and homosexuality) and miss the overarching themes of social justice (one of the things that Amos decries Israel's neighbors for is torture), of the evils of persecution, of loving one's enemies and doing to others what we would have them do to us? I thank God that more and more voices are being raised by courageous individuals against the evil of the religious right. That is correct, you heard me correctly: it is not simply the case any more that the religious right in America is simply out of touch with the teaching of the Bible. They have become the very thing they claim to oppose. They have become what the Bible defines as evil. How did this happen? I would attribute it to one simple factor that the Bible warns us against. The religious right has become hypocritical, able to see sins in others while seemingly unable to spot the telephone pole lodged in their own eye. Self-righteousness is, as the New Testament warns, quite possibly the hardest sin to root out, and it has infected the whole movement of the religious right in this country.
Christianity Today decades ago warned of precisely where things might lead, but their warning was apparently unheeded. This quote will seem prophetic to many, and it is just another wonderful tidbit quoted in Balmer's book (p.xvii): "Too narrow a front in battling for a moral crusade, or for a truly biblical involvement in politics, could be disastrous. It could lead to the election of a moron who holds the right view on abortion" ("Getting God's Kingdom Into Politics", Christianity Today September 19, 1980, p.10).
Antidisestablishmentarianism. The word you never thought you'd get to use. Today, it is a word we need to bring into our discussions more frequently, even though it is long and unwieldy, since it nicely summarizes the danger the religious right poses to our nation.
Lifestyle Choice
November 26, 2006 14:08
In our day and age many Christians, including very prominent ones, have chosen a lifestyle that is fundamentally at odds with their claim to be Christians. This is a lifestyle choice I am talking about - it is not something genetic, something innate, something inevitable. It is a sin that is so abominable that it is condemned uncategorically in both Testaments. I am speaking, of course, of the tendency in particular among American Christians, and particularly among our leaders, to live in luxury while our brothers and sisters are starving, cold, and oppressed.
While some spend much time denouncing homosexuals as a danger to our society, the only sense I can make of this is an attempt to find some other sin that people will focus on lest we realize that those who are pointing the finger are living much more blatantly in sin themselves. Homosexuality was a rather ordinary part of the experience of many people in the Greco-Roman world, and yet Paul mentions it extremely infrequently, and in the cases when he does he may have in mind the element of pedophilia in traditional Greek education and be opposing that in particular. Be that as it may, it is noteworthy that with all his wonderful letter-writing skills he never appears to have written a letter to anyone complaining that homosexuality is too widespread, too influential. Instead he wrote letters to Christian communities and (if Acts 17 is to be believed) engaged in respectful yet powerful dialogue with those he disagreed with. The only real instances of his sounding intolerant are in his addresses to the religious right of his own time.
Right-wing religious leaders have often accused the homosexuals of America of wanting special favoritism under the law. This is incredibly ironic, given that these fellow citizens of ours have only asked to be allowed to have the same rights others already have. It is the religious right that really is asking for special treatment - it wants specifically Christian sexual mores of a specific sort that not all Christians agree with legislated and imposed on everyone else. Why is this so hard to see? Why is it so hard for so many American Christians to understand that when we complain about not being allowed to have our views imposed on others and mandated by the state, we are showing (1) intolerance of others, unwillingness to have them lead their own lives as they see fit, and more importantly (2) a complete lack in faith in the power and persuasiveness of the Gospel. It is only those who don't think the Christian Gospel alone is enough that decide they need it bolstered by the state.
Having just read Mel White's book Religion Gone Bad, all I can say is that it is well worth reading and it persuades me that he is more truly a Christian than any of his opponents among the religious right. Mel White has grasped both the heart of the Christian Gospel, and has put his finger on the sins that sit enthroned as idols in the religious right and among Christians generally in our country, unacknowledged and unchallenged, as we sit in judgment on others and fail to see how far astray we have gone ourselves.
Although White tries to play them down, his book rightly highlights the similarities (many more than the ones I noted recently on my blog) between the religious right and the historic rhetoric of fascism. Perhaps the most moving moment in the book is when he tells how an elderly Jewish woman came to show her support because "last time they came for you first...never again". The way homosexuals are being demonized and made scapegoats for all our social ills is precisely the way the Nazis started.
There is also a wonderful treatment of the question of the founding fathers and their intentions. The big concern most of us have is not that somehow the religious right will manage to rewrite the constitution or remove the first amendment - I doubt that the majority of Americans would ever agree to that. But our fear is that they may not need to do that - it may be sufficient for them simply to convince a majority of Americans (or the majority of those who care enough to vote) that the first amendment never intended what historically all except the modern religious right have assumed, namely that it protects all religions from all others and from the state, as well as the state from religious dominance, and does not just protect Christianity from the state's interference. There is a wonderful statement by James Madison, which can be read online and which is quoted in part in the book. Read it for yourselves. All I'll say is that it is as clear as can be that the founding fathers foresaw precisely the sorts of maneuvers the modern religious right is attempting to use and they set in place in our constitution and in their own writings safeguards against them. As long as we have their bulwark protecting our freedoms, we ought to be safe, but the great fear is that while we finght wars allegedly defending our freedoms, individuals and groups in our own country may themselves succeed in undermining them, again not overtly and in obvious moves such as an amendment revoking the bill of rights, but in an attempt to persuade public opinion to ignore or reinterpret the foundational structures that keep us free and safe.
Genesis 1 - What shall we teach our children?
November 27, 2006 08:52
On Saturday, as my wife was preparing a Sunday School lesson on Genesis 1 (the 5th and 6th days of creation), we got into a conversation about what points one should draw out of that story for children of 1st-2nd grade age. The Genesis reading was paired with Psalm 104, which provided lots of opportunity to talk about what these passages are not (e.g. not literal or scientific descriptions, since most would agree that there are no pillars literally holding up the heavens like tent curtains, and even that God's creation did not involve his vocal cords vibrating). But what is the positive message? It is the failure of mainstream Christians to answer those questions as clearly as we say what we don't think these passages mean that have detracted from the impression made by our faith. So, here's my answer. I think that a key point that is clear from a rather straightforward reading of Genesis 1 is that God approaches the universe as parent rather than as sculptor. It provides an opportunity tells the earth to bring forth living things, rather than simply just "doing it himself". Nor in Genesis 1 does God specify specific kinds of creatures from the outset: God simply says "Let the earth bring forth..." and then the earth or nature, like a child responding to a parent, produces all sorts of wonderful and surprising creatures. There is so much that is a beautiful lesson, for children or for adults, and yet so often we miss the points of the passage entirely and spend our time debating how this story does or does not match up with scientific data. As has often been said, God is not going to ask us how he created but what we did with what he created. The Genesis story provides a wonderful opportunity to help children get those priorities straight at a young age.