The United Methodist Church's Judicial Council reversed the decision of an appelate court and defrocked Beth Stroud for being in a commited lesbian relationship. The decision affirms resolutions passed at the most recent General Conference (2004) that strengthen the church's position that homosexual practice (and not merely same-sex attraction) disqualifies one from eligibility for ordination within the United Methodist Church.
Related links:
Institute for Religion & Democracy link
Looks like the National Council of Churches is finally being recognized for what it truly is, a political lobbying machine. The Antiochian Orthodox Church has just elected to get out.
IRD link
Antiochian Orthodox link (last item)
The following fundraising letter is similar in tone to letters sent out by Planned Parenthood and People for the American Way. A lot of politics, very little of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (is Jesus even mentioned in it - let's check...no). Seems like Robin Edgar believes that Christians cannot be Republicans.
NCC Fundraising Letter
Mark Tooley writes in The American Spectator, Exploiting the Right
S.M. Hutchens, writing in Touchstone magazine has an excellent online article, The Pope is Catholic! regarding Pope Benedict XVI and his detractors. Why do efforts to transform the Catholic Church into a liberal institution fail? Because they aren't just fighting orthodoxy within the Catholic church, they are fighting against orthodoxy in the Protestant realm as well.
Shane Raynor comments on the Beth Stroud verdict being overturned on appeal.
Don't see anything on Christianity Today's website, but here's a link to them which will show it when they do.
The Reconciling Congregations reaction. (posted 4/29/2005 and I don't see a permalink so you may have to scroll or search for it later)
Reaction from The Institute on Religion & Democracy.
My reaction? I like what Shayne Raynor said. I'm beginning to wonder about all that talk about schism last year. Not that the person who proposed it desired that it happen, but rather that he was describing what was in effect already reality. This is probably a good time to go back and reread 1 Corinthians 12-14.
From the Institute on Religion & Democracy:
Religious Left Celebrates Roe vs. Wade.
I find it pretty hard to see that Jesus would have been a Roe vs. Wade supporter, given His words about the sanctity of marriage and His compassion for children.
United Methodist Bishop Denounces Abortion.
Bishop Timothy Whitaker has made a strong statement denouncing the "moral horror" of abortion, and decries the involvement of the United Methodist Church in the RCRC.
Michael Spencer, The Internet Monk, is calling on the blogosphere to expose Joel Osteen.
I am not familiar with Joel Osteen, except for the Beliefnet and FaithfulReader interviews I just read before starting this post, so I don't feel like I should critique the Rev. Osteen specifically. Shayne Radnor, at Wesley Blog, has a good post with which I agree.
I do want to critique a certain mindset however - the mindset that Christians should be happy and prosperous all the time. Looking at Psalm 1, we read, in a verse describing a godly person,
"He shall be like a tree
Planted by the rivers of water,
That brings forth its fruit in its season,
Whose leaf also shall not wither;
And whatever he does shall prosper.
Ps 1:3 NKJV
Now for the prosperity part. I don't for a minute believe that just because I'm a Christian that I can drive a Lexus, have a nice big home, and buy lots of toys for my family to play with, though I do believe that God does take care of us, Cast your burden on the Lord, And He shall sustain you; He shall never permit the righteous to be moved. (Ps 55:22 NKJV) (and God has answered a big prayer of mine this last month having to do with paying the bills). The way I view that verse (from Ps 1) is that God grants us prosperity in doing His will. I believe that God never asks anything of us unless He will also provide the means to do it. If that means leading a church with a multi-million dollar budget and saving thousands of people, He will do that in a prominent display of evangelistic prosperity. If it means going into a foreign mission and doing without creature comforts in order to preach the gospel who would never hear it otherwise, a less prominent but no-less real prosperity there as well, the prosperity of God's harvest. So instead of interpreting that verse from Psalm 1 as describing material wealth, I believe we're better looking at it with a spiritual viewpoint. What's my spiritual balance?
Bill Sinkford, president of the Unitarian Universalist Association, details the Unitarian Universalist Association agenda, in a press conference sponsored by the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.
Mark Tooley, UM Action Director for the Institute on Religion and Democracy, writes on the same press conference, describing the involvment of the United Methodist Board of Church and Society and other groups.
Credit where credit is due department: From a letter received by the Institute for Religion and Democracy from The Reverend William Melnyk, who "had been involved in work with Druid organizations."
"I was wrong. I repent of and recant without qualification anything and everything I may have said or done which is found to be in conflict with the Baptismal Covenant, and the historical Creeds of the Church."
God bless you, Reverend Melnyk.
Restore to me the joy of Your salvation,Psalm 51:12-13 NKJV
And uphold me by Your generous Spirit.
Then I will teach transgressors Your ways,
And sinners shall be converted to You.
UPDATE: Just read today, Tuesday, that the Reverend Melnyk and his wife, also a member of the Episcopal clergy, have resigned. I am sorry to hear this report.
Jeff Jacoby is skeptical of John Kerry's claim to religious belief.
Each of us can do more to love our neighbor and to live up to the Judeo-Christian values that American history so strongly affirms. But promiscuous God-talk in presidential campaigns doesn't elevate our spiritual profile. It feeds the suspicion that religion is being invoked for cynical political reasons. Is Kerry right with his God? I certainly hope so. But for nearly 22 years he managed to keep that part of his life extremely private. I wish he would have kept it that way.
A little more than a year ago, I wrote these words, about the Episcopal Church, which had just ordained Gene Robinson as a bishop.
I don't think this is the point where the ship has hit the iceberg. I think the iceberg was hit many years ago when bishops like John Shelby Spong were allowed to become spokesmen for the Episcopal church, men who do not believe in Christ's divinity, nor the Resurrection, nor the Atonement, and who find no relevance in the Bible. So the church hit the iceberg a long time ago. In my view, it's probably at the point where the ship is just about vertical and about to snap in two. People are jumping ship, and the ship will sink. The Episcopal Church will soon no longer be recognizable as a Christian Church, as heterodox as the Unitarian Universalist Association, which took action similar to this way back in 1984.
The Episcopal Church is now promoting a ritual honoring "The Queen of Heaven". As heterodox as the UUs? You bet. The Unitarian Universalist Association has had a Cakes for the Queen of Heaven Religious Education program for a long time (my former UU congregation does it). In fact, the book by that title was written by a UU minister, Shirley Ranck, back in 1986. About the only difference I can find between the Episcopalians and the UUs is that the UUs are much bolder in admitting that this is a spit in the eye to orthodox Christian faith.
Hat tips to Jason Steffens (Antioch Road) and Amy Welborn (Open Book)
Abortion providers are supporting John Kerry, and for good reason. His administration, if he is elected, will be better for their business.
And just this little note: anytime someone suggests a common-sense restriction on abortion, such as stopping late-term abortions, groups like Planned Parenthood responsd to the effect that there are hardly any late term abortions done. But this statement hides an important viewpoint, to groups like the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) and the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA), late-term abortion providers like George Tiller are heroes, and they are dedicated to continuing their work.
An excerpt from a prayer by Unitarian Universalist minister Deborah Mero at the 30th anniversary service of Roe vs. Wade cited in link above:
We honor those who brought us choice, Sarah Weddington, Fay Wattleton, Justice Harry Blackmun and all of this generation, Kate Michelman, Gloria Feldt, Dr. George Tiller, Dr. LeRoy Carhart, and Frances Kissling who have worked tirelessly to affirm women's right to choose abortion and provide safe and legal reproductive health options. And we vow to carry on their work.
Now before anyone attacks me for justifying the violence done to Tiller or his clinic, let me just say this right now: I do not support violence against any person or their property, and I support the prosecution of people who conduct such violence. However, being a victim of violence is not a virtue. Tiller is no hero.
Two Unitarian-Universalist ministers are riding on the "Marriage Equality" Caravan, whose goals are "to focus attention on proposed amendments to write discrimination into both state constitutions and the U.S. Constitution, and 'to demand a repeal of anti-gay measures like the Defense of Marriage Act and Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' "
Bear in mind that these ministers are reprensentatives of a liberal denomination that believes in the separation of church and state so much that some of its members are trying to revoke the tax-exempt status of churches trying to promote the Federal Marriage Amendment. Now of course, the participation of two ministers is not exactly an explicit endorsement by the denomination, but on the other hand, the link is from the UUA website which implies that the denomination is promoting their cause. Here's another link showing that UUA support for gay marriage goes as far as explicit and extensive political lobbying.
If a Democrat gives a political talk in a church, he or she is a concerned American citizen wanting to preserve American Values. If a Republican does it, he's a fascist Taliban out to destroy America by usurping the "separation of church and state".
Two links on a political speech by President Clinton in Riverside Church in NYC. Replace President Clinton's name with President Bush's or John Ashcroft's, and you would have the ACLU, AUSCA, and Unitarians taking this to the courts to have the church's tax-exempt status stripped.
Undivine Double Standard, by Paul Kengor, in National Review Online. Kengor argues that Clinton invoked God much more often than President Bush in his speech.
All the Bias That Fits, by Michelle Malkin, commenting in the Washington Times.
From Christianity Today, Thirteen Bad Arguments for Same-Sex Marriage.
The other shoe has dropped. Conservative activists are monitoring Unitarian Universalist congregations and other liberal churches for endorsements of Democrats or Democrat "code-words"
Also, in the Demopolis Times, Gary Palmer writes that all this demagogery amounts to an intimidation campaign. He's right. (links via Christianity Today's weblog)
This is getting rather shrill and ridiculous, though I think that The Mainstream Coalition, the UUA, and their allies were asking for this response with their virulently anti-religious behaviour.
The bottom line is that if a preacher doesn't endorse a candidate by name, he's legal. Code words are protected free speech. The Catholic church is free to tell its members to vote pro-life, just as my former UUA congregation was free to tell its members to vote pro-abortion (which was real close to the time I renounced it and moved on).
(8/20) UPDATE: Joel Thomas directs me to this post by Donald Sensing One Hand Clapping, which discusses the rules regarding political activity by churches. The amount of political involvement by a church seems to be a key factor (and this is an arbitrary measure). I've been a member of Methodist, Baptist, and Unitarian churches during my lifetime. I have never been in a more politically active "church" than the Unitarian Universalist Association. Many congregations have forsaken all aspects of worship altogether, replacing it almost completely with social activism, including political lobbying. I am surprised that UUA congregations are not losing their tax-exempt status in droves.
Also: from the Unitarian Universalist Washington Office for Advocacy, the Unitarian Universalist lobbying organization, The Real Rules: Congregations and IRS Guidelines On Advocacy, Lobbying, and Elections. Just a reminder, guys: the rules apply to both sides.
from South Jersey; actually came back Monday. Didn't want to write too quickly about this, but feel I have to finally.
Missed some news while away, or just heard about it about twelve hours after it was announced. Governor McGreevey is resigning!! What? No, he's not? Oh, he's resigning in November. Just our luck. He's messed this state up real good, and won't let go until a special election can be thwarted. Well, the Democrats won the last election I suppose, so I guess there's a point to keeping them there (but this comes from a state where political parties appoint their nominees after the primaries, so I guess it stands to reason that a resigning governor can effectively appoint his successor), but we don't have a good track record with acting governors either. I don't appreciate what President Bush did to us by taking Governor Whitman away from us. Her replacement (a Republican btw) did a rather poor job too, and Whitman did a poor job at the EPA as well.
So Jim McGreevey claims to be a "gay" American. No, Governor, the proper antonym of straight you're looking for is crooked.
And on the whole subject of gay confessions. If McGreevey had confessed to committing adultery with a woman, he would have been viciously attacked in the press, but he confesses to committing adultery with another man, and his poll numbers go up! So the new "wag the dog" strategy, at least here in New Jersey, is confess that you're gay, and suddenly you gain all kinds of respect. As Mark Shea has said, and it describes the NJ mentality pretty well "Could there possibly be anything more incredibly glorious and splendid than homosexuality?"
Matt Kaufman, in a new column at Boundless, discusses secularism, the worldview that religion deserves no place in public life or expression. He models the discussion on Robert Reich, who Joe Carter and I have both discussed recently.
Does secularism imply godlessness? Many seem to think that religious views are all fine and good but should be held privately. Problem is that Reich's depiction of secularism would have the religious viewpoint shut out completely, just because of different beliefs (and this coming from the political party claiming unity, no less). If you believe Man writes the rules, you're a player, if you believe God's rules are the foundation, then your viewpoint is invalid and will not be considered, and it's not a stretch to say it would be censored as well.
Steve Waldman, editor-in-chief of Beliefnet, opines that faith belongs in politics.
An excerpt (but read the whole thing):
The Left and Right have both followed the advice of the Founding Fathers at different points in history. Abolitionism and the civil-rights movement — two moral highpoints of our history — were driven by people attempting to impose their religious views on others. So is the right-to-life movement.
And some advice for those who speak out on issues of faith and morality:
There is, however, a problem with the way some religious conservatives approach the political sphere. The problem is not dogmatism, but laziness. Someone who rests the argument for a certain position entirely on the fact that his religion told him to is not really attempting to persuade. Even if one is motivated by faith, one still has to convince others using secular, or at least broad-gauge, moral arguments.
Earlier this week, in a Beliefnet article, Breakthrough for Nonbelievers, discussing Ron Reagan's speech at the DNC, Joe Conn, spokesman for Americans United for the Separation of Church and State says, "The polls continue to show that a lot of Americans are uncomfortable electing a non-believer, It's almost a de facto religious test,..." referring to the Constitutional prohibition of a religious test. Trouble is, he is wrong in his understanding of the Constitution. The Constitutional reference is a restriction of government power, not a restriction of individual liberty. No person can be considered ineligible to run for office because of their religion, but people are free to vote for whatever reasons they wish, including their religion and faith beliefs.
Susan b. Lilac Rose points me to this news story in the Washington Post, describing how a liberal religious[,lack of] group, The Mainstream Coalition is visiting evangelical and fundamentalist churches to monitor their political activity.
Tina Kohn, a member from the Unitarian Universalist Association, said "keeping church and state separate is important to her. She doesn't want a few religious denominations defining marriage - or setting other social policy - for everyone."
So is it really that important to the Unitarian Universalist Association, that religious denominations not define marriage? Let's do a little monitoring of the "Religious Left".
Here's a UUA 2004 Action of Immediate Witness, passed at the recent UUA General Assembly, opposing the Federal Marriage Amendment.
Also from the 2004 GA, a panel on Same-Sex Marriage: Finding Our Public Voice.
So, if the UUA is a religious organization, it really ought to reconsider what religious organizations can talk about regarding public policy. For all the ranting and raving about the nefarious tactics of the "religious right", the bottom line is that their opponents on the "religious left" do the exact same things, with one exception. Only one side, represented by The Mainstream Coalition, is telling the other to shut up.
Following up on a post, The Secularist's Vision, citing Robert Reich and his belief that religious people should not have any say in the conduct of our country, it turns out that Ron Reagan Jr., who spoke at the DNC last night on the subject of embryonic stem cell research, claims to be an atheist.
Ramesh Ponnuru, at National Review Online, criticizes on Reagan's speech.
My former congregation, the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Princeton, is hosting a viewing of the movie Outfoxed, which argues for the censorship is extremely critical of Fox News. Looks like they've joined the MoveOn crowd. Of course, this doesn't prevent them from criticizing politically-active Christians of blurring the distinction between church and state.
UPDATE: A review of Outfoxed from OpinionJournal.com.
ANOTHER UPDATE: I haven't seen the movie, nor will I do so, so I don't know firsthand that it argues for the censorship of Fox News. I thought I read that somewhere, but I can't find the link, so I've changed the wording of one of the sentences in the original post. The original is still there, just struck out so you can see what I originally said.
Last week, Joe Carter The Evangelical Outpost linked to an NRO article by Ramesh Ponnuru, Robert Reich's Religion Problem. Robert Reich is quoted as saying,
"The great conflict of the 21st century will not be between the West and terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic, not a belief. The true battle will be between modern civilization and anti-modernists; between those who believe in the primacy of the individual and those who believe that human beings owe their allegiance and identity to a higher authority; between those who give priority to life in this world and those who believe that human life is mere preparation for an existence beyond life; between those who believe in science, reason, and logic and those who believe that truth is revealed through Scripture and religious dogma. Terrorism will disrupt and destroy lives. But terrorism itself is not the greatest danger we face."
This is similar to what many Unitarian Universalists and Humanists believe: that Christians are out to destroy America, to take us back to the dark ages, take away womens' rights. I've even heard some of them blame Christianity for the Holocaust, rhetoric very similar to that heard this year during the discussion of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ.
Since Robert Reich's views are so similar to those of the Unitarian Universalists, he was featured as a guest speaker at their recent General Assembly. Here's his presentation, Reason: Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America, which is actually a plug for his latest book by the same title. It's sort of interesting that he is so critical of Christians for promoting their values, and yet here he is promoting his own. Of course he is free to do so, and his ideas deserve consideration. But what he denies in his TAP piece is a place at the political table for people of faith. And that is an unconstitutional religious test, and not an American value at all.
Jay Ambrose on why religious conservatives shouldn't be caricatured as extremists.
Some quotes, including the final paragraph, from the editorial:
It is always a mistake, in my view, for people of faith to think their religious and moral insights necessarily give them policy insights. Those on the religious left - and some secularists - are at least as unlikely in their socialist urgings to recognize this fact as the religious right.News accounts tell us that people who go to religious services regularly, no matter what the faith, are more likely to vote for Bush than John Kerry, and that those who see themselves as not religious are more likely to vote for Kerry. Some of this has to do with stances on specific issues, obviously, but I think it also has to do with people seeking out sensibilities they think are akin to their own. Those among the religious who find Bush a kindred spirit are not thereby fools who will wreck the country.
(Link via Christianity Today's Weblog)
Five discussions from UUA GC2004, all on a similar theme - Secularism is a religion too. Which of course makes it impossible to eliminate religion from public life - since worshipping nothing is just making "Nothing" an object of worship.
What's Intelligent About Intelligent Design?
The UU Answer to Vacation Bible School
Science and the Search for God
A Discussion on Science and Unitarian Universalism
Toward a Humanist Language of Reverence
John Kerry's advisers tell him to keep quiet on subject of religion after questions are asked about his new directory of religious outreach, Mara Vanderslice, a former Unitarian who has a background of involvement in left-wing causes. It seems to me that her appointment is intended to use religion as a stalking horse for leftist political causes.
A few days ago, I noted Tom Teepen's observation that the Bush administration's policies "do not reflect the broad practice and values of most mainstream Christians but rather the dogmas of conservative faiths." He may be right on the conservative part, but wrong on the broad practice and values. Left-wing political activism is a lot more divisive than promoting traditional values. Kerry's advisers are wising up to that fact and telling him to keep mum on it.
Liberal Activists Launch Initiative for “Progressive” Religious Leaders.
Tom Teepen applies a religious test to the Bush administration. His verdict: it's ok for one's religious values to influence their actions in politics if they are a liberal, but if one is a conservative evangelical, then it's just wrong. Why? Bush policies do not "do not reflect the broad practice and values of most mainstream Christians but rather the dogmas of conservative faiths." I don't know why that's a defining measure for why it's right or wrong though - if you consider abortion to be a human rights issue, as I do, then religious doctrine is just an aside. Today's religious conservatives have as much right to speak up on right-to-life issues as nineteenth-century abolitionists (also a minority) did to speak out against slavery.
And just another little fact: if abortion is an unalienable right due to the words of a Supreme Court decision, by that standard, ownership of slaves is also an unalienable right - another decision by our Supreme Court from our past. Of course the latter proposition is ridiculous. What isn't said very much nowadays, but should be, is that the first propostion is ridiculous also, for the same reason.
but it was about as easy as predicting that the sun will rise tomorrow.
Pro-life bishop threatened with IRS probe.
Barry Lynn says,
"Bishop Sheridan's letter is code language that says, 'Re-elect Bush and vote Republican,'" charged the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. "Everyone knows Bush and Kerry differ on the issue of abortion. Sheridan is using a form of religious blackmail to steer votes toward the GOP. The IRS should look into this immediately."
Back in 2000, I heard a Unitarian Universalist sermon where the pastor exhorted his congregation to vote to preserve abortion rights. That seems like code language just as sure as the Catholic bishop's words, except with one major difference: the bishop is just clarifying who may receive communion, while the UU minister was literally telling people how to vote. Of course, Barry Lynn will never criticize the UUA for its abortion code-language, but he should. His silence just proves that Americans United for the Separation of Church and State is just another brownshirt, pro-abortion outfit.
Of course any time a Christian opens his or her mouth to suggest anything pertaining to religion or morality in the public square, the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (and people like Michael Newdow) will be there to suppress them. They seem to think the First Amendment is a statement limiting the rights of citizens rather than the powers of the state. They're wrong -- the First Amendment is a limitation of the powers of the state, as shown by its opening "Congress shall make no law..." The First Amendment does not take away the rights of Christians, or anyone else for that matter, to speak their views.
The Unitarian Universalist Association, which is a tax-exempt religious organization which believes very strongly in the separation of church and state, recently conducted a three-day workshop on political lobbying. Here's a link to a description of the event by the Minister of Religious Education at my former congregation.
I love the irony of these two consecutive paragraphs (emphasis added):
But the highlight of the three days was attending an event for religious leaders that Rush Holt had set up in Washington so that we could start talking our values and faiths across, rather than against, our different traditions. It was an excellent program that addressed the need to keep working to not let the blur between church and state grow more than it has. People spoke out against programs such as Bush's faith-based initiatives and some of the discrimination that these initiatives allow.
One of the highlights of the day was listening to Representative John Lewis talk about how faith and politics are connected, and his experience in the civil rights movement. Legislators, as much as anyone else, need to have their work and their deliberation process grounded in their faith, in their sense of the goodness of people and their sense of what is possible in becoming a more just and compassionate world.
The UUA professes belief in "The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large", however, by speaking out for the liberal agenda while stating that their conservative opponents cannot speak out for theirs is a violation of that principle.
I'm disappointed in this decision, though I have to read more about the reasoning. I think it is dishonest of the pro-abortion side to ignore the issue of pain, however. I know some people who are adamantly pro-abortion, yet think that fishing, hunting, and factory farming should be banned because they cause pain to animals. They actually have more sympathy for animals than for unborn human beings.
Joe Carter (The Evangelical Outpost) and Jeffrey Collins (Joyful Christian) discuss a case where a Unitarian Universalist Church was denied tax-exempt status since they, by not requiring belief in a deity, cannot legitimately claim to be a religion.
I used to be a UU myself, and I find myself disagreeing with Joe Carter. In my experience, with no theological foundation on which to base doctrine, the Unitarian Universalist Association has become primarily a political advocacy organization, not much different in fact from Planned Parenthood (as you can tell from looking at the UUAWO website for the March for Womens' Lives). So in my opinion, the UUA is no more deserving of a tax exemption than is Planned Parenthood. Unfortunately, for some bizarre reason, Planned Parenthood is tax-exempt, even though they are pumping out extremely partisan advertisements trying to put John Kerry in the White House. I thought tax-exempt meant they weren't allowed to do that.
In Breakpoint, Fr. Hans Jacobse argues that the linkage between the homosexual marriage movement and the civil rights movement is illegitimate.
Today, I read that some Catholic bishops plan to deny communion to people who vote for politicians who support abortion.
I've been following the Catholic communion controversy, and while I support the Catholic church's upholding of its standards, I don't see how they will be able to do this without becoming very intrusive on its parishioners. Maybe I'm wrong -- I'm a United Methodist and have never been a member of the Catholic church, though my wife was a very long time ago.
On the other hand, I expect any minute now to hear of the Religious Left calling for the Catholic church's tax-exempt status to be taken away. They will say that it's a violation of "separation of church and state" (ignoring their own pro-abortion resolutions, like this one and this one). I also remember the last Unitarian Universalist sermon I heard before the 2000 elections where the parish minister preached a blatantly pro-abortion sermon and exhorted the Unitarian Universalist faithful to go out there and vote to save abortion rights, and later a very emotional woman got into a shouting match with me, telling me I was "destroying the country", when I told her I was going to vote for W. Who's kidding who that the religious left is any different than the religious right when it comes to "separating church and state"?
Now, is it appropriate for the bishops to deny communion to anyone? In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul says:
Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
The Dunker Journal has a good comment on how liberals and conservatives are differentiated in the media, and I've noted it too, in all I've read about the Episcopal and Methodist dealings with the homosexuality issue.
Funny, isn't it, how when liberals take control, it is "the wind of the Spirit" making the church "progressive;" yet when conservatives/evangelicals even move a denomination toward a more Biblical stance, it is a "right wing takeover," and "oh, how low we have sunk."
In a previous post, Joel Thomas, in the comments, referred me to an article in the New York Times that covers a memo detailing private thoughts of Bill Hinson, president of the Confessing Movement, on "an amicable and just separation".
I cannot find a link to the May 7 NYTimes article but I remember it quoting Mark Tooley, president of UM Action, part of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, as saying that conservatives were seeking a split for a long time. This quotation seemed to be very much out of character for anything I had read coming from Mr. Tooley. I subscribe to UM Action, and all of their exhortations to dissatisfied Methodists are to stay in the church and work for reform from within. I cannot help but think that Mr. Tooley was misquoted by the Times.
Here's another news article from another paper with a different quotation from Mark Tooley:
Church organizer calls for Methodist split
Anyhow, getting back to Rev. Bill Hinson, while he is the president of an organization with much influence, he also stated that the views expressed in this paper, An Amicable and Just Separation, are his own and have not been officially approved, nor submitted to the UMC General Conference. I am a supporter of the Confessing Movement, but I am not happy to hear these ideas expressed. I think they do a disservice to the United Methodist Church, especially given the goals achieved by the Confessing Movement at the General Convention. The public expression of these views only supports those who claim that conservatives are to blame whenever churches divide over conflicts involving Biblical authority and orthodoxy.
UPDATE: Another article from Christianity Today has further quotations and viewpoints from Rev. Bill Hinson, James Heidinger, President of Good News, and Mark Tooley of UM Action.
The United Methodist Church stood its ground. On the Karen Dammann controversy, the Judicial Council made it explicitly clear that the Book of Discipline was misinterpreted by the jury which acquited Ms. Dammann. It also ruled that self-confessed active homosexuals are not to be appointed by bishops.
The delegates went on to adopt the following language by a 579-376 vote:
"The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching. We affirm that God's grace is available to all, and we will seek to live together in Christian community."
Another statement, which would have acknowledged disagreement between faithful Christians on the issue of homosexuality, was rejected.
There were the usual protests from the pro-homosexuality activists, saying that this vote has divided the church, completely ignoring the experience of the Episcopal church last year, which suffered quite a bit more division by voting the opposite direction from the Methodists. Anyway, all the talk about division is a red herring. Any organization is divided when there are members with contrary views. The activists only seem to acknowledge unity when the votes go their way.
Dunker Journal and Midwest Conservative Journal also have posts on this subject.
Michelle Malkin mentions some people who think that abortion is murder, including a few who changed their minds when they saw what it was.
Kathleen Parker takes the position that she doesn't want to see abortion outlawed, but wishes that people would be allowed to see the truth about what it is.
Which brings me to these two...
LifeNews article on an altercation at a John Kerry rally. (Hat tip to NRO's The Corner)
Annie, at afterabortion.com, blogs on her experience of abuse and harassment at the march on Sunday.
What gets me really riled up about this is that many of these marchers are also criticizing the government (or just conservatives in general) of censorship when they criticize anti-war attitudes. Their idealism vanishes when their point of view is being defended. I agree with part of what Kathleen Parker says, let's see and hear the truth about abortion and stop censoring the sonograms, let women hear about the alternative of adoption, and stop putting them on a one-way track to abortion. And one more thing, I'm tired of hearing the cliche that pro-life people are uncompassionate and uncaring. One thing this march showed me is that that description is more descriptive of the abortion lobby.
Susanna Cornett talks about PETA in a recent post, citing the offensive depiction of a bovine Pope.
I find the "cow-Pope" offensive too, but I find another thing about them obnoxious as well - their casual flaunting of Judeo-Christian beliefs to prop up their cause.
Let's look at their treatment of Passover. They ask the questions, "What better time than Passover to extend our compassion to every living being? And what better way to celebrate the spirit of the holiday than by practicing vegetarianism?"
Looks like they haven't read the original instructions for Passover, which quite blatantly contradict their claims: "and you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month, when the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill their lambs at twilight. Then they shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses in which they eat it. They shall eat the flesh that night, roasted on the fire; with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it."
Looks like they've fallen victim to the same style of thought that afflicts the entire "religious left" these days: a sacrifice-free, God is love and vice-versa, type mentality. Since the Passover is supposed to celebrate victory over all forms of oppression (we all know that, don't we?), it certainly should be a cause for relieving the suffering of animals, right? No. It is a day for celebrating the deliverance of the Jews from Egypt. A deliverance from oppression? Yes, but a specific case, and I don't appreciate it when others piggy-back their own personal causes on it, even when it's a cause I'm in sympathy with.
Texas Conference Protests GBCS Support of Pro-Abortion Rally
Press Release: Methodist Pastor Gets "Married" Just Before her Church Trial
Also regarding the UMC trial of Rev. Karen Dammann:
from Christianity Today:Methodist Trial Opens With Arrests, Comparison to Crucifixion
from Comcast News: Congregation Hails Decision on Gay Pastor notes that Rev. Karen Dammann was acquitted.
The editorial written by Robert Rhodes and Paul Schrag for the December 8th issue of the Mennonite Weekly Review -- an inter-Mennonite newspaper -- is entitled “Church should stand firm on marriage.” (The article is not yet archived.) This provides an interesting note on the conflict now raging in American culture.
This message of opposition to gay marriage is not addressed to the wider society, but only to the church: “Though much sound and fury will be expended, we must remember that the courts can define marriage only in a secular sense. They cannot change how churches define it. And though many Christians disagree with the Massachusetts ruling, we would do well simply to stand on our own teaching instead of asserting that the law must conform to our beliefs.”
How distinctly and uniquely Mennonite!
As one who grew up in a rural Mennonite congregation and community -- though I’m now a member of the First Presbyterian Church of Hollywood -- I can tell you that though many Mennonites around the country are quite conservative in their personal cultural and religious views: the editorials in the Review have for some time now been quite leftist in their politics -- sometimes even to the extreme. The views have been so radical in recent years that they cannot be considered representative of normal Mennonite practice. But apparently many Mennonite individuals and congregations today -- especially those in the Baby-Boom generation and those within the intellectual leadership of Mennonite publications -- are moving in the direction of the liberalism of the “mainstream” Protestant churches.
But it’s interesting to see that on this issue of gay marriage -- Mennonite thought is still traditional.
Here’s some more from this uncommonly perceptive editorial:
“Despite the churches’ witness, it seems likely that people of the same gender eventually will gain the legal right to enter a covenant that mirrors the bond of traditional marriage. If for no other reason, this will happen because the American public simply will have grown tolerant of such unions and tired of denying them to the very vocal groups who espouse them. In essence, the matter will be reduced to granting a civil privilege, without approving of a lifestyle or sexual practice.
“Loud and vigorous disputes will arise, partly because the issue doubles as a handy political grenade, one often wielded by those who purport to speak for conservative Christianity. Yet Christians who hold a conservative theology of marriage need not join the chorus heralding civilization’s downfall. No court ruling or legislative action can ‘undermine traditional marriage.’ Traditional marriage, defined by Scripture and the church, will continue to be as strong, or as weak, as traditional married couples make it.”
Without, myself, taking a stand, here -- on the issue of gay marriage for American society as a whole -- I would say this editorial makes some unusually wise and nuanced observations.
Up to now, pundits have been skeptical about the possibility of a constitutional amendment protecting marriage. I think that may have just changed today. When people realize that this means same-sex couples will be visiting their churches demanding equal treatment as heterosexual couples, and same-sex couples attending their office "holiday" parties, and seeing same-sex couples in the mall, all flaunting their sexuality in front of their children, anyone who thinks this is not a good thing is going to think that it is time to stop it via action that tells the judges where they can put their activism. Let's face it - we're not Scandinavia, and people who know Scandinavia know that same-sex marriage is not marriage, and will indeed destroy the institution, which is another thing that would probably make the Unitarian Universalists happy, a religious institution which seems to be unable to admit that adultery and promiscuity are bad things.
Of course, this is from religious liberals, so there's no bigotry, or pushing values down other peoples' throats.
Donna M. Hughes reports that members of the Moscow (Russia) city duma are upset with American NGOs, claiming that they are undermining efforts to combat sex trafficking. Seems that NGOs are overlooking the exploitation inherent in the system, and are painting an alternate picture of anti-prostitution efforts, portraying such efforts as hurting women who want to work, arguing that if prostitution is legalized, then it could then be treated as a bona fide workplace, with benefits and all. When it is disclosed that the people making the most money are male pimps who abuse their 'workers', will American campus groups sprout up overnight to combat the new scourge of sexual sweatshops? No, I don't think so; Fallen Man will not stop a mad rush to Gomorrah.
Mother Jones has an article from their latest issue up on the web, Thailand's Brothel Busters. They claim that efforts to shut down brothels are hurting working women.
Let's compare sex trafficking and the textile business:
Seems that when a legitimate business, such as a clothing manufacturer, gives people a chance to work at a legitimate job and earn a decent wage (by that country's standards), then it must be labeled by American leftists and labor unions as a sweatshop. The Wall Street Journal had a good editorial in defense of P. Diddy's textile factory in Honduras, which lets its employees work in air-conditioned comfort, and earn enough money to attain a middle class standard of living in that country to boot. I'd think that in most countries, most workers would rather work, even for a low wage, than not work and starve to death. Isn't shutting down these factories hurting people even more than clamping down on sex trafficking?
Now let's look closer at sex trafficking: Girls (not even old enough to have undergone puberty) abducted and taken across international borders against their will, forced to have sex with complete strangers against their will, and given little or no control over where they live or what they do - literally forced slavery. Even if some are inured to the experience, and thus reluctant to leave because of not having anything else available, isn't it absolutely unjust to allow this situation to exist as long as long as it takes new victims every day?
He has said in his heart, "I shall not be moved; I shall never be in adversity." His mouth is full of cursing and deceit and oppression; Under his tongue is trouble and iniquity. He sits in the lurking places of the villages; In the secret places he murders the innocent; His eyes are secretly fixed on the helpless. He lies in wait secretly, as a lion in his den; He lies in wait to catch the poor; He catches the poor when he draws him into his net. So he crouches, he lies low, That the helpless may fall by his strength. He has said in his heart, "God has forgotten; He hides His face; He will never see." Psalm 10:6-11 NKJV
It is difficult for me to believe that anyone alive on earth could be defending the sex trafficking business, but apparently the people who put out Mother Jones are wicked enough to do just that.
Saw this outrageous quote from IRD's website:
"Sexual conduct is surely on the same level of seriousness as eating a bacon sandwich, and we might have hoped that nowadays, given the diversity of human life, the Church would have chosen to shut up about sex.”- Quote from Commentary by A. N. Wilson in 10/19 Telegraph (London)
Wasn't sure I was getting it all in context, so I found another link from Christianity Today's website. Here's the original article. While the context of the quote makes it a little more reasonable than how IRD makes it sound, it's not much better. A.N. Wilson is comparing Biblical injunctions against sexual immorality to laws against eating unclean food, saying that perhaps we shouldn't take the Biblical injunctions against sexual immorality so seriously.
This gets into that awful play I saw last week. I was thinking about it, why I hated it so much, and I remember a couple of lines, and some text from the playbill. It was about the so-called human condition (and I will never again see a play or movie that mentions the phrase human condition in its advertising, it's just a code word for sin acted out in plain view). Love is viewed as something one desires, obtains, and then loses. Love is viewed as solely a sexual experience. Love is viewed as something one can satisfy with anyone they wish. The idea of love being rooted in a total giving of oneself to another person, and letting that love grow through the commitment of each person in that relationship is just not considered, but that's what marriage is based on, not a casual answer to the question, "who will I sleep with tonight?".
Now, is all this talk about sex mere folderol? Considering the impact on godly teaching and godly living, I'd say not. As a future new parent, for example, I want to have my church's support when I teach my child what's right and wrong. I don't want my church to be saying that sex outside of marriage is alright when I'm telling her it's not. And regarding how I'm expected to behave, I consider it important to emphasize everything God wants me to do, what I call a balanced Christian, or godly, life. The line "It's ok, I'm doing fine with A" doesn't work with God when He also wants me to be doing fine with B-Z - He wants obedience in all areas of my life: compassion, integrity, humility, faith, and sexual purity. For any new Christian coming into the faith from a life of sexual immorality, it is important to tell the truth of 1 Corinthians 6. Anything less is denying them the truth about what discipleship entails.
New Jersey's same-sex marriage suit is tossed out.
Finally, a judge speaks truth in New Jersey regarding the role of the judiciary!
"Social change of the type sought ... is properly accomplished in the legislative arena," Feinberg said, who added that she was sympathetic to the interests of the couples. "(They) must take their request for an alteration in the definition of marriage to the elected officials responsible for drafting the marriage statutes."
The ACLU disagrees, saying that rights should not be legislated:
But Edward Barocas, legal director of the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the courts are the proper forum for this debate. "It is totally inappropriate to have constitutional rights of any particular group put up for a vote," he said.
I disagree with the ACLU. Rights are what each of us human beings have because of our existence. They are not dependent upon other people. We don't have a right to marry anyone we wish, or even to have sex with anyone we wish. Regarding parenting (one of the so-called "rights" desired by the homosexual couples in this case), I'd say that if anyone has rights in this area, children do, and have the right to not be subject to the ill effects of homosexual parenting.
Over on the left, I have a link to the Vatican's position on homosexual unions. I endorse it, and especially think that their description of the ill effects of homosexual unions on the upbringing of children are spot-on. I used to be tolerant of the idea of homosexual unions until I spent some time thinking about what it would be like growing up in such a home. No more. Here's the Vatican link.
Diane Knippers, President of the Institute for Religion and Democracy, responds to the Statement of the Primates of the Anglican Communion.
In today's National Review Online, John Derbyshire laments the Age of No Consequences. I lament it too, John.
His article reminds me of a post that's been brewing in my head over the last few days, one I'd like to commit to writing before I let it go - the idea of inconsistencies in thought from Religious Left types.
I know people who hate the Religious Right because they say radical-right-types are just out to tell everyone how to live. One of them is a member of PETA, which is just as actively trying to get people to commit to vegetarian diets, even going as far as picketing seafood restaurants near the Jersey shore (they consider cooking lobsters in boiling water to be inhumane-apparently there is a fundamental right of all animals, with the exception of certain classes of human beings, to be free from pain). So coercion is a tactic employed by both right and left, and there must be another reason for their disrespect for the Religious Right: namely, different values, though some values are just too flaky to state explicitly I guess.
Our Constitution recognizes the right of the people to keep and bear arms, noting that the existence of well-regulated militias is an important component of maintaining a free state. Our Constitution does not mention abortion, or even reproduction. So what's a Constitutional right: the so-called "right to choose" or the right to buy a handgun? You can tell a lot about someone's political views just by noting their answer to this one question.
Speaking of abortion; abortion is considered to be a fundamental human (or women's) right because of a single judicial decree: Roe vs. Wade. The institution of slavery is justly considered to be a great evil in spite of a similar nineteenth-century judicial decree protecting it, the Dredd Scott case. It is just not true that past Supreme Court decisions define fundamental human rights.
After 9-11, Unitarian Universalists and other liberal religious groups, such as The Interfaith Alliance, who usually decry mixing church and state, fell over themselves in supporting the Islamist cause, choosing to overlook the fact that in countries implementing sharia law, there is no freedom from a state-imposed religion (and it isn't Unitarian-Universalism either - UUA churches would be banned along with all those with plus-signs on them)
Another aspect of sharia law, is the practice of dhimmitude (discussed here by Batt Yeor in National Review Online), where Christians and Jews are forced to live in conditions worse than what existed here in the USA under Jim Crow. Almost all Americans rightly consider the Jim Crow period of our history to be a grave injustice, but liberals seem to think that dhimmitude doesn't exist, or if it does, is just a neutral aspect of Muslim culture, for all practical concerns, none of our business. Who are we to judge?
I'm sure that I could think of many more examples of inconsistent thinking; indeed I could come up with some from the right: (Why in the world did President Bush ever sign the Campaign Finance Reform bill for starters? He believes in free speech!) If you want to add some via comments, I'd sure appreciate seeing them.
Had another thought regarding my last post after I shutdown the blog last night. I was wondering how I could have recognized John Shelby Spong's theology for the rubbish it is even when I was pretty firmly entrenched in a Unitarian Universalist congregation. I said in yesterday's post that I had started to read the New Testament again, and even believe it. Coming from a liberal background, why didn't Spong's work as a member of the Jesus Seminar have any influence on me?
The choice is black and white if you consider that the authors of the New Testament, even disregarding who they are, claim to be eyewitnesses of Jesus' life and Resurrection. When looked at this way, the authors are either telling the truth or they are lying.
If they were telling the truth, then the Gospel is the greatest news known to man, and is of utmost importance to everyone.
If they were lying, then Christianity is just an elaborate con game worthy of scorn and disrespect. Embrace any of the world's other religions, even atheism, and shun the Christians for their dishonest ways, and say all manner of ill-things about them, but by no means say you are a Christian while believing a made-up reinterpretation of that Gospel message. The apostles did not leave that option to us.
Earl T. Wilson writes this viewpoint, At the Crux of the Matter, God's Truth Wins, at PresbyWeb (thanks to Dunker Journal for the link).
Are Christians listening to the same God when one perceives God's will as ordaining a homosexual bishop and another doesn't? That's either a contradiction or a description of an inconsistent God, an unscriptural description of Him. I don't buy it -- someone is doing what is "right in his own eyes".
Back in October 2001, I was at a special meeting of the Institute for Religion and Democracy to hear Dr. Tom Oden speak on The New Ecumenism. I had just made a decision to follow Jesus -- my commitment was about four months old at the time. For some reason, I found myself drawn to reading about the early Church Fathers, and Dr. Oden is knowledgable of their work. I bring this all up because Dr. Oden's speech was responded to by Dr. Robert P. George, Professor of Jurisprudence and Director, James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. Dr. George recognizes an ecumenism which transcends Catholic-Protestant boundaries but which definitely respects a certain boundary.
From Dr. George's response:
As the Catholic panelist, I suppose that I am expected to say something critical from a Catholic perspective of the work of a Methodist theologian. I’m afraid that I must disappoint this expectation. It is not that I consider the theological issues that continue to divide Catholics and Protestants to be unimportant. I long to share in a common eucharistic meal with my Protestant friends, yet I know that this must await a more perfect communion of faith. But this longing itself is a manifestation of the work of the Spirit towards its object. Indeed, when I think in terms of “them” and “us,” I simply find it impossible to divide the world into Catholics and Protestants or even Catholics and non-Catholics. I am a Catholic; Dr. Oden is a Protestant. But when I think in terms of “us,” I cannot imagine “us” not including Dr. Oden or Diane Knippers, or James Nuechterlein, or Gilbert Meilaender, or Charles Colson, or Bill Bright, or James Dobson or countless other Protestant believers whose fidelity to the ancient creeds and moral principles of Christian faith has been proven on the battlefields of the culture war. There is a profound unity among us, manifested in common effort and common struggle and animated by what is undeniably a common faith—a unity that that is, I believe, precisely the work of the Holy Spirit to which Dr. Oden referred.So who is the “them”? I wish I could say that there is no “them.” But that isn’t true. The fact is that in the struggles for the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage and the family, the integrity of Christian doctrine, many Christians—Catholics as well as Protestants—are on the other side. Though I may find myself approaching the Lord’s table at mass alongside Catholics who support abortion, or reject the Biblical and natural law understanding of marriage as a one-flesh union of a man and a woman, or deny Christ’s incarnation, bodily resurrection, and ascension, there is between us a fundamental moral and spiritual divide. Ours is not the same faith. Nor is the object of our worship the same. The scandal of the affectation of unity among those who believe the doctrines of Christian faith and those who do not believe them is as deep and damaging as the scandal of division among Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox believers.
In the great struggles over life and death, marriage and the family, right and wrong, there is, I’m afraid, an “us” and a “them.” Of course, we are strictly enjoined by Christ himself to love our enemies—and we must not fail in this duty. At the same time, we must not pretend that we have no enemies. In the midst of a conflict in which lives and souls are at stake, love of God and neighbor forbids our indulging such pretense.
John Derbyshire's view, from The Corner
Note this:
"all my life I have supported tolerance towards homosexuals as a harmless minority who are just as entitled to pursue their private inclinations as the rest of us. I have always thought that the criminalization of homosexual acts was both foolish, and inhumane, and un-Christian. I am no longer so sure."
Wonder how many people out there are wondering if we have gone too far. I've held similar views; in the secular world, let gays make their own lifestyle choices. In the spiritual world, which includes the family, and what goes on in churches, make God's standards hold. Now it looks like gay issues have forced themselves into the spiritual world, and since so many have made the spiritual secular, there is nothing to do but give in.
About Bishop Robinson leaving his marriage: It has been pointed out by some that he did not actually leave his marriage for his partner (they met several years later), and that those who are saying that are smearing him.
The fact that he may have had no relationship with this man when he divorced his wife is irrelevant. He divorced her so that he would be available for him. Would anybody think that someone who divorces his wife so he could look for a new girlfriend or "trophy wife" was in the right? Of course not, and neither is Bishop Robinson.
This whole issue of people discovering they are gay, and using that to justify a divorce is so bogus, especially after establishing families. He deserves as much ridicule as he is getting for this, it is all justified. Lileks was right, Robinson's motives are egotistical and selfish.
One thing that bothers me about all this discussion about gay issues is those people who would try to stifle the dialog by saying "Why can't we just get along?" This is similar to the way late-1990's Democrats were criticizing the Republicans for being partisan. Excuse me? By those standards, who is being partisan now? And since when is it partisan to make a stand for what one thinks is the right thing to do?
If the Episcopal church splits off from the Anglican Communion, as I think it will do, the conservative are not to blame for tearing it apart, just as Jeroboam was not to blame for breaking Israel away from Judah after the death of Solomon, an act willed by God as punishment for Solomon's idolatry. Fault the conservatives for walking out? Not without faulting the liberals for forcing a heterodox position upon the conservatives.
I haven't said anything about the selection of Rev. Robinson, mainly because I've been out of the house so much this week -- I've wanted to add something, now everything has been said (and the Lileks Bleat is wonderful! "Hitler's dog went to his funeral"-- I love it!)
I will add this though; I don't think this is the point where the ship has hit the iceberg. I think the iceberg was hit many years ago when bishops like John Shelby Spong were allowed to become spokesmen for the Episcopal church, men who do not believe in Christ's divinity, nor the Resurrection, nor the Atonement, and who find no relevance in the Bible. So the church hit the iceberg a long time ago. In my view, it's probably at the point where the ship is just about vertical and about to snap in two. People are jumping ship, and the ship will sink. The Episcopal Church will soon no longer be recognizable as a Christian Church, as heterodox as the Unitarian Universalist Association, which took action similar to this way back in 1984.
I can't say what those who stay behind will find -- well, maybe I can. I was in a Unitarian Universalist congregation which went though an indoctrination program for becoming more welcoming to gays (confession: that was when I jumped ship, though my real reason for leaving was that they sponsored a fundraiser for my sworn enemy, the Million Mom March). What do they do now with respect to homosexuality in their congregations? Well, ministers are now declining to sign marriage certificates as a protest against the lack of gay marriage. That means if you are a UU and want to get married, your minister will not honor your marriage with his signature, which seems to be rather cruel to me - a good reason to look elsewhere for your wedding ceremony. Another thing is, they insist on "inclusive language", which means you can't call your husband or wife your "husband" or "wife" anymore as those are heterosexist terms. You have to call them "spouse" or "partner". When talking to a newcomer or visitor, you have to avoid asking them about family in such a way that you assume whether they are gay or not. It is a very awkward and unnatural arrangement. Of course, this has probably been going on in the Episcopal church for years as well, at least in some congregations, as was described in a very moving post yesterday by Huw Raphael.
Now I am a Methodist, and Methodists are also struggling with homosexuality. A bishop in Illinois, Joseph Sprague, is involved in the Soul Force movement, which is attempting to get the United Methodist church to recognize homosexuals as equal members, including access to same-sex union ceremonies and ordination. They have gone beyond diplomacy, their tactics are forceful and disruptive.
I see some long-term good coming out of the Episcopal's actions this week. For instance, I don't think there is any way the United Methodist Church will take similar action after seeing what happens to the Episcopal church in the following year. There is a strong renewal movement in the United Methodist Church and there is evidence that the denomination is warming up to evangelical trends, though it is meeting resistance from the Religious Left, those who think the church should compromise orthodoxy for social activism.
But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality. Rev 2:14 NKJV
Byron York nails it on the head in discussing the accusations that Senate Democrats are exhibiting an anti-Catholic bias.
People for the American Way President Ralph Neas thinks it's a low blow. He spouts opinions without supporting evidence when he says things like, "Objections to Bill Pryor’s confirmation are broad and deep and grounded in his legal philosophy and his record as a public official." He betrays his own prejudice, and the premise of his press release, with this line: “Americans cannot afford to have someone of Pryor’s extreme ideology given a lifetime position on the federal bench." That is a clear admission of a religious test for this nomination.
Democrats defend themselves by saying that our country is not a theocracy, that religious people should not use their beliefs to dictate how others live. Fine for them, that's a good argument, but it also applies both ways. Non-religious people should not be arguing that life is a non-important worthless thing that we should consider inconsequential in our respect for human rights, such as the most important right, that listed first by Jefferson: the right to life.
The Democrats argument is a ruse however, not a true argument at all. I came from a liberal religion a while back, and I've heard it all -- Christians who have deeply held beliefs should not participate in government. And yes, I heard that statement quite literally where I used to go to church, and one reason my attendance there is past tense is that I got tired of hearing them preach tolerance while vilifying legitimate Christian opinion.
It seems pretty blatant to me that Senate Democrats are not going to consider this in their judicial deliberations,
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." (from Article VI of the United States Constitution)
Senate Democrats have admitted they will only approve nominees who support Roe v. Wade to the federal judiciary. The Catholic Church considers abortion to be wrong, therefore serious Catholics are ineligible, by Democrats' standards, to serve as judges.
Senators may disagree with William Pryor on his interpretation of the law, but unless they find that he does not believe in upholding the Constitution (which is not the same thing as supporting Roe v. Wade), their vote against his nomination is an unconstitutional vote. Special interest groups like People for the American Way and the ACLU would be well-served by taking off their ideological blinders when they read the Constitution.
(link via locdog's blog. Joshua Claybourn has similar comments as mine too)
A long time ago, in a Unitarian Universalist congregation, I heard a sermon about one of Unitarianism's heroes, the Rev. Theodore Parker. Rev. Parker was an active abolitionist in the mid-nineteenth century, and was fiercely opposed to the Fugitive Slave Act. He was know to have tracked bounty hunters to their local accomodations, and, accompanied by large crowds of abolitionist sympathizers, knock on their doors, and say that their safety in that location could not be assured. In affect, the bounty hunters were run out of town. Rev. Parker was also a financial supporter of John Brown, who led the attack on Harper's Ferry, which resulted in the loss of innocent life (and several guilty ones as well).
Now, the abolitionists considered slavery to be a violation of human rights, even though that right was not recognized by our country at the time, at least not by the decisions of our Congress, which passed the Fugitive Slave Act, and our Supreme Court with its Dredd Scott decision.
Now, lets go to the present time. A large number of people believe that abortion is also a violation of human rights in spite of the fact that the Supreme Court has said that it recognizes such a right. If a modern-day pro-lifer were to undertake actions similar to the Rev. Parker's would the UUA be sympathetic to their plight? No, they would be a religious extremist. What's the difference, I wonder. Now, don't get me wrong here. I do not endorse violence against abortionists or the property in which they practice their trade. But let's look at the inconsistencies here. A nineteenth-century Unitarian preacher, acting for human rights, threatened bounty hunters looking for slaves. Today, if anyone were to take similar action, they would be branded as a religious extremist.
Whatever direction the American Unitarian Association's moral compass pointed to on the issue of slavery in the nineteenth century, it most certainly points in the opposite direction on the issue of abortion today.
Oops, one more entry. How could I neglect to mention their 2003 Actions of Immediate Witness?
AIW 1 AmeriCorps
AIW 2 Depleted Uranium Munitions
AIW 3 Global HIV/AIDS
AIW 4 Public Hearings on Iraq
AIW 6 Women's Rights
My comments:
AmeriCorps: a failed program from the start. It doesn't seem to me that it would work for a lot of people. Getting people to volunteer for the same activities that others are sentenced to do involuntarily is kindof self-defeating. Save the money, lower peoples' taxes, and a lot of this stuff would happen anyway without liberals using the taxpayers' wallets to fund their pet projects.
Depleted Uranium Munitions (no comment)
Global HIV/AIDS: a better approach would be programs like Uganda's ABC program, which stresses abstinence, instead of the Planned Parenthood / SIECUS program of making sex as easy and widespread as possible by thrusting condoms into everyone's face and telling them to go out and use them.
Public Hearings on Iraq: the UUA was opposed to the Iraq war, and I bet they already know the results of the public hearing they're looking for. They don't want objective hearings. They want a witch-hunt, just like their spiritual forebears did in Salem so long ago. They're still Puritans at heart, even if the theology has changed.
Women's Rights: drop the belief that the partial-birth-abortion ban is a violation of womens' rights already, it's not true. Anyone who talks about a right to abortion doesn't know what human rights are. I'd also like to know how they come up with the idea that encouraging marriage is a violation of womens' rights, as marriage benefits women and children. Also Title IX is just a quota program which has had its own negative consequences (and I'm sorry to hear that the Bush administration is giving in on this issue)
Congressman and Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) says my Congressional representative, Chris Smith, will throw women in jail for having abortions. Boo! Well, he did apologize later, but the Democrat attacks on those holding pro-life views are getting rather shrill. Let me just get this off my chest: There is no such thing as a right to abortion, the very concept contradicts the notion of a right to life. Anyone who says that abortion is a right which must be defended has a similar mindset of those who in the nineteenth century defended the right to own slaves based on another egregious Supreme Court decision.
Back in my agnostic days, there was a philosophical idea I bandied about, along with my UU comrades, that religion was basically superstition, but that it may have had some credible contribution to society in contributing moral order. The beliefs were relatively unimportant (reinforcing the UU tradition of letting everybody create their own theology) - it was the rituals that bound people together.
"Not so!" says Rodney Stark, author of For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery, reviewed in Christianity Today by David Neff.
From the review:
"So, then," Stark concludes, "let us finally be done with the claim that religion is all about ritual. Gods are the fundamental feature of religions." This is a sociology of religion that takes seriously what people believe. Stark knows that beliefs have consequences. They can even change the course of history. And in the book's final sentence, Stark claims that in the ways he describes, "Western civilization really was God-given."
Kim I. Robbins, writing for Breakpoint, reviews Legally Blonde 2
Last post on the UUA General Assembly.
The UUA is firmly on the side of same-sex marriage.
Human Rights and Peace The UUA wants the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights to be the basis for building peaceful relations among nations. This sounds good on the surface, except for one thing: the United Nations cannot enforce them, nor is it even trying to. The United Nations, by trying to avoid war at all costs, is actually supporting tyrannical regimes which have no intention of abiding by this Declaration.
One other thing about rights: the Declaration includes several items, such as Social Security, health care, and education, which involve economic transactions between individuals. This is a radical departure from the view of rights held by our American founders, who believed that rights were what you were given by your Creator, and did not depend in any way on the taxation of other people.
Also, the UUA has come out with a Statement of Conscience on Economic Globalization
Here's the summary:
Economic globalization has helped countless people attain higher standards of living. It has also marginalized and impoverished innumerable others and has resulted in environmental degradation and the depletion of natural resources. Economic globalization brings many benefits, but its benefits have been inequitably distributed and have not reached many ordinary people around the world. Seeing the world as an interconnected web challenges us to turn from self-serving individualism toward a relational sense of ourselves in a global community of all living things, and toward practices that help create economic structures designed to serve the common good. We are called to bring our Unitarian Universalist principles to our understanding of economic globalization and to help mitigate its adverse effects.
This is a much less liberal statement than the one they were throwing around last year, apparently there are still some moderates hanging around in the UUA. However there are a few myths repeated in this summary which deserve fisking.
It has also marginalized and impoverished innumerable others and has resulted in environmental degradation and the depletion of natural resources.
The claims of environmental degradation and depletion of natural resources are not true. In fact, environmental degradation and natural resource depletion are greatest in those countries which do not have free economies.
Seeing the world as an interconnected web challenges us to turn from self-serving individualism toward a relational sense of ourselves in a global community of all living things, and toward practices that help create economic structures designed to serve the common good.
Yeah, grand goals these UUs claim, as did every socialist tyrant of the last hundred years, from Lenin and Hitler to Castro and Mugabe. Grand goals to create a utopian society, serving the common good, and killing about a hundred million people in the process, and quashing the hopes and dreams of innumerable others. The best way to serve the common good is to let each individual determine for themselves how to do so.
The Institute for Religion and Democracy notes that the National Council of Churches is urging the US to accomodate the North Korean regime
So my understanding is, this regime is threatening its neighbors with war, and we're supposed to help them? And we're supposed to give them more foreign aid so they'll have more money for their weapons programs while their citizens are starving to death? (Don't think that any of that foreign aid will reduce any suffering over there - it won't)
Mark Byron and Ben Domenech both have blog entries discussing Julian Bond and the NAACP convention (and Ben provides a link to the Washington Times news coverage).
Here is the text of the Ware Lecture, delivered by Julian Bond at the Unitarian Universalist Association's 2003 General Assembly last month.
Professor Bond is very angry, and he lets loose with a lot of unchecked, emotional rhetoric. Much of this lecture fisks itself. I nearly fell out of my chair when I read this statement:
Senator Trent Lott uncovered a running sore, that not coincidentally is also almost 50 years old, that if allowed to fester, threatens to imperil our very democracy.It is the dependence of the Republican Party on the politics of racial division to win elections and gain power. By playing the race card in election after election, they've appealed to the dark underside of American culture, to the minority of Americans who reject democracy and equality.
Julian bond accuses Republicans of playing The Race Card! And this comes from the chairman of the organization that accused Presidential-candidate Bush of complicity in the murder of James Byrd because Texas didn't have hate crime laws. And the hate-crime mentality would have you believe that the lack of hate crime laws constitutes evidence of inequality, even though James Byrd's murderers were convicted and given death sentences or life (and they were white too-so there is no racism in that sentencing). Julian Bond is too blind with rage to speak compentently here.
I think I know what Bond is speaking of in his criticism of those "who reject democracy and equality". He is criticizing those who think that convicted felons should not be allowed to vote because that would undermine respect for the rule of law. He is criticizing those who respect equality under the law and equality of opportunity, but also respect freedom, individual rights, and the right of individuals to pursue their goals, and realize that government programs that assure things like equality of paycheck and equality of standard of life will compromise those values.
The Unitarian Universalist Association recently held its 2003 General Assembly. Here are some highlights:
Family Values – Law and Marriage in the 21st Century. UU ministers talk about how the denial of marriage to gays constitutes a denial of their human rights. An actual enumeration of rights denied is never given, though hurt feelings are discussed. Maybe UUs consider hurt feelings to be a violation of their rights. That case has been made successfully before, literally, right here in New Jersey, in a case of racial speech.
New Congregations: New Definitions of Christianity. An organization called The Magi Network has taken on the mission of planting new UU Christian churches. They don't believe Jesus is the eternal Son of God, and they believe in Universalism, but they are critical of the coolness toward Christianity exhibited in most congregations of the UUA. The Magi Network has much in common with another UUA-spinoff called the American Unitarian Conference.
Abolition Today: Ending Modern Slavery. I am actually pretty impressed by this presentation. The UUA recognizes slavery outside of America - finally! A couple of years ago, while researching slavery and racism (in the context of the Durban anti-racism conference held in September 2001, the week before 9/11 - anyone remember that?), I did a Google search for Sudan on the UUA's website and got 0 hits. It's not like the issue didn't exist. The Institute for Religion and Democracy had a program Church Alliance for a New Sudan, dedicated to the issue. It is good to see that the UUA is finally cognizant that all is not well in the Third World.
These are Friday's (June 27) highlights, more to come later.
Methodist Women's Magazine Chides Religious Conservatives. I saw this issue of Response magazine, and was disappointed that it was so critical of Christian conservatives. Not that it is wrong to disagree, but I didn't see any mention of the name of Jesus in the magazine. The UMW is apparently advocating a pro-abortion and anti-family liberal 'gospel', aligning itself with the leftist feminist agenda, much like the YWCA has done (as evidenced by the hiring of Patricia Ireland as their president). There is a different vision of what Christianity is among political groups of the left, a vision of social salvation through political transformation, a social gospel that has no need for Jesus or His Resurrection.
Writing in the Weekly Standard, Rachel DiCarlo criticizes the political activism of the National Council of Churches. The NCC is an excellent example of what I, and apparently many other people, find distasteful about religion being used as a stalking-horse to promote social justice, which in the context of the NCC looks like socialism. Trouble is, that when you take God out of consideration, as socialist governments seem to do, socialism becomes an oppressive system which sacrifices broad classes of individuals for the sake of the common good.
Diane Knippers, the president of the Institute for Religion and Democracy, addressing the October 2002 Confessing the Faith Conference, on the subject of Renewing the Church.
This post is a personal sort of Rubicon for me. A bunch of my former UU colleagues are going to strike me off their Christmas lists after they read this (heh!)
I left my former Unitarian Universalist congregation in 2000, largely due to political, not religious, concerns (I wasn't even a believer then, but I was moving there real fast). The next year they decided to adopt a Welcoming Congregation resolution, meaning they were going to actively adopt a pro-gay program. My leaving was not solely due to this policy, but I was bothered by witnessing a child dedication by two gay men who had adopted a baby daughter. My thought then was "how are they going to teach this daughter how to be a woman when she goes through adolescence? She isn't going to have a clue." I don't care what studies the gay-rights advocates put forth, I do not think that children of gay parents will grow up with the necessary education to interrelate with people of both sexes as they grow up. I think they will have problems caused by imcomplete parenting and exposure to homosexual activity. They will be miss an important element of what families with moms and dads will provide, namely the little things that only a mom or dad can each uniquely provide. I have no doubts that I will be labeled as a "homophobe" by UUs, including those from my former congregation. That's a cheap shot, designed to deflect attention from the ill effects that normalization of homosexuality will bring.
Here's what some ministers in the UUA are doing to further their extremist gay-rights agenda: Some UU Clergy will not sign marriage licenses, and are encouraging gay-activist-ministers in other faiths to do likewise. This is real sad, discriminating against what is right to accomodate what is wrong. One thing my former congregation did before I left was to put up a "family wall" in one of their meeting rooms, where people were invited to bring in pictures of their family and put them on a wall celebrating families. They were in the middle of a big push to remind everybody that there lots of different kinds of families, including couples who weren't even married, and gay couples. One thing I remember them saying was something like "pictures of families headed by gay couples are especially welcome". My reaction to that was that my wife and I, as a heterosexual couple, were not especially welcome.
What Senator Santorum said recently was point-blank true, and extends to the concept of marriage as well. If the procreative nature of marriage is denied, and gay marriage becomes legally recognized, what reason would there be for not extending the legality of marriage to marrying one's own sister? or brother? or indeed, any number of people of either sex? Marriage will have no social meaning or value whatsoever.
Also on IRD's website, United Methodist Bishop Sprague Assails “Christo-Centric Exclusivism”.
From Paul's epistle to the Corinthians, on why the Resurrection is so important:
Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up if in fact the dead do not rise. For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.1 Corinthians 15:12-19 NKJV
Paul says that if you don't believe in the Resurrection, then there's no point in even calling yourself a Christian, as the Resurrection is the foundation of our faith. Indeed, if the Resurrection never occured then Christianity is just a false religion offering no hope and no value to the world.
Diane Knippers, president of Institute on Religion and Democracy, has written an open letter to the Reverend Franklin Graham supporting his ministry, Samaritan's Purse.
Mark Byron discusses those who quote Scripture inaccurately.
Additional examples of Scripture being quoted inaccurately come from people who attempt to justify immoral behaviour by saying that Jesus hung out with tax collectors and sinners. They forget to include the second part of Jesus' response to the adulterous woman, however: And Jesus said to her, "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more." John 8:11 NKJV
Vincent Carroll asks What's wrong with Christian groups helping Iraqis?
UM Bishop Asks for End to Theological "Profiling".
In her speech, Christopher faulted the need for profiling on "anxiety" and the need to consider people who differ from ourselves "an enemy to our closely held and self-created identities." She noted that this behavior is not the "exclusive property of one side or the other."But indirectly, Christopher implied that conservatives might be more to blame for the profiling phenomenon. "Our focus on orthodoxy, handed-down doctrine, has submerged our orthopraxis, the practice of our faith," she said. Instead of ideology, she said the focus should be on "relationships with one another."
Looking to the Bible, what does someone like the Apostle John say about "theological profiling?"
Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things. I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
1 John 2:18-23 NKJV
Sounds to me like John was quite a bit concerned about people knowing the truth and being able to reject those who denied that Jesus is the Christ. If that's theological profiling, then maybe more, not less, discernment is needed in the church.
World Magazine discusses the importance of free speech, and wonders why it is honored for everybody except Christians. Free speech, for some
There's been a lot of talk today about the National Association of Evangelical's criticism of certain ministers' denunciations of Islam. Here's the link from the Institute on Religion and Democracy:Evangelical Leaders Meet to Discuss Christian-Muslim Relations. And another link from Christianity Today's Weblog.
Also, the Institute on Religion and Democracy has release a guide for Muslim-Christian dialog.
One thing the IRD author, Alan Wisdom, notes is that it is appropriate and necessary to "Give testimony to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, because it is our duty to do so. Ultimately, Christ himself is the greatest blessing that we could offer to our Muslim interlocutors. The 2002 Oxford Consultation on the Future of Anglicanism noted helpfully: “Saint Paul uses dialogue and Saint Luke uses dialogomai to describe evangelism. It may involve arguing, explaining, proving, proclaiming and persuading (Acts 17:1-4, 17)” (see www.wycliffe.ox.ac.uk for the consultation reports). It is our hope that numbers of Muslims would be persuaded by the testimony of Christians whom they encounter."
However, he also says it is inappropriate and damaging to "Attempt to meld Christianity and Islam, pretending that they have the same basic teachings and that the differences between the two are merely trivial points of theology."
There are many other points, recommended reading.
This is an interesting link to an opinion piece by LTJG Eric Johnson, CCPO USNR, who writes about Unitarian Universalists and their reaction to the war in Iraq. The article is worthy of comment because Chaplain Johnson is a Unitarian Universalist minister who serves in our armed forces, and the UUA was opposed to the Iraq war. The article is extremely noteworthy because Chaplain Johnson is critical of UUs' response to the war, and his opinion was published on the homepage of the UUA between May 2 and May 7 (The link is to an archived copy, the homepage was just replaced today).
I was rather critical of many anti-war forums, including one in my former UU congregation, where they paid lip service to respecting all points of view, and then had moderators from only one side, notably speakers from Princeton University who were against the war. Guys, if you claim to support a free and open exchange of ideas, and to respect all points of view, you should let both sides speak from the main microphone. Of course, when you associate with groups like ANSWER, which is known to control who speaks at their rallies (they wouldn't even let Rabbi Michael Lerner speak), I guess free speech is not the most important criteria to observe.
Anyway, credit is due to the UUA for printing such a self-critical viewpoint. I am impressed, even though, as Chaplain Johnson notes, I am one former-Unitarian Universalist who got tired of being in a politically liberal church. I was especially peeved when the General Assembly Faith in Action sermon contained quotations from Michael Moore as if his allegations were legitimate talking points for social activism. That was about a year before I left the organization in fact.
I don't know if Chaplain Johnson is painting a reasonable picture of a possible future of the UUA when he says,
"Ours must be a religious community where all find unification with what is good and right in themselves, with ones inherent worth and dignity, where all are welcome, not just those with the requisite politically liberal credentials. We should leave no one outside the community, this basket which cradles our religious faith."
David Heddle, He Lives, writes today on Postmillennialism and Liberalism. I've got some comments on the liberalism (I don't know anything about p-millennial doctrines).
The Unitarian Universalist Association has a history of liberal social activism inherited mainly from their Universalist ancestors. The background for this is that as the Universalist Church matured in America, its doctrine did not. How many ways can you preach that everyone is saved, no one is lost, and keep it motivating to the congregants, and more importantly, keep them motivated to witness? Over time the doctrine grew stale, and Universalist preachers often moved on to social-issue activism and political-preaching in order to keep their churches interesting, if not spiritually vital. Eventually, the denomination was virtually indistinguishable from the Unitarians, and a merger was accomplished in 1961.
Unitarian Universalist Dan Kennedy attends the annual conference of American Atheists and discovers that atheists can be fundamentalists too.
Interesting comparison contained in the article: comparing one's own denial of being an atheist to Peter's denial of Jesus. Being ashamed of believing in nothing?! Is nothing sacred?
“Irresponsible” Methodist Bishop Appears in Anti-War TV Commercial
Some comments on this: We all have the right to free speech, and the protestors against the War on Iraq have a right to speak out. I also have the right to speak my mind, and I'm doing so here. Bishop Talbert does not speak for me. I am in favor of war on Iraq with the goal of removing Saddam Hussein from power. I pray for the people of Iraq, that they will not suffer from this war. I am not so naive to believe that they are not suffering, or suffering less, if there is no war.
Complaints dismissed against Bishop Joseph Sprague
Bishop Joseph Sprague is the United Methodist Bishop who has stated that he does not believe in the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection, and has subscribed to an alternative interpretation of the Trinity. I don't know how to explain it, here's a link to IRD's archives on the subject.
I've got some concerns about the viewpoint expressed by the supervisory response committee. When they say stuff like, "the theological and doctrinal issues raised in the complaint are already a matter of considerable public debate within the United Methodist Church," I wonder if there is any significant difference between the United Methodist Church and the Unitarian Universalist Association. There is, but only because of people like the Rev. Thomas Lambrecht, quoted below. I believe there is such a thing as Truth, that Jesus taught and showed it to us, and that we should do as God said to Peter, James, and John: "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!" (Matthew 17:5 NKJV)
Quoting from the news article: "In response to the decision, the Rev. Thomas Lambrecht, spokesman for the complainants, said,
"The signers of the complaint against Bishop C. Joseph Sprague are deeply disappointed in the decision by the supervisory team to dismiss the complaint. Upon first reading, it appears the rationale of the complaint did not objectively consider our perspective, but was heavily weighted against our point of view."We affirm the supervisory team’s recommendations for theological dialogue and declare our willingness to participate. We believe, however, that we as a church need to go beyond dialogue to develop an understanding of what binds us together theologically in the United Methodist Church – what our theological identity is.
"This decision appears to give official sanction to the personal interpretation of our doctrinal standards in a way that diminishes their unifying and binding force. Sadly, this approach to theology within the United Methodist Church will only deepen our divisions and weaken the mission and ministry of our church.
"We call for the church, in a spirit of civility, mutual respect and fidelity to the Lord whom we serve, to reclaim ‘the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.’ (Jude 3) This is the faith for which the apostles and martyrs gave their lives – the faith for which many Christians suffer and die around the world today. This faith alone can provide the impetus for the loving, grace-filled ministry that will lead our church to become spiritually vital and growing once again." "
One drawback to posting once every several days is a lot of stuff goes by that other people talk about first, so that by the time I get to it, I wind up repeating what other people say. One such issue is the one where over in England they are encouraging youth to experiment with oral sex (link copied from Joshua Claybourn's Domain)
There seems to be a movement to ignore what God tells us of sexuality in the Bible. What is all the worse is that this movement is very strong in liberal religion, where the Bible is given no more respect than the opinion of an disrespected schoolmaster. A long time ago (back to the archives...In the year 3434 of The Second Age... oops wrong story), I blogged about an organization called SIECUS that promotes what they call "the right and the responsibility to lead sexual lives that express love, justice, mutuality, commitment, consent, and pleasure" in their Religious Declaration on Sexuality Morality, Justice, and Healing. They also go on to say, "It [speaking of their declaration] accepts no double standards and applies to all persons, without regard to sex, gender, color, age, bodily condition, marital status, or sexual orientation." Some questions to confront this declaration: all persons, regardless of age? even children? And what is the difference between sex and gender anyway? Bodily condition? Even if a person has AIDS? regardless of marital status or sexual orientation? So no restrictions on promiscuity or homosexuality and the harm they cause individuals? I could understand this coming from a libertarian organization, but coming from a religious one?
Ok for me, but not for thee....
Some may argue that the Washington Office for Advocacy is not a house of worship, and that's a fair point. Most mainline denominations have lobbying offices and do it legally while still maintaining their tax-exempt status. However, it is all too common to hear a sermon in a UUA congregation which is critical of tax cuts (among other things political), and no one seems to complain about it then.
Richard Hall disagrees with the conclusion of my last post.
I'm going to let Pastor Hall have the last word on this topic, but I'd like to comment on one of his comments to his post. Why don't I make the same claim for Jews and Christians, after all don't they view God differently as well?
Well, to answer that, let me say this: A Jew can become a Christian and still remain a Jew, but a Muslim cannot become a Christian without renouncing his Muslim beliefs. I know that there are people who disagree with that, but basically it's their word vs. the word of those who have made that decision. Jesus' disciples were all Jewish, and I don't doubt they were Christians. Paul didn't renounce his Jewish heritage, though he did urge his GentiIe converts to not follow Jewish laws, as they were irrelevant to their salvation. I know people today who are Jewish and accept Jesus as the Messiah, and they have not renounced their Jewish faith; in fact, they seem to be more excited about it than ever before as they read the Hebrew scriptures and look for all the references to the coming Messiah that are mentioned there. They worship in synagogues with other Jews who also recognize Jesus as the Christ and this is a fairly widespread phenomenon. I don't see any similar movement of "Muslim Christians"; in fact, in countries dominated by Islam, a Muslim who converts to Christianity has committed a capital offense.
What about Jews who don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah? Well, I don't claim to know perfectly what constitutes believing in Jesus vs. rejecting Him. Old Testament people of faith, such as Abraham, Jacob, Moses, and David, are most certainly recipients of God's grace, even though their only knowledge of Jesus' works was based on prophecy. Jesus said, "If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority." (John 7:17 NKJV) Based on that, I believe that if someone makes a willful decision to love God with all their heart, soul, and mind, then God will show them what is necessary and true to complete His work of grace in their life.
Evangelism Antagonism
Sharing the Good News is not a hate crime.
I'd like to comment on a reader's comments contained in the article, who said "Since when are Muslims nonbelievers? Muslims do not need converting, because Christians and Muslims believe in and worship the same God. Why can't we recognize this simple fact and live and worship together in harmony?" The only way this statement could be considered to be true is if one believes in what we were discussing recently, a human Jesus who had some good ideas who died as a mere martyr two thousand years ago. That isn't a description of Christianity; what it actually describes is nineteenth-century classical Unitarianism, or modern-day Spongism.
The question of whether Christians and Muslims believe in and worship the same God depends on who God is, and one way to test this is to compare God's attributes in these two religious views. In Christianity God sent His Son to "give His life a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45 NKJV). We are told by Jesus, speaking of Himself, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent." (John 6:29 NKJV) Also, "this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:40 NKJV)
The following information on Islam is based on the book Unveiling Islam, by Ergun Mehmet Caner and Emir Fethi Caner, which I consider to be an excellent reference by two brothers who converted from Islam to Christianity. In Islam, there is no concept of a Son of God, Allah shares glory with no one. There is no concept of fallen man, we are expected to keep the commandments of God through our own efforts, and there is no provision for redemption if we fail. Allah is said to be merciful, but there is no assurance in the Quran about how to obtain it. The creed for Islam is simple: There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is His prophet. It denies Jesus' status as Son of God, it denies His atonement, and it denies His resurrection, because they claim He never really died.
Christianity and Islam present two images of God which have different attributes, one claiming the eternal existence of God's Son, and the other denying it. The contradiction forces me to admit those two images of God cannot describe the same God.
Religion and Politics
I became aware, after becoming a board member of a UUA congregation many years ago, of a lot of political stuff going on which had nothing to do with religion. I was particularly distressed by the fact that we were adamantly opposed to any involvement of the church in politics. Well, apparently that just applied to those "radical religious right" folks. What kind of politics are we talking about here? Mostly anything having to do with promoting socialism and a bigger welfare state, with extreme environmentalism and pacifism thrown in for good measure. I'll use my dinner discussion group as a proxy for the congregation; what were the topics of discussion?
on President Bush's tax plan: the tax cuts are immoral, a give-away to the rich, Americans pay too little in taxes, and we should be more like those good-hearted Europeans, especially the French.
on the environment: no sacrifice is too great to fight global warming, economic development is bad for the Third World, we're running out of resources, we must provide funding for family planning groups which advocate abortion
Now this isn't just the UUA, there's a bunch of mainline denominations, represented pretty well by the National Council of Churches, who think that promoting this type of activism is promoting the gospel, forgetting about the difference between the food which perishes, and the food which endures to everlasting life. I hold no grudges against people who truly wish to help others, but I question how effective the help is when it is coming from government programs rather than genuine personal transformation.
Another issue is the anti-war movement. I noticed in my research yesterday that several churches, again including the NCC, were involved in peace marches last weekend. I was disappointed at first, but then I noticed something. They were all, except one, marching on Sunday, and had no mention in their iteneraries of any involvement in the Internation ANSWER hatefest. The one exception, which even proudly proclaimed their involvement with ANSWER on their Washington Office's website, was the UUA. So to all you other protestors who wanted to make your point, but didn't want to be associated with the World Worker's Party -- good for you!!!
Some interesting links on abortion
Rod Dreher writes on how the Religious Left celebrates Roe v. Wade.
I remember similar services at my former Unitarian Universalist congregation, including one right before election day 2000, when the minister made an impassioned plea to vote for "freedom of choice", and another member, during church announcements, literally begged everyone to save America from the dark ages; there was no need to say which party she was referring to -- the number of Republicans in that crowd could be counted on one hand -- and I got rebuked by her and several others for my publicly known position that I was voting for Gov. Bush. There is little diversity in the UUA, it seems, when it comes to diversity of thought.
Speaking of diversity, Peggy Noonan writes on the dearth of it within the Democratic party on the ideology behind abortion.
So, expanding on the previous post about Unitarian Universalists belief in God: can you believe in God without engaging in God-talk? Well, if ones faith is an inchoate set of principles based on words which can be redefined to suit any given day's notion of political correctness, I suppose one could worship a manufactured God, but this would be a God void of any personality, just as effective as worshipping a block of wood. What bothered me the most about the UUA when I was there was that no matter how hard I tried, it never came across as anything other than tearing down previously laid-down foundations. There was never any building up, no foundation, no professing of what was true.
The Unitarian Universalist Association's President comes out with a statement saying they need to profess a belief in God. No, wait, he says it isn't so! Here's a copy of a letter he sent to an email list concerning the report (thanks to the Conservative Forum of Unitarian Universalists):
Friends,I understand that there has been considerable discussion and distress over what was published in a newspaper article recently.
I am writing to share with you what happened, to address your concerns, and to assure you that I share many of the concerns you have expressed.
Here is what happened. This past Sunday (1/12) I preached a sermon entitled "The Language of Faith" at First Jefferson UU Church in Ft. Worth, Texas. I also addressed this issue in the column I wrote for the upcoming March-April issue of UU World; this article has been posted on our website at http://www.uua.org/president/030115.html and I encourage you to read it.
Following the service, I did an interview with a reporter from the local newspaper, an interview which covered a number of issues including the
points about religious language I made in my sermon and magazine column.The reporter published a story that reported things I did not say, and drew conclusions that I did not reach. In particular, the reporter's first sentence read, "A former atheist who is now president of the Unitarian Universalist Association will push to put the word 'God' into a new statement of principles."
Let me be very clear: I spoke of the need to periodically revisit-that is, to read and reflect upon-our foundational language. I did not call for the Principles to be rewritten. I spoke of the need for individuals to consider supplementing the language of the Principles with religious language in describing their own faith. I did not call for the inclusion of the word "God" in either the Principles or in anyone's individual descriptions of
their personal faith.I understand the alarm and genuine distress that many of you felt on reading the news story and accounts of it. I would be similarly alarmed if any UUA president presumed to do what the story suggested I had done.
You need to know that I did not in fact make the statements reported in the Ft. Worth paper. Here is the text of what I said in my sermon at the Ft.
Worth church about God language and the Christian tradition:But "religious language" doesn't have to mean "God talk." And I'm not suggesting that Unitarian Universalism return to traditional Christian language. But I do feel that we need some language that would allow us to capture the possibility of reverence, to name the holy, to talk about human agency in theological terms-the ability of humans to shape and frame our
world guided by what we find to be of ultimate importance.I have learned from these events that I need to exercise greater care in addressing the broader world, including reporters, about Unitarian
Universalist language and beliefs. I mistakenly assumed that the reporter would understand my remarks with the same level of nuance and clarity that I had intended them. That did not happen, and on reflection I see that it was unlikely ever to happen. I should have better anticipated how someone not steeped in our tradition might easily draw the erroneous conclusions he drew.That said, I still believe that it is time for us to have a conversation about our foundational language. Indeed, we have a bylaw requiring that the Board of Trustees review the Principles and Purposes every 15 years (see Article XIV, section C-14.1 of the UUA Bylaws, on the web at
http://www.uua.org/ga/bylaws.html#Section%20C-14.1 ). My hope is that both the sermon and the World column will serve as a stimulus to get this
conversation going.I ask your help in moving past this misunderstanding, and I ask your further help in redirecting our energy to where it can do the most productive good.
If you speak with someone not on this e-mail list who is concerned about what they have heard, please forward this e-mail so that they can read what actually happened.
Unitarian Universalism today is strong and vibrant. We are increasingly claiming the Good News of our liberal faith. Let's use our energy to make Unitarian Universalism even stronger, and to share our Good News with a world that badly needs it. This incident has the potential to lead us into a rich discussion of who we are and how we describe ourselves. I welcome that discussion.
In faith,William G. Sinkford
From NewsMax.com Ramsey Clark Compares Jesus to Terrorist. Next time you feel the need to comment about Jesus' actions, Mr. Clark, you'd be wise to read the book first, so you can relate the event accurately. There is a huge difference between running some corrupt people out of the temple with a "whip of cords" vs. killing them via a Hamaside bombing. If I recall correctly, the only instance in the Bible of a suicide act intended to kill others was done by Samson.
From the Princeton Tory (my neighbors!) Brad Simmons '03 writes on The Christian Right. (It's on p.8 of the PDF file - Adobe Acrobat Reader required)
On campus, in society, in public office -- Christians have the right to speak out on political and cultural issues, just as everyone else does.
More on the What Would Jesus Drive issue from the Institute for Religion and Democracy:
Mark Tooley's original editorial comment
Response from The Rev. Ron Sider and Rev. Jim Ball
Mark Tooley's response to The Rev. Ron Sider and Rev. Jim Ball
My views are similar to Mr. Tooley's. I have no problem with individual Christians acting on their political beliefs. I have a problem when they try to get my denomination or congregation involved. If they don't speak for me, then they shouldn't claim to, nor should they use my money to fund their political activism.
The Foudation for Individual Rights in Education confronts Rutgers University (just down the turnpike from me!) for banning the InterVarsity Multi-Ethnic Christian Fellowship. Religious Cleansing on Campus
Joshua Claybourn talked about a similar situation at Harvard recently.
From today's OpinionJournal, The Family Way describes how fathers are an essential part of the family.
This issue is pertinent to me. Back when I was a Unitarian Universalist, I saw very little support for traditional family values. Opinions such as Mr. Wilson's were derided as rants from the "religious right", and attacked for advocating a patriarchal point of view. When I decided to start questioning UU-thinking, the family-values issue was among the first with which I disagreed with them. It seemed pretty obvious to me that the elements of society that are the worst off are the same ones that have a weak family foundation, and the correlation was too great to attribute to other causes such as racism alone. I started to wonder what type of foundation my family (just Amy and me when I was thinking about this) would have in the UUA. I didn't see much of one. I'd consider that the issue of family structure was a primary driver in my decision to become a Christian a year and a half ago.
Subjects to consider
I've been asked by a reader to expand on previous posts about Messianic Jews. I promise to do that, I even have a draft essay, but I also feel the need to talk to my friends who are members of a Messianic synagogue in Philadelphia. I'd like to convey their words rather than my own in order to report on it more accurately. For the moment, let it be known that there are people out there, many of them in fact, who, just like Peter, can say to Jesus "We have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." (John 6:69), and who have not renounced their Jewish roots.
Much of the time, I will be posting on the "Religious Left", since it is the name of this blog, and what I originally wanted to address. I see two aspects to the Religious Left, those who intertwine liberal politics with religious belief, and those who corrupt orthodox doctrine. I will talk about the former much more often than the latter, however, my observation is that (seen from the eyes of an erstwhile Unitarian Universalist) the two groups have a very large overlap. This isn't absolutely true - there is a movement within evangelical Christianity to address environmental concerns, for instance. I'll be careful to distinguish them when the need arises.
It bears repeating that the reason I feel the need to confront the "Religious Left" is that no one in the media, or in the leftist zeitgeist, seems to recognize it. There is an old joke, popular among Unitarians, "the religious right is neither". I asked one of them what he thought of the "religious left". He couldn't answer the question. He couldn't even recognize that there could be such a thing. Isn't it obvious that religious fundamentalists are using religion to destroy American ideals of "separation of church and state"? Well, the truth is that the First Amendment of the Constitution uses different words to describe what is more accurately called "freedom of religion", and that nowhere does it say that people are entitled to a right of "freedom from religion", by which I mean that there is no recognized right to protect people from being exposed to religion (everyone is free, of course, to say "no" to religious belief). I have a right, freedom of speech, to talk about my religion in public life. I have a right, as a Christian (as do others of other faiths), to hold political office. Those who say that Christians are not qualified to hold public office (as was said about President Bush's recent appointments to the FDA, and about Attorney General John Ashcroft) are not telling the truth; the Constitution explicitly forbids such a religious test.
The Institute on Religion and Democracy criticizes the National Council of Churches for their anti-war lobbying.
From the last paragraph:
Culturally, religiously, or politically there is little that connects these religious left activists to most American church members or to the current century for that matter. Their confusion of politics with theology, and insistence that Jesus shares the views of Daniel Ellsberg, remains annoying. But as relics of an increasingly distant era, they are best understood as perhaps entertaining antiquities.
It is ironic that the NCC, which pays no attention to Jesus' words regarding evangelism and fulfilling the Great Commission, seems to know what He would have us do with our foreign policy. I won't comment on the opinions of others, but the National Council of Churches does not represent my opinion on this issue.
Daniel Pipes criticizes PBS for their upcoming program Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet. (link via The Corner on NRO)
On the subject of moral equivalence, I strongly disagree with Molly Ivin's take on history (link via Best of the Web Today). She states:
Let's see -- where does that leave Christianity, the religion of peace and love, founded by the Prince of Peace? Among the more notable Christian crimes were the unbearably bloody Crusades, the Thirty Years' War, the Inquisition, innumerable pogroms, regular slaughter of Protestants, counter-slaughter by Protestants, genocide against Native Americans (featuring biological warfare), slavery, the Holocaust, ethnic cleansing, Northern Ireland … and the list goes on and on and on.
" Niemoller bolted into action, inviting fellow pastors throughout Germany to join a Pastors' Emergency League to resist the Aryan paragraph and all other attacks on church doctrine. Within a few months, more than two thousand pastors had signed the pledge -- and that was still before one of the most revealing spectacles of the first year of Nazi rule."
United Methodist Bishops tactfully disagree. Last January, Chicago Area Bishop Joseph Sprague gave a speech at Iliff School of Theology, where many elements of orthodox Christian belief were questioned, including the Resurrection, the Virgin Birth, and The Incarnation. (Link to IRD archives on this controversy) Florida Bishop Timothy Whitaker responds.
The Institute on Religion and Democracy has joined the discussion on What Would Jesus Drive?
locdog talks about planned parenthood's holiday card
locdog also has a November 27 post about church and state with which I couldn't agree more.
religious left watch is adding locdog to the blogroll - welcome, locdog!
Bruce S. Thornton talks about The Loony 'Christian' Left
over at FrontPageMag. (link via Rick Penner, my brother-in-law. Hi Rick!)
UPDATE: I don't endorse calling Christians, including ones I disagree with, "loony". Bruce Thornton, writing for a secular publication, is under no such constraint and I respect his evaluation of the Religious Left since he backs up the name-calling with actual reasoning. Don't judge the article by its title.
About my post yesterday on individualism vs. doing God's will
Got an email from a reader, Nigel, yesterday:
In a recent post at RLW you said, "I want to do God's will, give myself completely to Him, however on the other hand, I resist any concept of anyone else telling me what God's will is for me - though I will admit its possibility."It seems to me that there is a certain confusion possible here, although perhaps it is just the phrasing. When an other person tries to tell me what God's will is, I listen politely, and pray to the Lord that He will open my heart for any message He is try to get to me thru this person. Then I check what they have to say with the Lord, both in prayer and in the Bible. I would be reluctant to say that *I* am the final determiner of God's will for me, rather He is that, and listening to others is good in that it helps me remember not to trust my own heart.
Jeremiah 17:9-10 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; Who can know it? I, the Lord, search the heart, I test the mind, even to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his doings.
Nigel is right, and I, as a new Christian, am learning the truth of this, slowly and surely. When I became a Christian, less than two years ago, I was pretty firmly committed to individualism. I had to start learning to do things God's way; indeed, there was an issue I gave to God right away, surrendering a bit of stubborn rebelliousness right away. As I grow in my Christian walk, I hear my pastor at my church preach about showing more love for our neighbor, using, as one example, Jesus's parable of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25. Two years ago, I wouldn't have had anything to do with that, but now, I'm finding myself willing to do more and more as I surrender to God's will. I have some serious issues with the social activist groups telling me what God's will is, such as the recent "What Would Jesus Drive?"; I believe they are just using God's name to promote their special interests, but when it comes to doing real things for real people, I'm opening up and telling God "here I am, send me!" more than I did when I was a new Christian.
I hit the "post" button on the last entry too soon; I was being called to dinner. My last paragraph didn't come out right. The number 100 million is true (see The Black Book of Communism), but to link those dictators to Jesus wasn't appropriate except as a rhetorical question.
Of course we know Communism was based on atheism. National Socialism, on the other hand, is often used to smear Christianity, as the Catholic Church is cited by many critics of Christianity of endorsing the Holocaust through their silence. I've posted on this topic before (arggh, gotta go find it now....it's in my 10/20 archive, and I can't get the permalink, sorry). Bottom line is, the idea of Christians supporting the Nazis is not true; there was plenty of Christian opposition to the Holocaust, and Hitler's strategy was to corrupt the church, not merely to form a political alliance with it.
Now, to the actual wording. Did Hitler, Stalin, .... consider themselves to be following Jesus? Of course not, but they were following a religious ideal, the concept of the common good. It's a false god however. We all want the common good of course, but what do we do when we disagree? Allow people to act in their legitimate self-interest, and trust that the result will be alright, or force the ideas of an irrational madman on an unwilling populace? Much human suffering and pain has been caused by people who were merely seeking to serve the common good.
Here's a reprint of a post I put on the Conservative Forum of Unitarian Universalists bulletin board back on June 7, 2000. I was not a Christian at the time I posted this, but I am still in agreement with F.A. Hayek's premise after my conversion.
I am currently reading F.A. Hayek's book, "The Road to Serfdom," and he claims there is no real difference between Naziism and Communism. They are both experiments in expanding the role of government over people's lives at the expense of liberty. The book was written in 1944, and was a warning to "The Socialists of All Parties". Hayek wanted to warn Britain of walking the "Road to Serfdom" which Germany had done before. He saw it as a very real possibility.I am just in the middle of the book, but some highlights so far:
1) Lots of people have wonderful ideas for correcting society's evils, if they could only get their way...,
2) Some of these ideas just cannot be argued against, they are so wonderful (protect the children comes to mind),
3) Unintended consequences occur as people modify their behaviour accordingly,
4) Government closes the loopholes by restricting the people's ability to adapt, and
5) We lose our liberties, not all at once, but just a little bit more with every new law that's passed, until it's all gone, and everyone wonders how it happened.
Mark Byron has a couple of posts about altruism and capitalism. I haven't finished reading them yet, but I'll comment here anyway.
My path to Christianity from Unitarian Universalism went through Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. I credit it with breaking the hold of postmodernism which held me in its grip back when I was a UU (always searching for truth, but never being allowed to admit finding it). It took a lot of soul searching to come to Christ, and some lost sleep over leaving a congregation I had attended for ten years (and where Amy and I were married).
The conflict between collectivism and individualism is one that is dynamic in my life. I want to do God's will, give myself completely to Him, however on the other hand, I resist any concept of anyone else telling me what God's will is for me - though I will admit its possibility.
One thing I do not accept however, is the attitude that government can be used to promote God's work, by taking from the rich and giving to the poor. As I've said before, government cannot be compassionate, only individuals have that capacity. Over at the John Heron project (no permalinks), which I link to cautionsly, as he fights back with invective, Wood states:
Of course, running a state along these lines - and I do believe that they are Christian lines, inasmuch as, in my own flawed way, I believe that Christ would have approved of them - is not going to work without laws. But does that make the sharing of property confiscatory? Only if you labour under the misapprehension that anything in a world that belongs to God can belong to mere people in the first place. You look at it that way, you look at our "property" as simply held in trust while we're in this world, well, what's the point of clutching it. You're not taking it with you, are you? So don't be so clingy, already.I don't believe that Jesus was a socialist. The term's too loaded. But I do believe utterly that in working towards socialist principles, I am following Jesus.
I wonder if Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao-Tse Tung, and Fidel Castro considered themselves to be following Jesus as they implemented their socialist principles, and killed 100 million people doing so.
Planned Parenthood is using teen recruiters to drum up business, and doing it with taxpayer-provided funding: link 1 link 2 (link 1 via Ellyn vonHuben of Oblique House Hi Ellyn! Welcome to my Blogroll!)
Planned Parenthood is no longer about providing choice, they're running a business, and bringing in the bucks. The sneaky way that they are using teen recruiters, along with laws protecting confidentiality flies in the face of accountability. Ironic, isn't it, how leftists rant and rave about corporate accountability, while ignoring an industry which is directly and intentionally ending human life?
Speaking of preaching truthfully, here's a letter from a United Methodist minister, Pastor Raymond Rooney, to the United Methodist bishops, critical of support within the denomination for liberal heterodoxy. Amen!
One big issue of the Religious Left is over-consumption, as described here in an Statement of Conscience of the Unitarian Universalist Association's Commission on Social Witness. This movement is trying to create a new "holiday", called Buy Nothing Day, where no one is to buy anything the day after Thanksgiving. I've got mixed feelings about this; I'm opposed to turning Christmas into a commercial gift-fest, however, on the other hand I'm opposed to the crass anti-capitalism the anti-consumerism movement is putting out, and there are ways to treat giving with respect. Giving gifts to family members and friends doesn't mean you're turning your back on the spiritual side of Christmas. Just be sure you emphasize the right thing - the birth of Jesus (which, by the way, the anti-consumer movement isn't doing either, as a look at a typical example of their rhetoric will show).
I like the idea of a simple Christmas. We're definitely below the average of $860 spent per family that was quoted on Louis Rukeyser's Wall Street last night. On the other hand, we do like to buy some gifts, we do take part in the gift-giving tradition. After reading the Buy Nothing rhetoric, I decided to do some early shopping this year, and bought some things on Friday. Buy Nothing Day is a holiday which is definitely worth NOT supporting.
The idea of overconsumption is deeply tied into the philosophy of Malthusianism, which believes that our worldwide economy is a zero-sum system with limited resources which are rapidly vanishing before our eyes. It's not really a zero-sum system, however. Human intelligence, innovation, and economic growth, all produce new inventions which allow more people to live on the planet. There is certainly a limit, somewhere, for how many people can live on the planet, but the idea that we will overspend the earth by more than 100% by the year 2050, as detailed in the WWF Living Planet Report is refutable. Population growth has measurably slowed in the last century, and appears to be heading to a point where we will reach a maximum population. The doomsday scenarios painted by Malthusiasts will never come about. There are good reasons to optimistic for the Earth's future.
I just finished the WWJD? Protest Wal-Mart! article over at The Nation. The WWJD question is just a brief mention in the middle of the article - the title is just a tease to draw your attention to it. Kindof misleading.
However, since it's on my mind, let's think about this a little bit, extend the WWJD question a little bit. The preacher at the union rally in the church told the crowd that Jesus would be there protesting with the unionizers. Is that really true? Historically, the Israelites were expecting the Messiah to be a military and/or political leader, one who would obtain freedom and independence for Israel from their foreign oppressors. Jesus could have done that; it was within His power as Creator to destroy Rome with a word. But He didn't do it, because He was sent to earth to do a greater thing - to be the Saviour of the world.
People who try to draw Jesus into the latest political or social cause make the same mistake as the Jews of 33 A.D., expecting Jesus's message to be one of freedom of oppression, where the oppression is really just a symptom of a far deeper problem, the human race's alienation from God. When we expect Jesus to be organizing laborers into unions, we put Jesus into a box, saying "fix this! we're being exploited!" Jesus's reply will likely be different than what we expect. When 5000 people went looking for Jesus,
Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.” Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”John 6:26-29 ESV
I'm sure that I will be completely blown away by God's wisdom when I know His truth more completely in heaven (I believe the learning never stops either, even then). I expect we all will be. When I hear anyone say that their economic or political model is closer to God's way, my gut tendency is to walk away; our sin nature, combined with our reliance on human leadership, doom all man-made systems to failure. Which isn't to say we shouldn't try to make a better society. I just think that one which respects the lifes and liberties of its citizens is better than one that doesn't. I don't value economic equality as much because it cannot be attained, at least not in an absolute sense, without sacrificing liberty.
Advance post before Advent
This thought just entered my brain while writing the previous post, and since it's more related to Christmas decided to let it stand alone.
Speaking of WWJD, let's consider another question; one which the Religious Left pro-abortion crowd will never utter: What would Mary Do? Would she, an unwed teen-age mother, get an abortion? Planned Parenthood seems to think the concept is worthy of holiday sentiment in their egregious Choice on Earth card. God's will is sometimes different than what is merely convenient however. Mary did God's will and gave us Jesus, the Saviour of the world.
Arggh, can't resist blogging about this:
The Nation cites the question "What Would Jesus Do?" to justify a Wal-Mart protest!WWJD? Protest Wal-Mart! I have not read the article, since I cannot open .mhtml files on my office computer. I'll read it tonight and comment further if I feel the need to say any more.
It suddenly hit me what I don't like about this WWJD question being applied to issues like shopping and the car one drives. It's just another form of legalism. Good Christians are supposed to do this, avoid doing that. It's just more rules to follow, and all without asking God what He wants us to do. Just open your latest issue of The Nation, Mother Jones, or The Utne Reader, and they will all gladly tell us what Jesus would do if He were living here and now. And, get this, they do this while ridiculing people who actually read the Bible and endeavor to live by its wisdom!
Blogging has its own little hazards. I sometimes get an urge to write something about an issue and find out I've already written about it. Or I formulate an opinion and find out someone has already said what I want to say, and I all can do is repeat it. Sometimes there is a phrase that just comes out harsh and is a sure setup for an out-of-context quotation. One thing I said recently, "After all, what's more important, world peace or making disciples?" has me asking myself Why did I ever say that?
Well, let me elaborate, and yes, after thinking about it, I've decided to stand by my words. There are two kinds of peace we can attain: a true lasting peace where people actually do appreciate each other and work together for their common prosperity, and there is another peace built on ceasefires and suppressed hostilities, a potential powder keg. I believe that with our sin nature, the former is only possible by a transformation of our nature and our submission to God's sovereignty. The latter is made of agreements printed on paper, only to be broken when an opportune moment, or the next dictator, comes around. The Oslo Accord was that type of peace, a temporary measure which now looks like outright treachery in hindsight. The violence in Israel has actually increased since that accord
While Jesus did say “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." (Matthew 5:9 ESV), I believe He was talking about the kind of peace that comes from knowing God. He also told us in His last words before His ascension, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:19-20 ESV)
It is important to note here that God doesn't give us contradictory commandments. If Jesus has commanded us to "make disciples of all nations", then that is what we are to do. Jeffrey Collins has some excellent words about evangelism and its importance, and how it has manifested itself with the murder of a missionary in Lebanon, and comments from several religious leaders on whether she should have been there in the first place.
One thing that bothers me about the "social gospel" that the NCC and other liberal groups are preaching, the one where it says that all we have to do is feed the poor, and be peacemakers, is that they never talk about Jesus, never tell anyone the purpose of His life, death, and resurrection. To hear the gospel this way, Jesus never even had to exist, never had to die on the cross, and His resurrection can simply be considered to be a metaphor for inspiration to live a more beautiful, more loving life, and everyone can go on believing whatever they want, because hey, God's just fine with that, we're all His children.
Today, in meditating about a parable, namely, the parable of The Prodigal Son, it suddenly hit me (sort of). The goal of the life of The Prodigal Son (you know the one where the son loses his inheritance and winds up feeding the pigs), was not to improve his working conditions, like a better wage or adequate sanitation. No, the goal was to get him to go home! Go home to your dad and be reconciled!
God surely wants all of us to be well-fed and to live in peace and safety, but this is expected to come as the result of our salvation and knowledge of the truth, as Paul says "First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2: 1-4 ESV)
NCC Launches Scathing Attack on Bush Administration (from the Institute for Religion and Democracy)
NCC 2002 General Assembly: Resolution "After September 11, 2001: Public Policy Considerations for the United States of America" (from the National Council of Churches)
Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people. For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another. But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people. But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned. Titus 3:1-11 (ESV)
Let me try to respond to this resolution with the same grace shown by Paul in his epistle to Titus.
The President and others in the US government rhetorically divide nations and peoples into camps of “good and evil.” Demonizing adversaries or enemies denies their basic humanity and contradicts Christians’ beliefs in the dignity and worth of each person as a child of God. Moreover, such approaches to complex problems and difficult dilemmas risks breeding further insecurity, fear, hatred, violence among nations and peoples, conditions that could give rise to further acts of terrorism.I disagree. "Demonizing adversaries" does not deny their basic humanity or contradict a belief in the dignity and worth of each person as a child of God, unless you are a bland Universalist who believes that everybody is just fine with God, we're not sinners, we're all good people and all we have to do is just get along (and give all those poor people over there a lot more money while you're at at, why don't you?). Jesus Himself divided the nations into two groups, in The Final Judgment.
Organizations that cherish civil rights have expressed deep concern that those arbitrarily detained and investigated are selected on the basis of racial profiling. As people are detained in secret, with no access to counsel or to trial and often no contact with their families, fundamental constitutional principles of habeas corpus, the presumption of innocence, and due process have been undermined.Sorry, but we're at war, and you don't win wars by respecting your enemies' civil rights. For those who deny we're at war because our Congress hasn't declared one, my reply is that there was indeed a declaration, a fatwa from Osama bin Laden. I don't like racial profiling either, but when you're at war with people who share certain characteristics, it serves the goal of winning when you look for your enemies primarily among people who have those characteristics.
The United States dominates the world militarily and increasingly attempts to do so politically. The NCCCUSA is especially concerned that in its objectives, the US is increasingly militaristic and unilateral in pursuing political and economic goals.There's a good reason for having a unilateral foreign policy: We're the only country concerned about our own well-being. Or at least the man in the White House is, and the people who elected him.
Those killed on September 11, 2001 came from many different countries and faith communities. Yet those who attacked the United States on September 11 claimed to do so out of religious motivation. In the late 20th century and in the early 21st century, as in earlier eras, religion is used increasingly to legitimize violence, aggression, war, and terrorism. Now more than ever, the world needs for religious communities to work together for peace with justice. All religions provide a basis on which to build human communities where all can thrive, believers and non-believers alike.Here's the moral equivalence argument again: all fundamentalists are inherently evil, and all we need to do is lay our differences down and work for world peace. I guess Jesus' words "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:19-20 ESV) will have to go. We can't risk offending those from other faiths now, can we? After all, what's more important, world peace or making disciples?
As citizens and residents of the United States of America, we give thanks to God for the rich blessings of this good and bounteous land and for our noble heritage of democracy, religious tolerance and freedom, and human rights. We hope, dream and work for the day when everyone in our nation will share fully in this prosperity and freedom. Our love of and dedication to our country require that we hold ourselves and our leaders accountable to the highest standards and ideals of a democratic society where the well-being of each person is the concern of all. As Christians, we put our security in the hands of Jesus Christ and the biblical witness that says, “perfect love casts out fear.” I John 4:18aI, too, thank God for the rich blessings of this land, and for my life as an American citizen. I'm under no illusions that this freedom is free, however. People died to give us this freedom, and people may have to die to keep it. If we do not defend this country and its liberties, I do not believe that our "heritage of democracy, religious tolerance and freedom, and human rights" will be safe, especially if our enemies, who have no such heritage, impose their will on us.
I also pray for peace for us and the world. I don't think that peace is always guaranteed to us, however, even if we strive for it, for life involves dealing with the complication of other people and other cultures, including violent ones who do not want peace.
Here's an item from Campus Watch on anti-divestment campaigns being conducted on several universities to urge their institutions to divest from Israeli companies or companies that do business with Israel, justifying it on the same grounds as divestment from South Africa because of apartheid. Campus Watch quotes the definition of apartheid from the United Nations and considers whether it should apply to Israel:
According to the United Nation's International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid:
"Apartheid consists of a set of state policies that meet the following criteria: (a) "Denial to a member or members of a racial group or groups the right to liberty of person." (b) "Deliberate imposition on a racial group or groups of living conditions calculated to cause its or their physical destruction in whole or part." (c) "Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country -- in particular denying of members of a racial group basic human rights and freedoms." (d) "Any measures -- designed to divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos -- [including] the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group."
Says Campus Watch managing editor, Jonathan Calt Harris, "It is clear that Israel, which offers its Arab citizens participation in the government, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and other rights only afforded by democracy, cannot be placed under this rubric."
Campus Watch monitors Middle East studies on campuses. I'm doing a similar thing with this blog with respect to religion and churches. In that spirit, I'd like to link to a speaker at this year's Unitarian Universalist General Assembly, by a group called UUs for Justice in the Middle East, The Requirements for Peace in Palestine. The link is to a pro-Palestinian propaganda speech by Dr. Hussein Ibish, Communications Director for the American - Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. His description of life in Israel claims to fit the definition of apartheid cited from the UN by Campus Watch, so apparently the Unitarian Universalist Association is in sympathy with the efforts to label Israel as an apartheid state.
Who is Dr. Hussein Ibish, in addition to his title, stated above? Here's an article from Daniel Pipes about him.
What Car Do You Drive is a religious question, according to the National Council of Churches.
Now this question can be taken seriously, it's each person's prerogative to do so. But to ask the question "What Would Jesus Drive?" and presume to know the answer is rather presumptuous. There are legitimate differences of opinion, even among Christians, about environmental issues such as the severity of global warming, the effects of over-population, and the depletion of natural resources. To say that it is wrong or sinful to question the standard environmentalist position is an underhanded way to stifle open debate.
Dave (The Ice Axe) points me to this column by Michelle Malkin, one of my regularly-read columnists. I'm going to add some new info to this discussion. This is not just a secular phenomenon, there are religious institutions out there that are also promoting promiscuity. The former President of the Unitarian Universalist Association endorsed the Religious Declaration on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing -- a new progressive statement issued by SIECUS. By the way, I noticed while researching this that my company's proxy server classifies SIECUS as an adult entertainment site and blocks it.
Here's a quote from the declaration:
Our culture needs a sexuality ethic focused on personal relationships and social justice rather than particular sexual acts. All persons have the right and the responsibility to lead sexual lives that express love, justice, mutuality, commitment, consent, and pleasure. Grounded in respect for the body and for the vulnerability that intimacy brings, this ethic fosters physical, emotional, and spiritual health. It accepts no double standards and applies to all persons, without regard to sex, gender, color, age, bodily condition, marital status, or sexual orientation.
As far as sex goes, this document is pretty much saying that if two people want to do it, then it is perfectly ok, no matter if they're married or not, adult or adolescent (or even a child - it's not limited!), gay or straight. The only thing missing here is doing it with animals, but hey, wait a few years, get some input from Peter Singer, and that could be fixed too.
I'd like to know how mutuality, commitment, and consent can apply to a relationship between an adult and a child. Of course, if you press the question, most individual UUs will say, "that's not what it means!" And of course, most individuals will not interpret it that way. But let's press on. If that's not what they mean, why didn't they say so? For there are activists, such as NAMBLA (whose existence the UUA does not seem to acknowledge), who want to remove the barrier of what they euphemistically call "intergenerational sex", and the endorsers of this document have no point at which to say "No! We draw the line here!" for they have defined a sexual ethic that has no borders.
Jeffrey Collins told me to read this about the Christian Right. It reflects my sentiments. My motivation for creating this blog was the view, typified by a post on Beliefnet, that "Christians should just shut up", to which I replied "so you want free speech for everyone but Christians? Doesn't sound so free to me"
Earlier today, I posted on the origins of American Unitarianism. I'm now going to turn my attention to Universalism and its American origins.
Universalism is actually a general term for the belief that no one will be subject to condemnation, that we're all going to be saved. There are a couple of verses in the New Testament that are used to justify this belief, most notably Romans 5:18 (ESV) "Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men." Now, by itself, this verse seems to justify Universalism, but there are others which don't, such as John 3:36 (ESV) "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him." So a bit more study is required to reveal whether this doctrine has any real merit.
Universalism came to America from England in the person of John Murray, who came ashore due to his ship running aground in New Jersey in 1770, in present day Lanoka Harbor. John Murray met a local farmer named Thomas Potter (who just happened to hold Universalist beliefs, and had even built a church, but had no preacher to preach in it). Potter talked Murray into preaching at his church, which Murray reluctantly agreed to do. Murray was actually a preacher from England who had suffered huge personal tragedy in the loss of his wife and only child, and was coming to America to start over with a new career and life. He agreed to preach only if the weather prevented him from returning to the ship with provisions. The weather favored Potter, Murray preached, and a Universalist church was founded there.
The Universalist Church of America was esentially a one-doctrine denomination, which led to its decline as a spiritual organization. There just wasn't enough material to make for a fulfilling and growing career for its clergy. One notable Universalist, Thomas Starr King actually made a name for himself by being recognized as a Universalist and Unitarian minister. Over the last half of the nineteenth century, and going into the twentieth, the Universalists placed more and more emphasis on social and political causes, abandoning any pretense of Christian doctrine. There was little motivation for Christian conversion since it was considered unnecessary, as all were saved anyway. By the time of the merger with the American Unitarian Association in 1961, both organizations had become activists for social and political causes and had little spiritual content to offer.
The spending of money on "social justice" just highlights something I've said before: If the Church isn't spending its time and money on preaching the Gospel, it's most likely spending its time and money on political causes.
My apologies in advance: I'm a Methodist, but I've got to highlight this item.
How does the United Methodist Women spend $305,000? United Methodist Women's Division grants for 2000
Of all the organizations mentioned in this list, I can't find one doing actual Christian mission work with this money. Liberal religious types may say that it contributes to "social justice" but this money isn't doing anything supporting what Christ told the church to do: Go therefore and make disciples of all nations
What about compassion for the poor? Yeah right, like these activist organizations have compassion.
Yesterday, Mark Byron wrote this post about the need to be alert for heterodoxy within the church. He closed with this statement:
Rewind the tape three-and-a-half centuries and that bunch is the Puritan Congregationalists of 1600s New England. Guys like Cotton Mather weren’t politically correct universalists; they were as much a Bible-thumper as Billy Graham. However, allow a little decay each generation, and the Bible-thumpers turn Unitarians in all but name within two centuries.
You see, the American Unitarian Association (one of the two organizations which formed the UUA) was actually formed from liberal congregations which left the Puritan Congregationalists. How did this happen? Congregational polity, combined with a general distaste for the evangelical movement that swept across America in the late eighteenth century, which led many New England religious intellectuals to move away from traditional Protestant doctrine. Congregations elected liberal pastors and slowly, one-by-one, became Unitarian.
In 1819, William Ellery Channing, preached an ordination sermon in Baltimore entitled "Unitarian Christianity". Channing claimed that liberals had claim to the title "Christian" even if they were Unitarian, and in addition to describing how he interpreted the Bible (rationally, with some parts more important than others, by which I think he meant he was free to disbelieve anything he wished) he listed six main differences between Unitarian and Trinitarian Christianity:
Interested readers can read the whole thing, but I'll comment on one item: the rejection of the Atonement. Channing claims that it isn't in the Bible, but anyone who has actually read the New Testament knows that just isn't so. Paul's letter to the Romans, Chapter 5 explicitly says
For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (ESV, Romans 5:6-8)
More info on Unitarian history, from the UUA's website
UPDATED: Corrected the date of the sermon, it was actually delivered in 1819. The American Unitarian Association was founded six years later by Channing and several other religious liberals.
UPDATED AGAIN: Added some words after the word "holiness" in the list. I just felt funny leaving that word hanging all alone there.
Excellent opinion piece by Yechiel Eckstein: A new definition of tolerance
Excerpt:
BEFORE WE can really begin relating to other views and ideologies, we ought to feel strong in our own traditions and beliefs. And, before we can do that, we must stand for something. For if there is nothing to stand for, there is nothing meaningful enough for us to die for. Without commitment to an absolute in a person's life there is no backbone to that life. It all becomes a mush of relative thinking, which, I believe, does not enable an ethical society to emerge. The United States has been burned by this definition of tolerance.
Am I ever late to this conversation, but it is the very type of thing I'm looking to expose via this blog: Bill Moyer's commentary on the election. Bill Moyers is the model citizen of the "Religious Left", using his Baptist credentials with his populist leanings in order to show how America, in Republican hands has become an evil empire. And it's all the "Religious Right's" fault too!
Here's what Jenn Gray and Stephen F. Hayes say about Bill Moyer's piece:
Links:
Jenn Gray
Stephen F. Hayes
I can't add anything original to these fine opinions. I decided to stop contributing to PBS last year when Frontline started preaching leftist values in news programs, specifically their criticism of the Boy Scouts of America and their policy on gay scoutmasters.
Excellent bleat from James Lileks mentioning the Religious Right and Religious Left. One comment I especially like as it reflects the thinking that led me to leave the Unitarian Universalists is:
The other day I was talking with a Democrat friend about the election. She’d remarked, with equal amounts of sarcasm and good-natured ribbing, that the GOP had two years to build utopia. I thought about that later while walking Jasper around the block, and thought, no; they’re not about building utopia. Personally, I’m interested in keeping other people from building Utopia, because the more your believe you can create heaven on earth the more likely you are to set up guillotines in the public square to hasten the process.
I’m not the first to note this, but: for some, politics has taken the place of religion. As usual, this basic observation has been inflated to cover entire groups, and lazy writers will say that the ENTIRE LEFT has replaced religion with politics. Nonsense. There is a religious left in this country - they’re the ones holding prayer vigils, asking God to keep the United States from removing Saddam. There are the religious liberals, who may take issue with the positions of their church, but are devout believers, and vote Democratic because they believe this is the best way to achieve a certain set of objectives; they are motivated by their conceptions of justice and compassion, and regard liberal policies not as the only way to achieve them, but the surest and the best. But with many there is a belief that liberalism itself is not just a superior method for achieving certain goals, but an idea that is inherently nobler, and bestows on the believer a moral advantage not available to people who believe otherwise.
Planned Parenthood requires children under 18 to get parental permission before submitting a poster for their "Roe at 30" artwork and poster contest. Yeah, that's a real significant life-event, submitting a poster to an artwork contest. What other life-events do you think parents might want to know about?
(Thank you, Amy Welborn, for the link)
A lot of disgust with the Democrats' handling of Senator Wellstone's death and the associated memorial service can be described by one word hypocrisy. The Democrats trounced on Coleman for attacking Mondale before the funeral, and then used the occasion of the funeral to conduct a campaign rally. It wouldn't even surprise me if I heard that they wanted a donation to be invited.
But here's another instance: Remember how John Ashcroft was vilified for saying that he was going to allow the FBI to monitor religious and activist organizations, in the name of fighting terrorism? My reaction to that was "well - I don't really like spying, but FBI agents are citizens, and are free to visit and join churches and organizations, so how are they going to keep them out if they don't want them there?" Given the support given to eco-terrorist groups by groups like PETA (link), I'd kindof like to see some more undercover work being done, actually.
Well, for all the vilification of John Ashcroft, what does the Unitarian Universalist Association recommend its activist-members do? Monitor (i.e. spy on) the Religious Right! I like these two the best, especially since they most closely match what the FBI is doing:
In Unitarian Universalist congregations, they have a ritual of lighting a chalice at the beginning of worship services, usually by a layperson saying some words of dedication. Here's a phrase you can say which can pretty much guarantee you'll be sitting alone at their next pot luck:
If a million moms believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.
(apologies to Anatole France for the deliberate misquotation)
Someone looking at the name of my blog and reading my last post might wonder "how is Harry Stein associated with the Religious Right?" The answer is he isn't, and this gets back to my point in my original post: Why Religious Left Watch? (scroll down to see it). There is no such thing as The Religious Right, it is just a label used by organizations used by organizations such as People for the American Way to describe their political opponents. Are you opposed to campaign finance reform? You're one of those religious right-wingers! Against gun control? Charlton Heston has been painted as a leader of the religious right even though his organization, the National Rifle Association, is not a religious organization at all. Take a look at this, the People for the American Way's Right Wing Watch. First off, let me give a little credit. The term "Religious Right" is used a lot less than it used to be. In researching websites such as this one, I've noticed that within the last year they are using the term less often. Maybe September 11 had something to do with it; two years ago it was all over the place. Go over to the link for fact sheets. You will find that only one of the listed sites is a religious organization, The Christian Coalition. Others are dedicated to conservative values, yes, but not religious. The Heritage Foundation is dedicated to welfare reform, reducing the size of the welfare state, not spreading the Gospel. Same for the others, conservative values yes, religious values no.
So the bottom line is that the term "Religious Right" is used only as a scare tactic intended to keep non-religious people from considering conservative political views.
The National Council of Churches enters the fray and denounces the comments of the Rev. Jerry Falwell. The Institute on Religion and Democracy fisks their response. Here's an excerpt from IRD's comments I particularly like:
But organs like the NCC, which prefer leftist politics to serious Christian ministry, would never defend Jesus Christ in the face of blasphemy with the same ardor, if at all, with which they defend the Prophet Muhammad. Nor, most terribly, will they have seriously advocate on behalf of persecuted Christians. Indeed, notice how the NCC avoided even acknowledging that indigenous churches in Islamic countries are threatened by Islamists. Instead the NCC focused on the safety of missionaries and spoke vaguely about "national security."For the NCC and other religious leftists, conservative Christians like Falwell are the real enemy, not Islamic regimes that curtail, imprison and even murder Christians and other non-Muslims.
President Bush must "repudiate and condemn Falwell's remarks," the NCC insisted, tacitly agreeing with overseas Islamic voices that somehow the American president is responsible for the actions of a Baptist pastor in Lynchburg, Virginia.
Would the NCC ever direct such a resolution at the Iranian president or Saudi monarch, holding them accountable for hateful statements from Islamic clerics in their countries? We should pray for that but should not hold our breath.
Today's Corner has two excellent posts by Rod Dreher commenting on a speech by Bat Ye'or:
Part 1
Part 2
A lot of this stuff about Islam came out after I left the Unitarian Universalist Association, however I keep up with what they do, and there is a big emphasis within that denomination to practice tolerance of, and stand up for, Muslims in America. Now that is noble, don't get me wrong. What I have trouble with is:
1) tolerance is extended to mean not just letting Muslims enjoy religious freedom, but participating in Muslim activities and furthering Muslim goals,
2) that they never act that way toward Christians. No, Christians are always railed against in public dialog, and Christian goals are fought against - "fight the Religious Right!"
Now, with respect to Rod Dreher's post on dhimmitude, is tolerance (as defined in #1 above) intended to go as far as implementing sharia law in America?
If so, are those who preach tolerance aware that dhimmis (non-Muslims) do not enjoy equal civil rights under sharia law? Remember Jim Crow?
If not, where do they propose that we draw a line which we will not cross with respect to true religious freedom in this country, and how will that line be respected? And don't tell me that religious freedom is guaranteed by our Constitution. When we allow judges to reinterpret the meanings of words in our Constitution according to political whims, the First Amendment is a shaky foundation.
Today's Goldberg file over at National Review Online, Might vs. Right
, has some good commentary on what makes for corrupt leaders, and it just isn't the status of their position. I decided to start reading it with a skeptical eye, but wound up agreeing with him.
Back in the Unitarian Universalist Association, there are a lot of people who say things like "Question Authority!" and "Speak Truth to Power!". Very anti-authority, which has a place sometimes, and is just reckless demagoguery other times. I modified my beliefs to "Question Everything!" and found myself traveling a road similar to C.S. Lewis's and G.K. Chesterton's, eventually reaffirming my Christian faith. As far as speaking the truth goes, I have a similar opinion as Mr. Goldberg regarding morality and power: fighting against presumed oppression does not equal telling the truth. Rigoberta Menchu won the Nobel Peace Prize for fighting for the oppressed people of Guatamala, and she was exposed as a liar soon after. I'll have to continue this later, gotta run..
An item I saw on Town Hall caught my eye today, a column by Dennis Prager A Jew defends Evangelical Christians. Mark Shea notices it too, and states a position I agree with, so let me link to his words. To this I only add that I find it strange that the Christian motive of love, borne out of the desire for someone else's salvation and prosperity, could be labeled as hate by those who do not understand or believe the Gospel.
About a month ago, at the end of the Jewish festival of Sukkoth, some Messianic Jewish friends of mine took me to a Messianic service in Philadelphia. Amazing worship service, these people really love the Lord! They put most of the charismatics I've ever known to shame. Loud singing, dancing, raising hands, a sermon about John 7, where Jesus was in Jerusalem for the Jews' Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkoth), and blowing the shofar! This type of service is not for those who like to sit still! The position that Jews cannot be Christians, held by conservative and orthodox synagogues, is not held by the evangelical community; while Jewish converts to Christianity can be expelled from their synagogues, there are Messianic synagogues springing up around the country to accomodate those who "store new wine in new wineskins" (see Matthew 9:10-17).
Religious Leftists have told me that my position is not valid because I'm mixing religion with politics. I remind them that many in the nineteenth century church (including many from their denomination, the Unitarians) were active in abolition. Wasn't that mixing religion with politics too? They say "No! That was a human rights issue" I say "So is this! And that is indeed the reason I came around to a pro-life point of view". Should I remind them that the two icons of early feminism, Susan B. Anthony and Ellen Stauton, were also pro-life?
In my fisking of the UUWorld article last week, I dismiss one paragraph, "the rest of the paragraph is just as incredible", way too quickly. Let me elaborate on that.
Reverend Parker claims that Christianity's doctrine of the Atonement is formulated by Anselm of Canterbury in the eleventh century. Many passages in the New Testament serve to tell us that just isn't so; the Atonement is well-established Christian doctrine in the first century. See Paul's letters to the Romans, Galatians, Colossians, the letter to the Hebrews, the Gospel of Luke, the Gospel of John, many other references to God's forgiveness being extended to us through the sacrifice of His Son, Jesus.
The rest of the paragraph should not be dismissed out of hand, however. There is historical evidence that mercenaries were provided with religious incentive to fight in the Crusades. The linkage to the Atonement doctrine is non-existent, however. Jesus never told His disciples they would be rewarded for killing their enemies. On the contrary, He said they would be judged on their compassion for others, which I include to mean, since Jesus said so, loving their enemies. The logic that Reverend Parker uses to blame Christianity for all the violence that the world suffers from today is tortuous indeed.
Recently, I said that the Nazis "had about as much to do with Christianity as Timothy McVeigh". My syntax wasn't exactly clear there, but I think most people understood that I was saying that the Nazis were definitely not a Christian sect. They were a bunch of thugs who bullied the church in Germany into submission, and put their own people in charge. Hitler had the goal of eliminating Christianity from Germany, or failing that, making it a tool of the state.
I recently replied to a reader asking for some historical information on this subject. My main reference is the book "Christianity on Trial", by Vincent Carroll and Dave Shiflett. The following is copied from my reply.
About the Nazis and the church, I highly recommend the book "Christianity on Trial", for which I link to the Amazon.com site in my blog entry. I'm looking at the book now, and according to what I read, Hitler and the Nazis were not acting in the name of Christianity, but actually wanted to destroy it. The church in Germany was silent because it was being oppressed by the Nazis. Carroll and Shiflett say,
"The Catholic German Center Party was extinguished; Christian trade unions were undermined; religious youth groups were bullied and vilified, and their sporting events, camps, parades and uniforms banned. Monks and nuns by the hundreds were brought up on bogus charges of currency violations and sexual perversion."
A few pages later, they say,
They close the chapter with details of several Christian theologians, both German, and from Rome, who condemned the actions of the Nazis. Details are given of Pastor Martin Niemoller, who voted for the National Socialists in 1933, but who opposed attempts by so-called "German Christians" to seize control of Protestant churches. Niemoller responded to the following policy, the "Aryan paragraph":
"It is easy for those who do not live under a totalitarian regime to expect heroism from those who do, but it is an expectation that will often be disappointed. Christians in Germany did not fall over one another defying the Nazi state. That is a fact, and a melancholy one for sure. A significant number welcomed the advent of Hitler. Yet it is equally true that the price of defiance could be very high, involving death or deportation. In such a context it should be less surprising that the mass of Christians were silent than that some believed strongly enough to pay for their faith with their lives."
"Anyone who is not of Aryan descent or who is married to a person of non-Aryan descent may not be appointed as a pastor or official. Pastors or officials of Aryan descent who marry non-Aryans are to be dismissed. The only exceoptions are those laid down in the state law."
Regarding Niemoller's response, Carroll and Shiflett say,
" Niemoller bolted into action, inviting fellow pastors throughout Germany to join a Pastors' Emergency League to resist the Aryan paragraph and all other attacks on church doctrine. Within a few months, more than two thousand pastors had signed the pledge -- and that was still before one of the most revealing spectacles of the first year of Nazi rule."
There is much more, but the point of the chapter is that there was much more oppostion to the Nazis from the church than is commonly believed today. I hope you can find time to research this issue further. Again, I recommend "Christianity on Trial" for a good starting point.
Recent controversy over Little Green Footballs prompts me to comment. I've read the MSNBC piece and several bloggers' comments on it, as well as Opinion Journal's Best of the Web Today article on it. My take on it is that calling something "hate" when someone is telling the honest truth is a typical PC way of shutting off debate. "racist", "homophobe", "insensitive jerk" are all labels used by those motivated by political correctness and unwilling to argue positions based on their merits. For those who dislike Little Green Footballs, why do you consider it hate? You have a right to your opinions of course, but think a little deeper here, instead of just labeling someone you disagree with.
Many people of the "religious left" think we should be more tolerant of Islam and the Arab world. We should try to understand why they hate us, they say. Oops, there's that word "hate" again! You mean, they "hate" too? Say, why is the left so accomodating? You'd think they would label the speeches coming out of Arab world, quoted by MEMRI, as hate speech too. But they never do, of course. Seems we are to be tolerant of anyone but honest, truth-telling Americans.
I've been reading over the comments, regarding Islam and violence, over at Joshua Claybourn's site. Some good comments there. One from Lee Anne Millinger says that such things happen when religions gain worldly power. I agree with her with the cases of Rome and Geneva, but not Nazi Germany, which had about as much to do with Christianity as Timothy McVeigh. Modern-day unbelievers point to the Nazis as evidence of Christian anti-Semitism, but it just isn't so. Vincent Carroll and Dave Shiflett debunk that modern myth in their fine book, "Christianity on Trial".
Another commenter, (I cannot find it again so sorry for no credit!), claims that terrorism is different than normal run-of-the-mill violence in that it intentionally targets innocents. That's a good point. Based on what I read in Unveiling Islam, by Ergun Mehmet Caner and Emir Fethi Caner, Mohammed and followers resorted to violence against caravans on trade routes in order to obtain provisions for their growing movement. A man at my church tells me that Mohammed only resorted to violence when he thought his movement would be eliminated. Is this terrorism or routine violence? God will judge.
Joshua Claybourn states that most Muslims are not violent, but most nations are. He's got a point there, as the rhetoric coming out of the Middle East (view some of it over at MEMRI) is pretty hateful stuff. I'd add that even if a minority are violent, that cannot be ignored. Most Americans are non-violent too, but that doesn't mean we can ignore law enforcement and punishing criminals.
Finally, another comment whose source I cannot find, says we are still obligated to respond with love toward our enemies. While true, I believe that obligation is put upon us as individual people of faith. That obligation does not mean that we, as a collective nation, should lay down our arms and pretend that our differences can be overcome by diplomacy if our opponents do not act in good faith. I believe that there are differences in God's expectations of us as individuals and as nations.
Here's a commentary in UU World, about vengeance and peace. Let's examine this response from an organization of the "Religious Left" on the American response to 9/11 and future actions with respect to Iraq.
First off, a little background. The Rev. Dr. Rebecca Ann Parker is professor of theology and president of Starr King School for the Ministry in Berkeley, California, and co-author with Rita Nakashima Brock of Proverbs of Ashes: Violence, Redemptive Suffering, and the Search for What Saves Us (Beacon Press, 2001). Here is an excerpt of a book review from an earlier issue of UU World. Christianity is blamed in this book for domestic violence. In the article discussed further here, Christianity and Western Civilization are blamed for world violence.
I'm going to single out a couple of statements that The Rev. Parker makes. Quotes from her article are in italics.
In Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Terrorism, Mark Juergensmeyer studies religious terrorists, whom he finds in every major religious tradition. What religious terrorists have in common is a view of the world as a site of cosmic struggle in which the forces of evil threaten the forces of good. Their theology evolves in a context of injury or threat. Holy warriors experience themselves as victims of an enemy's unjustified aggression and violence. Having been humiliated, they are fighting back to restore honor for their people and pay back injustices. They believe their own deaths will bring glory to their families, will be honored among their people, and will be pleasing to God. Acts of religious terrorism may not defeat the enemy; they may not even have a military or political objective. Their meaning is religious: an act of faithful defiance of evil to declare one's devotion to God.
The religious terrorists who flew planes into the World Trade Center operated with this kind of theology. The United States has been traumatized and families around the world are grieving because of people who believed that God desires the humiliation and destruction of enemies. We have been directly hit by the theology that says God saves through violence.
So Christianity and Islam are just the same when it comes to violence? And we Christians are responsible for perpetuating it just because we want to defend our country? I know the old objections to the Crusades. I also know, after doing some research, that the Crusades were a defensive response to Muslim aggression. I acknowledge that people went too far in retaliation, but I'm not convinced those actions were undertaken by true Christians. Sure, I know, you say today's actions are not done by true Muslims, either, but consider the founders of these two faiths. How many people did Jesus kill? Mohammed? Jesus performed miraculous works of healing and compassion. Mohammed? Suppose you're a sheep, and there are two shepherds calling you home. One has blood on his hands, as for the other one - he came looking for you when you fell into that ravine and couldn't get out. Who do you trust?
Such theology is not the purview of religious extremists alone. The idea that God saves through violence has been a core doctrine of Western Christianity for the past thousand years. At the end of the eleventh century Anselm of Canterbury formulated the theological idea that Jesus died on the cross to pay back God for the injury to God's honor caused by human sin. His theology, written to defend Christianity from Muslims and Jews, provided explicit justification for Christian holy war. The first crusade, called in 1095 by Pope Urban II, urged holy warriors to sacrifice their lives just as Jesus gave his on the cross. The Pope promised that their noble deaths would merit the forgiveness of debts and garner rewards to the slain soldiers' families. Inspired by a theology of sacrificial violence that justified the destruction of God's enemies as a holy act, Christian knights began murdering Jews in the Rhineland and Muslims in the East. From 1095 forward, Anthony Bartlett writes, "the holocaust became a possibility on European soil."
These words, Romans 5:5-11 ESV, written by The Apostle Paul, were written about 1000 years before Anselm of Canterbury:
For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
Alfred North Whitehead observed that there are times when violence is a last resort in personal or national defense. But the most violence can do is stop something. It can stop a violent aggressor. But violence can never create. It can never console. It can never bring peace into being. It can never repair what has been lost.
What is wrong, I wonder, with stopping a violent aggressor? Look at the situation in Maryland. I would love it if someone stopped this person with an act of violence. I wouldn't even mind if the sniper-slayer was not a policeman. Regarding the "inability to create", I question that. What ended slavery - creating freedom for Black Americans? Our Civil War. What stopped the Holocaust? World War II. What created the United States of America, starting what I consider to be the greatest experiment in human law: respecting the rights of man in a climate of liberty and economic freedom? Our Revolutionary War.
It is rather short-sighted to claim that violence cannot create, console, or bring peace into being.
In this time of war, when violence is a rising tide, our calling is to love. Our calling is to witness to a deeper wisdom regarding how security can be created, and how the anguishing aftermath of human violence can be healed. We must speak as public theologians and religious critics who address the theology of war and offer an alternative.
Such speaking will not suffice if we are merely idealistic, innocent as doves. Love is more than idealism. It is wisdom. And we need to speak as wise serpents who know the human capacity for atrocities, cruelties, stupidities, idolatries, and short-sighted, self-serving strategies. We cannot flinch in the presence of evil, but must press further with penetrating questions. Here are a few we should be asking:
What is the toll of civilian casualties in Afghanistan and why is this information so hard to find?
Where is the moral voice of protest? What would it take for Unitarian Universalists collectively to be such a voice?
How many people who look Middle Eastern have been detained in the U.S. by the police and are still in custody without being charged with a crime? What would it take for us to come to their defense?
Which non-violent movements for justice and equity in human affairs will become targets for infiltration and suppression sanctioned by the Homeland Securities act?
Who will benefit economically and politically from the present popular confidence in the necessity of war?
What would it take for us to remember the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s growing clarity about the relationship between war, racism, and poverty? What would it take for us to be clear advocates against racism and poverty in our present context?
I do not believe in war for war's sake, and if war comes there should be a criteria for waging it justly. This criteria must consider the right of people to defend themselves from aggression and ensure their own survival. I believe President Bush has done a good job of laying out such a case. I do not agree with the position taken by the Unitarian Universalist Association and many mainline Christian denominations opposing military action.
The Institute for Religion and Democracy has produced a useful essay containing points to consider when formulating one's own opinion about our response to Iraq.
Pastor Hall comments on my previous post. I respect his intentions on getting in too deep on the punditry, and I'm going to give him the last word for now and move on to other issues. Economic issues will come up on this blog from time to time, so there will be new opportunities to discuss this further. In closing, I thank Pastor Hall for responding fairly and with grace. I hope I have done likewise.
Mark Byron has comments on this subject as well. Thank you, Mark.
Here's a good response from a Christian missionary on a Christian response to globalization. Globalization and the Christian’s Response
, an interview with Father Piero Gheddo.
As a free-market advocate, I believe that capitalism is the economic system most able to provide for the well-being of humanity. I do recognize that there are people left out, however. As a Christian, I believe we must do something to account for this. I believe this responsibility lies mainly with the individual, and only to a limited extent with the government.
Here's how Father Gheddo puts it, much better:
Gheddo: If, on the one hand, we must speak of solidarity, of establishing rules to help those worse off than we are, then, on the other hand, we cannot ignore the two values of responsibility and liberty. To think, as happens more frequently, “I pay my taxes, so the state can do it,” is a tremendous mistake. It is not the state that must deal with our neighbors; we all must do it. There is one thing I never tire of repeating in public meetings everywhere in Italy: We ourselves must carry the burden for our brothers who are ill. We ourselves as persons and individuals must feel the responsibility over and above the United Nations, the government, and the multinationals. It is very true that all this runs counter to human egoism.
Back. Now let me comment respectfully on Pastor Hall's post linked to in the previous entry.
"In the first place, most of those who protest against globalisation and the activities of the multinational corporations do so entirely peacefully."
If "most of" is defined as "most of the people at the protests" he is undoubtably correct. I'm not sure that is the proper way to count however. I'm sure that most Muslims are peacable, non-violent people as well, but those who are non-violent are not a problem. Those who are violent are, and they cannot be ignored. If you look at the organizations which organize the anti-globalization protests, and listen to what they say, there is an encouragement in what they say and do to disrupt, to get results, to not be ignored, to even, in the words of one protest alert in Washington, "shut this city down". Most people attending these protests probably aren't aware of all the rhetoric that is bandied around in social justice circles, but the people who are defining the movement are calling for change, and change any way they can get it. Here's an example by Ted Rall, who wonders if anything good can come without violence. A guest comment by Peter Wood, associate provost, Boston University, in National Review likens the movement's participants to a person riding a tiger and thinking he can control where it goes and what it eats.
In a comment to his column, Richard Hall asks me if the metaphor of the tiger should not also be applied to multinationals. My reply is a qualified-yes. The issue is accountability. Activists want corporations to be accountable. The question is accountable to whom? We already have laws which define what corporations may or may not do. The problem is that activists want corporations to be accountable to their agenda, without having to put their agenda into law. If Congress passes new laws, for good or ill, our corporations must act within those laws. NGOs should be expected to do the same.
Richard Hall states, "Second, they do so, not because they hate prosperity, but because they hate injustice."
I hate injustice too. In fact, I've never met a person who loved injustice. The problem is, just as young Padme noted in a similar conversation with Anakin Skywalker, "people just don't agree!" Some people think it is unjust that some people earn more than others. Some think it is unjust that people earn more than they deserve. Those definitions of what is unjust are not reconcilable, and they are the basic difference between socialism and capitalism, along with some additional details, such as how much government interference we will tolerate in our lives. For if justice is to be strictly defined and enforced by the hand of government, it will indeed mean less liberty.
Last thing I'll comment on now. Richard Hall states "Practices which are illegal in the "developed nations" should not be undertaken by our companies in the "undeveloped"."
I'll disagree on this on the grounds that people who live in different countries get to make different laws for themselves. Economic conditions are different around the world. Take the issue of child labor, for instance. We don't practice it here in America. One reason is that it's illegal, but why is it illegal? It's unnecessary. We are a developed nation where you can go down to the store and buy tonight's dinner. Could we have had anti-child-labor laws back in 1800 when our country was pretty much an agrarian system? Not if you were a farmer who wanted to feed your family, especially not if you wanted to feed the people living in cities who depended on farmers for food. My dad grew up on a farm in Kansas, and during harvest time, everyone who could walk and reach the pedals on the combines or trucks worked. So, you say we make an exemption for such special needs, say a family farm? Fine, but how do you define how far to go with your exemptions? Once government starts legislating special cases it doesn't seem to stop. Also, why not accept the fact that people who live in developing nations may need to make their own exemptions, for their own economic needs (such as agriculture), too? The problem is that the anti-globalization crowd isn't very tolerant of such talk. They want justice to implemented in firm labor conditions, with government bureaucracies and regulations. Not much chance of tailoring economic practices to local realities here.
Also: Some laws are intentionally written to make something illegal in one country which is legal in another. The Kyoto Protocol is a strong example.
Looking through my stats, I've noticed a dissenting opinion over at connexions to my previous entry on the issue of globalization.
Let me address one issue before saying anything else on this blog: I'll even move it over to the left to make it explicitly clear. Richard Hall states
"But never pretend that the motivations of global capitalism have anything to do with the gospel of Jesus Christ."It is not the intent of this blog to state the definitive Christian position on any political or economic issue. I acknowledge that Christians disagree on many things. This issue is one of those things.
The creed I profess is The Apostle's Creed. My alternative "simple" creed states simply
"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your heart. You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:37,39).To that simple statement of the Law and the Prophets, I only add
"all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father".(John 5:23)and
"This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent."(John 6:29).My preacher put them all together in a childrens' sermon and said,
"Love God, love your neighbor, loving Jesus is loving God".
I'll discuss the other points in the dissent later. Have to take care of some other business first.
Joshua Claybourn has an excellent post on the Religious Right. I can add nothing except a hearty "Amen!"
Joshua Claybourn has an excellent post on politically active Christians. Nice work! I'm going to expand on it a little bit, reflecting on my past experiences as a member of the Unitarian Universalist Association.
God does not belong to your party: I agree that it is presumptuous to say that God is on our side in a public debate on issues, especially one in a secular context where no one is expected to unconditionally accept Biblical authority. I really respect writers like Robert P. George, who writes in support of traditional values, but without resorting to saying "this is true because the Bible says so". He lays out a good case based on respect for life and reason. Regarding motivation, I think we err if we think that we are doing God a favor by our activism, as if His will would be thwarted if we stopped. No, any political activism we do is for the benefit of our society. God could change our world with a word if He wished. That said, however, I believe we should study and know the will of God, so that we can be sure that we are on His side.
The ends do not justify the means: I remember a couple of years ago, President Clinton and Vice President Gore appeared at a fund-raiser which raised a huge sum of money. While it was a legal fund-raiser, they also took the opportunity to speak out for campaign finance reform (at the fund raiser!). Several donors were said to have questioned the hypocrisy of raising gobs of cash while speaking out against the freedom to do so. Clinton's reply was that it was justified by fighting the Republicans' agenda. He mentioned several Democrat-party objectives: gun control, abortion, his public land grabs. It probably never occurred to him that in a free and democratic republic his political opponents have just as much right to speak out for their views, and raise money for that purpose. If he could have been declared king for life by our Supreme Court, I'm sure he would have been willing to put our Constitution in the shredder to do so.
Faith does not lie in support: To this, I also add that faith does not perform acts of violence, against life or property. People who resort to acts of violence to make a point don't have one.
Generosity does not mean compassion: I could write for hours on this subject, but let me add this one quick point before I have to leave for dinner: Government cannot be compassionate because it has no resources with which to be so. Whatever the government gives to anyone must be taken away from someone else, with some taken away to the bureaucrats who manage our system. Bill Bradley was wrong when he said we needed a more compassionate government; it just isn't so! True compassion is provided by people who give of their own time and money, not those who wish to utilize the services of someone else's wallet.
Too little time it seems to post since Wednesday, which leads me to ask - how much time do people spend on their blogs? How do you reconcile time with your family? Rod Dreher noted in The Corner, in a discussion about television, noted that computers also take time away from the family. Amy and I decided in advance that I have to observe a bedtime discipline, and I broke it Wednesday (my bad - is it possible to keep a half-baked idea on this system for publishing later?)
Today had me at the doctor's office, getting a rigourous physical, as Amy and I are in the process of adopting a baby from China. Looking at becoming first-time parents sometime between Mother's and Father's Day 2004.
Considering my post from Wednesday about the UUA, I'd like to add a disclaimer - not all congregations of the UUA are teeming with socialists, and there are some scattered conservatives spread throughout. They've even formed a Conservative Forum, but like me, many of them have just chosen to walk away. For a denomination that seems to worship tolerance, they do seem to be rather intolerant of Christians and conservatives. I think of the Unitarian Universalist Association today as a kind of ABC faith, meaning "Anything But Christianity". Many of them mean well, but as Mark Byron notes on his site,
There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death. - Proverbs 16:25I ran into one of my former UU colleagues at lunch about two weeks ago, we were talking about Iraq, and he said there were one or two members who thought we should fight, but he also thought it was all about oil. He also kept bringing up this word "myth". I looked up the website for the congregation, and sure enough, the new preacher there has this "myth" fixation. All our institutions are based on "myths". Now he's using the definition of the word that is truth-neutral, (at least I think so), but he talks about America and Western Civilization in terms of "Judeo-Christian myth" and the myth of ... well let me just provide a quote (link)
My last observation is that this tragedy we face is a reflection of a much larger mythic battle. Myth is a view of reality. It is our answers to life's compelling questions about the mystery of our existence. Myth is the filter through which we push our experience to create meaning. Every individual, every institution, every nation lives through and by myth. That is, all humans and the cultures they create are shaped by peculiar views of reality.
History is nothing more than the interpretations we give to the conflicts or consorts of myth. Every human contention and aggression is myth-driven.
This sermon sounds like standard "citizen-of-the-world" moral equivalency, combined with a post-modern denial of truth. One thing I'd like to tell people who think we're no better than our enemies "Are you willing to bet your freedom of religion on the outcome of your beliefs? Because if we are not prepared to defend our country and its Constitution, we may very well lose it, and we may lose it from the very people you are telling us to be tolerant of."
One of the things that has been really disappointing to see during the last four years is the way groups such as the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC), National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), and Planned Parenthood, have hammered this idea into the zeitgeist that abortion is a Constitutional right, and subsequently, since many Republicans want to limit this so-called "right", they are enemies of the republic. I was appalled at the level of the rhetoric in the 2000 Presidential elections (has Alec Baldwin sold his house yet?). I was a Unitarian Universalist back at that time, soon to leave (I kept my promise, Alec :) due to the shrillness of the "gotta save Roe vs. Wade!" and "ban those handguns" folks that were so prevalent in that denomination (one of my reasons for leaving is that it just wasn't any fun anymore! I just happen to not like protesting everything, and I'd rather watch football than attend meetings of the Social Justice committee)
The first book I read in my conversion from being a UU to being a "man of the right" was Ayn Rand's "We The Living" about life under the Bolsheviks. This book really impacted me. For the first time, I actually thought about what it would look like to live under Communism, by which I mean life lived each and every day. This book is truly scary. I've heard people tell me about Orwell's "1984" how it scared the living daylights out of them, but to me "1984" was a tenth of the impact of "We The Living". Let me note before continuing that while the book is fictional, it is considered to be a semi-autobiographical account of Rand's youth lived in the Soviet Union in the 1920's- the main difference being that Ayn Rand made it out alive. One thing Rand emphasizes in the book is the political activism of the Communist Party, always wanting to change this, change that, in order to make a better society, always striving towards utopia. Now, to my point: the Unitarian Universalist Association and other leftist political activist groups behave in similar fashion, and have similar goals.
Take a look at this. This is a Study Action Issue from this last year's General Assembly. Rhetoric like this could be cut and paste out of an issue of The Nation without using scissors. Now I was a Unitarian Universalist back when this SAI was being formulated and protestors were smashing windows in Seattle at the WTO meeting back in 1999. Now you can be opposed to the WTO and still be a free-market capitalist (and in fact I consider myself to be more in that camp than in the WTO-is-always-right camp), but the discussion in UU publications and conversations back then was how:
sometimes violence is justified, after all it's only property,
capitalism is such an unjust economic system, we should be giving them more foreign aid instead
if all those countries practiced capitalism the global environment would be destroyed.
Getting back to Ayn Rand's "We The Living": One quote from the book had a lingering impact on me, let me see if I can find it.....ok, here it is (oh man, look at the time, gotta wrap this up). Kira Argounova (the heroine) is talking to Andrei Taganov, young Communist party member. I pick up the conversation with Andrei:
"I know what you're going to say, You're going to say, as so many of our enemies do, that you admire our ideals, but loathe our methods."
"I loathe your ideals."
"Why?"
"For one reason, mainly, chiefly and eternally, no matter how much your Party promises to accomplish, no matter what paradise it plans to bring mankind. Whatever your other claims may be, there's one you can't avoid, one that will turn your paradise into the most unspeakable hell: your claim that man must live for the state."
Kira's attitude describes pretty much how I feel about utopian schemes and political activism. Now that I'm a Christian again, I reject Ayn Rand's atheism, but I still respect her philosophy for standing up to the myth that if we (meaning all humans, without God) all work together we can achieve anything. Humanism and socialism are dead and worthless philosophies, and I've been there and experienced them. There is no life there.
Over in the United Methodist Church, a recent controversy has been spawned as a result of a speech by Bishop Joseph Sprague.
Bishop Sprague says in his address, "The theological myth of the virgin birth points to this wondrous mystery and ultimate truth. To treat this myth as a historic fact is to do an injustice to its intended purpose and to run the risk of idolatry itself."
Now if literal belief in the historical truth virgin birth is idolatry (and I assume from the rest of his speech that he would believe the same about every other aspect of the Apostle's Creed), what can the righteous do? This type of belief is a belief in ever shifting sand, subject to the whims of public opinion, changing social mores, and political correctness. Besides, wouldn't belief in anything constitute idolatry? Should we worship nothing? Is nothing sacred?
I'll be talking more about liberal religion, but first a brief note about religion and politics. It seems to me that when any religious institution loses its spiritual focus, something has to move in to fill the void. In mainline denominations, political activism often replaces evangelism as the main focus. Now activism isn't wrong, in and of itself, but neglecting evangelism is. We are commanded to be witnesses, as well as to do good works.
So many of today's denominations have lost their spiritual focus, and hence their evangelistic drive, because there is nothing spiritual left to talk about anymore.
Mark Byron asks me to weigh in on the Jesus Seminar.
My view of the New Testament is simple. The authors of the New Testament claimed to be eyewitnesses of Jesus's life, death, and resurrection. They were lying or telling the truth. They were not simply misled, their claim of being eyewitnesses is explicitly stated. If they were lying, then the entire New Testament is worthless. If, on the other hand, they were telling the truth, it is the most amazing event in history, and we should pay special attention to Jesus's life and words. There is no validity to believing in a watered-down "no-resurrection" Christ.
Jeffrey Collins offers me some advice: link!
Here is the letter that Reverend John Buehrens sent to our U.S. Senators to oppose the Ashcroft nomination:
Dear Senator...
OK, I have a weblog now. Pretty cool to see comments I wrote myself up on the Internet, on my own site, not just on someone else's BBS.
Well, why "Religious Left Watch"?
I don't really like the name, but it describes what I'll be writing about, at least about 70% of the time, along with some tidbits of other information, such as our upcoming adoption of a child from China, a process we've just begun, possibly some items of theological or doctrinal interest in the style of "He Lives", and maybe even some kittyjournal entries.
Well again, why write about the "religious left"? First off, let me make this claim: there is no such thing, just as there is no such thing as the "religious right".
At a dinner *discussion* with my Unitarian friends (disclosure: I used to be a Unitarian Universalist. I was married in one, so even though I disagree with almost everything they say, I will always disagree with them respectfully), one of them said to me this little joke I've heard a lot "The religious right is neither". I've heard it's a popular bumper sticker. My response? "What do you call the religious left?" He couldn't answer the question. There is no concept of the "religious left" in leftist circles, there is only the dreaded "religious right". So why all the one-sided attention on only one side of the political spectrum?
Unitarian Unversalists, along with many other leftist religious organizations, love to cite this little known Constitutional concept known as the "separation of church and state". The only problem is, it's a knee-jerk response against a concept that doesn't exist. Read the First Amendment for yourself and you won't find the words "separation of church and state" there, but you will find the words "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The basic proscription is "Congress shall make no law". So what does this have to do with Christians who express their opinions on public policy? Nothing, absolutely nothing.
Christians, as American citizens, have as much right to participate in our country's political and cultural institutions as anyone else, yet religious leftists would have you believe that Christians have no right to. Here's an example: On January 9, 2001, the Rev. Dr. John A. Buehrens, the President of the Unitarian Universalist Association wrote in a letter sent to every U.S. Senator, regarding the nomination of John Ashcroft as Attorney General, "The highest post in the land dedicated to protecting the rights of all citizens should not be offered as a reward to religious political extremists." How was John Ashcroft a religious political extremist? Buehrens writes, "As one who has ministered to victims of shootings outside abortion clinics, and to the families of hate-crime victims, I am concerned with the future actions of the radical fringe of society. While I know that Mr. Ashcroft condemns all violent activism, I am concerned with the legitimacy which his views' stridency and moral righteousness might seem to offer to this radical fringe for the militancy of their viewpoints." For the record, John Ashcroft has never been accused of shooting an abortionist, or endorsing those who have. He has also never been accused of any hate-crime, nor endorsing them. The only thing he has been accused of is being a Christian whose views might afford legitimacy to people with whom he has never expressed any agreement. This is a vaporous argument, designed to discredit someone for views he does not even hold.
Organizations such as The Interfaith Alliance have huge elaborate websites and lots of resources to combat the "religious right", but if you look at them closely, many of the organizations purported to be members of that pernicious society are not religious at all. The Heritage Foundation is dedicated "to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense". No mention of making disciples of Christ, or support church growth, or even give churches more money to help the poor! So why lump it in with the "religious right"? It has nothing to do with religion. It's just a smear campaign, discrediting your political opponents by calling them names, instead of fighting them with reasonable arguments.
The bottom line is that the "religious right" is a figment of the leftist imagination, designed to scare people into thinking their rights are at stake if conservatives are elected to local, state, or federal office. Our Constitution protects people of all religions from any test of their religion for political office however. Reverend Buehren's letter was out-of-bounds on that issue. While he had a right to say it, any Senator who voted against Ashcroft for the reasons Buehrens cited cast an unconstitutional vote. For my part, I wrote a lot of Senators saying that Buehrens was wrong. As an American citizen, and a Christian, I've got a right to do that too.