Archive for the ‘Religion’ Category

« Older Entries

Chaim Potok and sermons

Wednesday, February 17th, 2010

Was listening to NPR in car this morning (yeah yeah I know) and “Writer’s Almanac” with Garrison Keillor came on. It was more interesting than most days.

Ah yes a poem about cleaning up after the dog. Guess who walks the dog in our family? And yes letting everyone see you use the bag is important.

Birthday of Chaim Potok. This got my attention because Potok is one of my favorite writers and I have read most of his books. He is one of the people I draw upon for my theology of the importance of silence. His books also help us understand the Jewish religion. Most of my teachers were Jewish and so I have a special respect and affection for the Jewish religion and people.

Premiere of the opera “Madame Butterfly” by Giacomo Puccini. Did terribly until Puccini made some changes and then presented it again later that year.

And a great quote that every preacher should heed:

A good sermon should be like a woman’s skirt: short enough to arouse interest but long enough to cover the essentials.

Word! From Ronald Knox born this day in 1888.

Today is Ash Wednesday. Today we enter Lent.

Posted in Art, Judaism, Literature, Media, Personal, Sermons | No Comments »

Is this what it takes to attract young Baptists?

Wednesday, February 10th, 2010

From one of the coordinators for the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship in Louisiana I received by email a link to a recent opinion piece published through the Associated Baptist Press: “Why 20- and 30-year-olds are leaving the Baptist church” by Carra Hughes Greer who is minister to families with youth at a Baptist church in Georgia.

You can read the whole thing at Associated Baptist Press.

(Let me begin with a couple disclaimers[?]. First – I assume Carra Hughes Greer is an outstanding Christian minister and is a better Christian and minister than I am. Second – I do not disagree with everything she writes.)

Why do we see fewer young Baptists in our churches? (The editor erred when s/he assigned the title “Baptist church”. There is no Baptist church. There are Baptist churches. Which may cooperate to form associations denominations networks and so on.) Not just because they had enough of the Southern Baptist Convention controversies of the 1970’s and 1980’s. But because they are tired of both “harsh” churches and “watered-down” churches.

Her definitions of each are interesting. “Harsh” churches loudly rail against problems in our culture. Greer outlines what one might identify as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell style Baptist Christianity.

“Watered-down” churches care more about maintaining the institution than about engaging the various burning issues of the day. Which issues? Greer offers a sample list:

[H]omosexuality, social justice issues, women in ministry, poverty, environmental concerns, human rights issues, health-care issues, the AIDS epidemic in Africa, orphans in China, monks in Burma, etc. They are eager to have open, honest, almost jaw-dropping, conversations balancing current issues with their faith.

I understand and do not dispute that young Baptists want to discuss such issues in light of their Christian faith.

What troubles me is the apparent dichotomy. If your church takes “conservative” positions on certain theological social and cultural issues then it is harsh. (And note how the article lumps together more extreme with more reasonable “conservative” Christian concerns.) But if your church does not openly discuss certain – pay attention now – other theological social and cultural issues then it is “watered-down”.

Do you see the subtle dichotomy? Discussing education health-care marriage and female pastors is harsh. Discussing social justice women in ministry poverty and the environment is not. Perhaps I misunderstand and the article merely distinguishes between “railing against” and “openly discussing”.

Dichotomies real or imagined aside – so if we do not discuss openly this second list of issues then we are not being missional?

I am trying to imagine what would happen if the congregations I serve – Church of the Nations and University Baptist Church – started talking about abortion homosexuality social justice women in (ordained? vocational?) ministry poverty environmentalism health-care.

I know we have congregants who are much more conservative on theological social cultural political issues. I know we have congregants who are much more liberal. And of course we have congregants who are a mixture of both. Whatever one means by “conservative” and “liberal” in this context.

I know from experience that social cultural and political issues can be far more divisive than theological issues. The Baptistlife.com forum in which I used to participate is hard cold proof of this.

There is some irony here. My views on sexuality are generally “conservative”. Sexual relations between a man and woman who are married to each other is the biblical theological and Christian ideal. And yet in something like sixteen years of ordained ministry not once have I preached against “homosexuality”.

I prefer to focus more on theology. Who is God? Who is Jesus? Who are we? What about our relationship to the creator? What about our relationship to the rest of creation? What about our relationship to other creatures including human beings? What about sin? What about salvation? What about worship? What about prayer?

And yet to be fair in my teaching and preaching sometimes I have touched on social cultural political issues. But I tend to focus on the biblical and theological framework and allow congregants to decide how that plays out in terms of policies and positions.

And perhaps Greer is right. Perhaps we should be “talking about these issues in our Sunday school classes, Bible studies and sermons”. Perhaps I am being a coward for not doing so more. And one might respond “well of course we talk about God and theology and so on – but people will naturally want to balance their faith with these other issues”.

(I remember what happened once when we had a discussion about abortion during Sunday school. Got to the point where one couple said to another couple “you are the kind of people we protect our children from”. I am not making that up. It was not pretty.)

Is the underlying assumption that the purpose of Christian faith is to address these issues? (By the way that right there is a critical question and may be the question we need to ask concerning Greer’s article.) That there is no Christian consensus on how to address these issues? Or that there is a Christian consensus?

Please note these are questions that I have rather than criticisms.

Do we in fact see young Baptists flocking to churches that practice what Greer recommends? How are liberal and moderate Baptist churches doing? Perhaps we should ask how are Episcopal churches doing? Because boy do they ever talk about social cultural political issues.

How are more traditional churches doing? Orthodox Christianity is growing quite nicely in the United States. And although yes they do engage these issues – sometimes taking a “conservative” and sometimes taking a “liberal” stand – they tend to focus much more on worship prayer and theology.

If we focus on God (and our relationship with him and with each other) then do these other issues take care of themselves? Perhaps that is naive and simplistic.

Let me wrap up by addressing a few other points.

She makes fine points about what 20- and 30-year-olds are like. “Not all of them expect loud, Christian rock music, want to wear torn jeans and a T-shirt to church, seek a coffee bar in the worship space or the biggest and brightest LCD screens”. Word.

And this paragraph was especially powerful:

Instead of church politics, they want churches to become missional. They understand the institutional church but desire the simplicity of the early church. They grow weary of time and money spent maintaining the large church grounds, renovating empty Sunday school rooms, installing the latest technology and managing growing numbers of committees. When the church becomes too distracted to be a church on mission, young Christ-followers focus on serving through a para-church or nonprofit organization that is directly meeting the needs of others.

Although again I must ask what do these people think the purpose (mission) of the church is exactly?

I had some difficulty understanding her recommendation that:

[O]ur churches must begin to reflect our changing communities. The ministerial staff must diversify to include people of all ages, races and genders as leaders.

Well sure I suppose if you have a large enough ministerial staff. And how many staff would one need in order to include people of all ages races and genders?

(How many ages?) x (How many races?) x (How many genders?) = (How many staff?)

My last comment is not directed so much to Greer’s article as to Protestantism in general:

For younger generations, what’s at stake is our ability to find ways to relate, engage and work side-by-side with older generations finding common ground on issues of social justice, faith development, worship experiences, etc.

What kind of Christian tradition has to struggle with this at all? In what kind of Christianity do different generations even have to find “common ground” on these issues?

Do you see the problem?

But Greer does raise some legitimate questions and make fine points about 20- and 30-year-old Christians and how we may better relate to and include them in the life and work of the Christian church.

Addendum: Asked my wife what she thought about the article. She thinks I am reading it far too critically.

Posted in Baptists, Christian Practice, Ecclesiology, Ministry, Society and Culture | No Comments »

REVIEW – "Moon" (2009)

Thursday, January 14th, 2010

What does it mean to be human? More specifically what does it mean to be a person? How do we find meaning and purpose in an apparently absurd universe?

It boggles my mind that critics could rave about how “Moon” (2009) is brilliant science-fiction that everyone must see – and yet the film was released only in Los Angeles and New York City. In other words everyone needs to see a movie that almost no one can see.

For months I have ached to see it. Finally January 12 arrived and my family gave it to me for my birthday. Watched it with my younger daughter. She thought it was sad and depressing. I do not disagree but would phrase it differently. It is both profoundly disturbing and profoundly moving.

The sets and visuals are persuasive – all the more impressive when one realizes that “Moon” was filmed on a mighty small budget. The background music is exquisite. One of my pet peeves in many American films is the loud music that tells us how we should feel at every given moment. But in “Moon” several important scenes have no music. And when music is present it is elegant delicate and haunting. It enhances rather than forces the emotional impact of key scenes.

“Moon” tells the story of Sam Bell – the always enjoyable Sam Rockwell provides an exceptional performance – who is only two weeks from the end of his three year contract. His job is to maintain the equipment that mines the surface of the moon for Helium-3 (an isotope used in fusion to generate energy back on Earth). He is completely alone. Well except for the constant companionship of the robot helper Gerty (voice by Kevin Spacey). The communications satellite has been broken all this time so he cannot have live conversations with his family back home. He can only watch and send back recorded messages.

The years of loneliness and isolation appear to be taking their toll. But he is going home! “Two more weeks buddy!” Sam says to Gerty while eating breakfast (which is “the usual” – a nice touch that reinforces the sense of isolation and monotony).

Already the film raises important issues about the human need for companionship. How does a human being survive complete isolation? Sam appears to enjoy his work. The monotony of checking and reporting how many miles a harvester covered each day is occasionally broken by a full H-3 canister which Sam must retrieve and then ship back to Earth. But even Sam still has plenty of free time which must be filled somehow. He cares for and talks to his plants. He carves wooden models of people and buildings back home. He watches old television reruns.

But notice the pattern. Sam is utterly alone. He must talk to somebody. To Gerty. To his plants. Even the lunar harvesters are given names. A person needs relationship with another person. Even if the other is a substitute. (See also Tom Hanks in “Cast Away” and his relationship with “Wilson”.) This raises questions about the extent to which we engage in substitute personal(?) relationships. Virtual pets. Video and online computer games. Again we confront the interior-exterior distinction which is so important in Orthodox Christian theology. We are created for relationship – but relationship with persons.

I do wonder “would God be enough?” If for whatever reason I was completely alone would the presence and companionship of the Triune God – who himself is three persons in relationship – be enough to keep me from going insane? The answer is probably yes when one considers the stories of monks and saints from Christian history.

But even then – the idea of escaping from the world is to bring back to the world the spiritual resources we gain during our time in the wilderness. Sam’s three years alone is a struggle but it also changes him for the better (confirmed by one of the recorded messages from his wife Tess).

But back to the struggle. One evening Sam is making coffee when he sees a teenage girl(?) sitting in his chair. We wonder, Have the 3 years been too much? Is Sam losing his mind? Who is this teenage girl that Sam thinks he sees?

The next day Sam once again goes out to retrieve a full canister of Helium-3. And something happens that changes everything.

***WARNING – SPOILERS AHEAD!***

(more…)

Posted in Movies and film, Orthodoxy, Science Fiction | No Comments »

REVIEW – Inner reflections/contradictions in "Avatar"

Wednesday, January 6th, 2010

I almost did not go to see it. Most of the conservative blogs/websites I follow criticized harshly the movie “Avatar” directed by James Cameron. In a nutshell – that it is a silly and predictable leftist anti-American anti-capitalist rehash of “Dances with Wolves”. But some people I know and respect saw it and loved it. Perhaps I should see it and make up my own mind. But what if I hate it? Will James Cameron give me my money back?

Even the harshest critics acknowledge how impressive the film in terms of visuals and effects. In 3D we are as immersed in Pandora as is the protagonist Jake Sully when he lives among the Na’vi. Normally one sees people get up during a movie to visit the restroom or buy a snack or check the time on their cell phones. During “Avatar” hardly anyone moved. Even to stretch or shift in their seats. About two-thirds through the film I noticed my neck was sore from being held in one position for nearly two hours.

So on one level we can appreciate “Avatar” as a powerful visual and cinematic experience. We can also appreciate the creativity and innovation Cameron demonstrated not only in creating this film but in developing new technologies and techniques that such a film requires.

It is precisely this point – “Avatar” as immersive experience – that represents an important counterpoint to the list of conservative(?) criticisms against the film. Conservative critics of “Avatar” focus on what they discern to be its underlying (social-cultural-political) message. (And I will return to this.) That is they criticize the film as ideology. But what about “Avatar” as science-fiction?

My friend and colleague Joshua Villines has penned an original and thoughtful review of “Avatar”. He writes:

In Avatar, James Cameron has chosen to tell a story by creating a fully-immersive, coherent world.  For fans of science fiction, that alone is a huge gift. [emphasis added]

In science-fiction not everything has to add up scientifically. (Most of the time. “Hard” science-fiction which focuses heavily on science would be an exception.) Cameron creates a world and immerses us in it through the visuals cinematography and effects.

Quibble all you like about gravity inconsistencies and weak dialogue, James Cameron has crafted perhaps the most internally-consistent, immersive, extra-terrestrial world ever brought to life on the large screen.  In so doing, he has made the atrocities of ethnocentric consumerism real in a way that a cleverly contrived plot alone would not have.  For threats of mass destruction or genocide to be real to us, they must threaten our home.  This is why the apocalyptic scenes of Terminator are so much more terrifying than the destruction of Alderaan in A New Hope.

Read the whole thing here.

So what about those conservative criticisms?

In a nutshell – they are partly correct. Sorry. In fact they might be more correct than people realize.

This week an article by Patrick Goldstein on the Los Angeles Times website asks “Why do conservatives hate the most popular movie in years?” The article – by someone who is not conservative – understands the situation well.

For years, pundits and bloggers on the right have ceaselessly attacked liberal Hollywood for being out of touch with rank and file moviegoers, complaining that executives and filmmakers continue to make films that have precious little resonance with Middle America. They have reacted with scorn to such high-profile liberal political advocacy films as “Syriana,” ”Milk,” “W.,” “Religulous,” “Lions for Lambs,” “Brokeback Mountain,” “In the Valley of Elah,” “Rendition” and “Good Night, and Good Luck,” saying that the movies’ poor performance at the box office was a clear sign of how thoroughly uninterested real people were in the pet causes of showbiz progressives.

The dirty little not-so-secret is that Hollywood is not just interested in making money. Because generally the “high-profile liberal political advocacy films” tank at the box office. And generally the conservative(?) themed films – at least those films that do not ridicule the lifestyles and values of “middle America” – do much better. So why does Hollywood continue to churn out films with a (left/liberal) message that lose money? Probably because they care about the message.

The article understands the situation well – but to a point.

Of course, “Avatar” totally turns this theory on its head.

Um… no. Not only because it is silly to think a single exception turns a general rule on its head. Especially when the article goes on to explain precisely if accidentally how “Avatar” may be an exception that proves the rule.

“It has the politics of the left, but it also has extraordinary spectacle,” says Govindini Murty, co-founder of the pioneering conservative blog Libertas and executive producer of the new conservative film “Kalifornistan.” “Jim Cameron didn’t come out nowhere. He came on the heels of all the left-wing filmmakers who went before him, who knew that someone with their point of view would have the resources to finally make a breakthrough political film. But even though ‘Avatar’ has an incredibly disturbing anti-human, anti-military, anti-Western world view, it has incredible spectacle and technology and great filmmaking to capture people’s attention. The politics are going right over people’s heads. Its audience isn’t reading the New York Times or the National Review.”

Ding. “The politics are going right over people’s heads”. Audiences are captivated by the spectacle and miss the underlying message.

Or do they?

Some of the comments left in response to Goldstein’s piece are instructive:

It is not so much that the people embrace the ideology of the film, which most certainly leans left, but that the message of anti-America, anti big business, and embrace mother earth themes are not really portrayed in the trailers. It’s not until you are sitting in your seat in the theater that this themes are revealed by then it is too late – the money has been spent.Try getting a refund from the theater because it doesn’t agree with your politics. Even my 76 yr old mom, a life long Democrat, came out and the first thing she said was “Why was that movie so Anti- American?” [emphasis added]

Or this comment which directs our attention toward one of the inner contradictions of the film:

Why is everyone who isn’t in love with this movie automatically “a conservative”? I’m a Democrat and I find it a total sop to American fantasies about how much the world requires our presence. The spectacle of the Na’vi needing an outsider to become their spiritual leader is nothing new or groundbreaking. This movie panders to American culture’s greatest wet dreams about itself.

Ah. Okay. So we have (1) these highly industrialized and technological humans who would despoil a beautiful planet and to make a profit also (2) murder the peaceful non-industrialized non-technological natives who must be led and saved by – pay attention now – (3) a human being who is only able to join them because of some highly advanced technology.

Please note that Goldstein at no point denies what conservative critics of “Avatar” claim is the underlying message of the film. Quite the contrary. Note also a recent ABC News piece on “The Politics of ‘Avatar’”:

For his part, Cameron has been unabashedly open about his political intentions.

The movie is about how greed and imperialism tend to destroy the environment, in this case the “pristine” environs of Pandora, Cameron said in an interview with NBC’s Today show. “It’s a way of looking back at ourselves from this other world, seeing what we’re doing here.”

We have a film that appears to criticize imperialist America and its capitalist economy driven by the military-industrial complex…

That cost $300 million to make… $150 million to market it… that required new technologies… that could only have been funded and made in (more capitalist than not) America… a nation that is largely free and safe thanks to the United States military.

There is a word in the English language for that.

9/11 and America-as-terrorist

***WARNING – SPOILERS AHEAD***

(more…)

Posted in Media, Movies and film, Orthodoxy, Politics, Propaganda, Science Fiction | 3 Comments »

Why I removed a 2 year old post from this site (or) Pressured into censoring myself

Wednesday, December 2nd, 2009

Well well well.

Two years ago – read that again – I attended a youth rally in Baton Rouge sponsored by our local Baptist association. During that youth rally someone came on stage and promoted a Christian rally/youth event which would be held during a school day. He offered an argument for (1) why the event could and should be held during a school day and (2) why public schools have to allow this.

I wrote a post which critiqued the youth rally – and during that post critiqued the rally/youth event that was being promoted. I thought it entirely inappropriate (a) to schedule such an event during a school day and (b) to insist public schools must allow this because “we can call it a religious holiday and the government cannot say what is or is not a religious holiday”. I did not critique the person who heads up the ministry that organizes the event nor did I critique the event itself.

Let me share with you the exchange – with names/details removed.

Dear Rick,

I assume your a great guy that is not into bashing denominations,or against soulwinner’s . However after reviewing a blog about “how not to plan a <removed> rally” i was very concerned about the misinformation that was put out. I also believe that you probably did not know the info is not factual that was put out…I am the founder of <removed> of which is mulicultural and interacts with multiple denominations to host an event in different cities . The event itself is determined by a committee formed in that city.
Every event all citywide ministries are invited to join together for a common cause. Please understand we have never hosted an evening event anywhere. Along with other non – facts this blog is not becoming of a christian whoever wrote it.
I am asking that it be removed . It is unlawful to post inaccurate info.. please respond with your decision.

Sincerely ,
Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx Xx
Xxxx xxx Xxxxx Xxx.
xxx-xxx-xxxx

My reply:

With respect – I suggest you read it again and more carefully. Focus particularly on the second sentence.

What misinformation? Everything in it is eyewitness account. I was not describing a <removed> rally. I was describing the youth rally (Citywide Youth Rally) sponsored by local Baptist association – at which someone appeared and promoted the <removed> rally which would be later in the year.

At no point does it claim <removed> is an evening event. Therefore it does not contain misinformation and is not inaccurate and so I do not see the need to remove it. Do feel free to leave a comment if you wish.

What came back was:

I would suggest as a brother in Christ.The title is using our trade marked name and as a brother in Christ you would recognize the title tries to imply our organizational tie. It is clear its slanted by some denominationalism. One thing you might of overlooked was many attended the through the field trip aspect of which was not accurately
Reported. Call me if you want more info. We are however requesting the removal

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

My final reply was:

This has been an unfortunate exchange and I am struggling to understand what your objections are. I think I have explained myself quite clearly and that the post does not lend itself to the sort of deliberate or accidental misunderstandings you suggest.

I could be wrong but my best effort to understand what motivates this is:

a) “<removed>” is indeed in the title of the post (even though the post is mostly about something else at which <removed> was mentioned and described and promoted)
b) which means people searching for information might come across this 2 year old post
c) which does indeed offer a critique of the “excused absence” argument

So here is what I am going to do. I am going to remove the post simple because I do not care to deal with this any further. I have work to do and a congregation to serve and do not need the stress even though I am entirely unpersuaded that your objections are valid. I will not call you. And I request that you do not attempt to call or contact me in any way whatsoever.

One wonders how someone could (legally) express disagreement with some aspect of <removed> (namely the “excused school absence” argument) without being accused of some sort of “inaccurate information” upon which one bases a request for removal.

I have rather strong opinions about this exchange. It is possible that I am not entirely or even mostly in right – that maybe this person has a point somewhere somehow.

What do you think?

Posted in Education, Law and Justice, Louisiana, Personal, Religion | 1 Comment »

The anti-poverty forum – spoken insights and the unspoken question

Friday, November 13th, 2009

Back in March of this year several members of University Baptist Church attended a Poverty Forum held at Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church and sponsored by the Interfaith Federation of Baton Rouge. I was not planning to attend until someone pressured me into going. One key argument is that people wanted to find out about our ministry efforts with the homeless along with several other “social and community justice” ministries such as To Highland With Love. The organizers explained that the gathering would be divided into smaller groups in which we could talk about and share what our various faith and community organizations were doing.

And there sort of is a reason why I am bringing this up months after the event.

Overall it was very good. When we entered the building we were given colored dots which indicated which table we would sit at. Each table constituted a small group that would discuss together questions provided on sheets of paper. There would be several presentations on different topics and after two or three presentations we would discuss. Each table was asked to select a “moderator” to guide discussion and a “secretary” to take notes. I write by hand much faster than most people and offered to take notes.

The presentations were generally excellent. Although it has been a while they were by professors of social work, heads of community service organizations, even a member of the board of directors for Capital Area Transit – our public bus transportation system. They addressed the causes of poverty. The effects of poverty. The importance of public transportation systems – what I thought was especially valuable. And finally how to engage in political advocacy relating to poverty.

The last presentation was the only one I had any real trouble with. It was highly critical of Governor Jindal particularly for taking stands with which I happened to agree strongly. It is one of the chief reasons I became less involved in the Interfaith Federation over the last five years – got tired of the casual assumption that we are all good liberal Democrats who think all religions are basically the same.

Overall the discussion at my table was good. Two members of our discussion group were social workers. One is the regional director for Teach for American whom I have known since first coming to this church in 1999 – one presenter did not show and he was asked to give an impromptu presentation about education which was excellent. And we had pretty good ethnic and religious diversity.

One mild frustration was that the reason I was pressured into going – so that I could “represent University Baptist and tell other people about our ministries among the poor and the homeless – turned out to be a bust. We never had a chance to share what our various churches and organizations were doing. The focus and format of the forum did not allow for it.

There was much that “conservatives” need to hear and appreciate about the causes dynamics and effects of poverty. The one that grabbed my attention the most is the importance of public transportation. We want people to work right? People cannot work if they do not have regular reliable transportation. And when people are already poor and have a low paying job – frankly it is mighty difficult to own and maintain a car.

(My third year of graduate school my car had so many problems that basically every dollar I earned that summer went for car repairs. In other words my net income became zero. While I was working.)

But this is what I wanted to bring up.

There was a great deal of discussion about what the government can and should do to address poverty. Fair enough. And for the most part when talking about the “causes dynamimcs and effects” of poverty there was a great deal of agreement and consensus at our table. Anyone care to guess what the number one factor was? Education.

But there was one question no one asked. Not in any presentation. Not at our table during the entire two to three hours. Not even hinted on the discussion sheets.

To what extent does government policy create encourage and exacerbate poverty and its effects?

One would think that after spending hundreds of billions of dollars since the 1960’s we would have made significant inroads in eliminating poverty. Tell me – which cities are the most ruined with the highest rates of poverty? And is there a correlation between poverty and style of government?

No one at the forum seemed to ask these sorts of questions.

(And no it is not that simple. In Baton Rouge there is a painfully obvious gulf between the average socio-economic status of blacks versus whites. And it cannot all be blamed on misguided government policies. Much of it has to do with education – and education in this city for decades had much to do with race/ethnicity. Fortunately that is starting to improve dramatically.)

Let us be more specific. Greg Mankiw who is an economist at Harvard University directs our attention to the “dead zone”:

Notice that as earned income rises from about $15,000 to $30,000, income after taxes and transfers is roughly flat. Indeed, it could even fall. The bottom line: If you are poor, the government is inadvertently ensuring that you have little incentive to try to improve your condition.

With a chart that illustrates earned income versus(?) net income after taxes and transfers.

We can give presentations and have discussions and engage in all sort of ministries to “help the poor”. Frankly we should. But too often in public social and political discourse we confuse good intentions with good results.

“We want to help the poor. Therefore we want the government to do x y and z. You do not want the government to do those things. Therefore you do not care about the poor”.

And yet where we have implemented x y and z we sometimes get more poverty and poverty more permanent.

Posted in Economics, Education, Ethnicity and race, Personal, Religion | No Comments »

The glory of human freedom in "Minority Report"

Sunday, September 20th, 2009

Last night was planning to get to bed early but “Minority Report” was on. Tried to find the dvd version – was the very first dvd we owned a gift from two ministry volunteers – but no joy. So just watched it on television until midnight.

There are few things that get under my skin quite so much as losing something.

You remember “Minority Report” right? Science-fiction movie directed by Steven Spielberg based on a short story by the great Philip K Dick. Have you noticed how many successful movies have been based on stories by Dick? (As well as a couple real turkies.)

As I watched I realized not for the first time what an exceptional movie it is. No matter how goofie you think Tom Cruise is dang does he deliver an excellent performance in that film. Notice the constant theme of “seeing” and “eyes” and “not seeing”. Even a passing advertisement in the background reinforces the theme.

Can you see?

In a nutshell the story-now-film addresses directly freedom and guilt. Can you arrest and imprison someone because they were going to commit murder – but have not done so yet?

Anderton (Cruise) rolls a ball around the table which Witwer (Colin Farrell) catches.

“Why did you catch it?”

“Because it was going to fall”.

“How do you know that?”

The argument of course is facile. Human beings are not balls. But Anderton somehow gets away with it and Witwer does not push back at that time.

There are two moments of utter glory – when you realize what the issue is. Do human beings have choice aka free will?

The precogs see a premeditate murder – 36 hours away. The killer is – to his shock and horror – John Anderton himself. The victim is someone he has never seen or met or heard of. But sure enough… eventually… he finds the man and concludes yes he must kill him.

Agatha – the most gifted of the precognitives whom Anderton has liberated in order to gain information from her – says “you have a choice”. We do not believe it. Anderton does not believe it. They have already seen it. He is going to kill Leo Crow.

But somehow – and the film does not really quite explain why or how – Anderton does not pull the trigger. His watch alarm goes off. What the precognitives foresaw does not happen.

He has a choice. And Anderton made that choice – to arrest but not to kill.

(And at the end Burgess chooses not to kill Anderton but instead himself. The opposite of what the precognitives foresaw.)

The issue of human freedom and free will is one that has become increasingly important to me. It comes up a great deal in the literature of Tolkien. And a cornerstone of Orthodox theology is its insistence that humans have free will. They do not deny the sovereignty of God or providence or grace. But never ever can such teachings eclipse the reality of human freedom.

(Some of those who read this website lean toward Calvinist or “reformed” theology. My intent is not to insult or start an argument. I am not arguing against something so much as arguing for.)

Think about other books by Philip Dick. Which often deal with “what does it mean to be human?” and “what truly defines who we are?” Dick – fairly consistently – seems to argue in his stories and novels that we are defined by the concrete choices we make. (Think about “Total Recall”. Quaid is “fated” to go back to being a scumball criminal agent. But he refuses. He has already chosen a different path. And he does not go back.)

Posted in Movies and film, Orthodoxy, Religion, Theology | 2 Comments »

A blog worth reading – Opinionated Catholic

Tuesday, September 15th, 2009

And not just because he reads Live the Trinity and sometimes links here.

What I appreciate about Opinionated Catholic (who lives somewhere in rural southeast[?] Louisiana) is how “fair minded” he is. He tries to understand the “other side” (not that he necessarily thinks there is my side and their side on every issue). And to be gracious and generous whenever possible.

I like that. A lot.

I also – as someone who once was an “evangelical Catholic” (confirmed by then Auxiliary Bishop of Boston Alfred Hughes) and lately has been studying Orthodoxy – appreciate what an informed and intelligent Catholic Christian has to say.

And if you are interested in college football or Louisiana State University sports you categorically must add Opinionated Catholic to your RSS reader.

Posted in Fun and Geek Stuff, Roman Catholicism | No Comments »

Has "women in ministry" become central dogma?

Thursday, September 3rd, 2009

I could get in serious trouble for this.

Let me begin by reminding people that:

  • I married my campus minister (and she hates that I keep saying that – sounds like she was some sort of stalker or predator who seduced one of her students when in fact I chased her okay?)
  • Who received her seminary degree years before I did
  • Who has preached for me on numerous occasions
  • I attended a seminary affiliated with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship
  • Where some of my teachers were women
  • About half of my classmates were women
  • I received one of those “Leadership Scholarships” – so must have been at least somewhat acceptable ideologically to the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship
  • I serve at a church that contributes to the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship
  • I serve with women ministers

But I am increasingly uncomfortable with how fellow moderate Baptist Christians articulate and practice their convictions concerning “women in ministry”. In a nutshell when did “women in ministry” become a central dogma of the Christian faith?

One must immediately and carefully distinguish “women in ministry” from “ordination of women” from “women as pastors-or-priests”. Of course it is precisely such distinctions which fellow moderate Baptist Christians do not appear to accept. Fair enough. But I will so distinguish nonetheless.

One can speak of “women in ministry” without necessarily agreeing with “ordination of women” or “women as pastors-or-priests”. “Ministry” simply means service (here in the context of the life and work of the Christian church). My wife was a campus minister - but is not ordained and has never served as a pastor (or priest – if we were part of a different Christian tradition). She ministered to college students. She has also served as a minister with children and youth. She is functionally one of the ministers with children for Church of the Nations. “Women in ministry” can take a nearly endless variety of forms. Teaching. Preaching. Visiting. Counseling. Organizing. And so on. It is true that some Christians will argue that not every form of “service within the church” is appropriate for women (typically preaching because of its association with the pastoral office?).

One can even speak of “ordination of women” without necessarily agreeing with “women as pastors-or-priests”. This is where both critics and supporters of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 statement (from the Southern Baptist Convention) have gotten off track. Critics failed to appreciate the careful and limited statement against women as senior pastors. So theoretically one can have women in ministry along with ordained women along even with women as associate pastors and so on. Just not as (senior or sole) pastor of a congregation.

However this has been lost even on supporters of the statement. Since the ratification (adoption?) of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 statement several churches have been kicked out of associations simply because they had women who were ordained (sometimes on ministerial staff and sometimes not even that). And the North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention stopped endorsing or supporting women chaplains. It was intellectual laziness and/or disingenuity for defenders of the statement to argue “we are not against women in ministry – just women as senior pastors” and then on the other hand to target Baptist congregations that had women who were not senior pastors.

My own private beef with “ordination of women” is that it is unclear to me exactly what “ordination” means in the Baptist tradition. We are so ardently anti-sacramentalist in our theology. Everything is a symbol or a memorial. None of our rituals actually does anything in terms of changing reality – right? As far as I can tell ordination in the Baptist tradition means almost nothing more than a change in your tax status. So it is difficult to argue for or against “ordination of women” until we are clear about just what ordination is and what it does theologically and ontologically.

But in the meantime theoretically one can ordain women in the Baptist church without those women serving as (senior or sole) pastors.

Now – back to “women in ministry” as central dogma.

Several years ago David Currie came to speak at University Baptist Church. I remember well when he said the reason many Texas Baptists were unhappy with the direction of the Southern Baptist Convention was “look – we might be fundamentalist but only if we want to” (something along those lines) and “Texas Baptist churches might not have a woman as pastor – but we can if we want to”. The issue then was freedom. A congregation that supported the Cooperated Baptist Fellowship might not have a woman pastor. Might not want a woman pastor. But will not try to stop other Baptist congregations from ordaining women or calling a woman as pastor.

There was a point – when exactly? – when that changed. When the issue was no longer “you can be against women as pastors so long as you do not try to tell others what they cannot do”. But “you must be actively in favor of women as pastors or you are not welcome in this organization”. What once was optional became mandatory.

Some will argue that this is a mistaken impression of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. It may well be. But can we at least agree that while this impression might be technically mistaken it functionally is correct? And so the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship goes out of its way to hold up women in ministry and women as preachers and women as pastors. Please note I am not saying this is wrong.

One sees this explicitly in my own setting.

Let me share an anecdote. A church planter with the North American Mission Board needed some office space. For some bizarre reason he came to us. There were the usual normal and reasonable concerns from the deacons. But I remember one deacon in particular arguing strongly against this. Because this guy represents the Southern Baptist Convention. Which does not support “women in ministry”. Which is against our values and beliefs. And if we let him have some office space we are guilty by association (my words not hers – but that was the gist of her argument).

What struck me is that the issue of women in ministry was her number one and central argument. It was the hill on which this deacon was prepared to die. If these people do not agree with us on women in ministry then we cannot associate with them or give them any material help whatsoever. That is a pretty strong line to take. We can associate with Jewish people and Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus and Unitarians and work with them on joint projects and have them come and speak to our congregation. But Southern Baptists who do not agree with us on women in ministry – that is going too far.

And now the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of Louisiana is pushing the “women in ministry” vector pretty hard. Speakers. Scholarships. The themes of our gatherings. It is all about being missional (where “missional” means what we do is vastly more important than what we profess or teach theologically) and “women in ministry”. These have become the twin poles or central dogmas of moderate Baptists.

Recently former president Jimmy Carter penned a rather strong statement about the role and status of women in the Christian church. It was published as an editorial in the British newspaper The Guardian. The former president does make some good points but they are difficult to extract from the shadow of this singularly weak paragraph:

This view that women are somehow inferior to men is not restricted to one religion or belief. It is widespread. Women are prevented from playing a full and equal role in many faiths.

This is the central error in a nutshell. If women are prevented from playing a “full and equal role” then it must be because they are viewed as “somehow inferior”. Many people accept that. Many people I know and respect and with whom I serve accept that.

(I note in passing this paragraph as well:

At the same time, I am also familiar with vivid descriptions in the same scriptures in which women are revered as pre-eminent leaders. During the years of the early Christian church women served as deacons, priests, bishops, apostles, teachers and prophets. It wasn’t until the fourth century that dominant Christian leaders, all men, twisted and distorted holy scriptures to perpetuate their ascendant positions within the religious hierarchy.

I wonder what an informed and competent scholar of church history would make of that. The second sentence is problematic because while historical evidence supports some of his examples it does not support all. Jimmy Carter is another moderate Baptist who fails to make appropriate distinctions. And can his third sentence – that the current state is the result of some misogynistic conspiracy – truly stand up to examination?)

Let me get myself in trouble with fellow moderate Baptists by stating for the record that I do not accept the argument that “if women are equal in status they must have the same roles as men in the life of the Christian church”. I do not dispute that many may believe women should have a different role because they are “somehow inferior” (however one defines that). But I assert and argue that some may believe women have a different role in the Christian church for reasons that have nothing to do with misogyny. Disagree with them if you like. No problem. But at least understand where they are coming from.

(Also problematic is the way Jimmy Carter seems to equate various forms of “subjugation” and “discrimination”. As if Southern Baptist opposition to women as senior pastors is somehow equivalent to genital mutilation and domestic abuse. Offensive nonsense.)

Robert Parham also chimed in with “Blaming Men is Not Good Theology”. It is not a bad article – merely weak. What struck me as peculiar is “women are partly at fault because they support these religious institutions with their money and energy”:

Imagine what would happen if rank-and-file Baptist women launched a religious disobedience movement in the local church. If they said no more offerings and no more volunteer hours, the preachers with power would have a lightning-strike revelation about the full equality of women.

Again – not bad so much as weak. This is a subtle form of solipsism masquerading as reasoned argument. It all comes down to experience. “Preachers with power” would suddenly change their minds not because we make a strong case for the “full equality of women” on historical biblical and theological grounds. So far as I can tell Parham simply assumes from the outset that he is correct – everything then becomes a matter of compelling others to conform.

It is possible to believe that men and women have differing roles in the Christian church – and not because one is somehow inferior to the other?

Yes.

But to make this argument I might have to depart just a tad from typical Baptist theology.

The exceptional Anglican theologian Eric Mascall in his book Corpus Christi begins with an argument concerning the nature of apostolic ministry. Forgive me for quoting in extensio:

I can only reply that this objection seems to be based upon a totally false notion of the kind of superiority that a bishop has to a priest, or a priest to a layman. … Any respect in which there is in fact superiority is surely totally unobjectionable; it is like the superiority which St. Paul ascribes to the eye over the ear and to the hand over the foot, a superiority which is entirely compatible with mutual need and mutual love. And presumably when we are made perfect in heaven, neither will the clergy pride themselves on their ’superiority’, nor will the laity envy them for it; so what harm will it do? The blessed are able, in Dr. C. S. Lewis’s phrase, ‘to play great parts without pride and little ones without dejection’. [27]

In short – “superiority” of role does not imply superiority of status or value in the eyes of God. Would the truly humble care if their role in the universe is “inferior”? Which leaves one wondering how much such issues are about pride and envy and false notions of worth.

But Baptists do not believe in a “superiority” of clergy over laity – so why should we care about this argument from Mascall?

Then what about the Trinity?

The Church is not only ecclesia de Christo; she is also ecclesia de Trinitate. Her life and unity are the life and unity of the Holy Trinity. The pattern of her life is the pattern of the life of God, into which she is taken up. And the life of God is not an undifferentiated but a a trinitarian life, in which Father, Son and Spirit, though united, are distinct, and in which sonship, with its two aspects of apostleship and priesthood, is not common to all three Persons but is proper to the Son alone. [33]

The persons of the Holy Trinity are “equal”. But they are persons – and each person has a distinct identity and role within the life of the Trinity.

My wife thinks that is a dangerous argument and she may be right. It implies that just as God the Son is submissive to God the Father so women should be submissive to men within the life of the Christian church. I think that is a weak objection. I think a stronger objection might be “wait a second – so are men analogous to the Son or to the Father? you cannot be the ‘Father’ and the ‘Son’ at the same time can you?”

Correlating sex (male or female) with persons of the Trinity may be a colossal mistake. Perhaps the more relevant consideration is that equality of status does not therefore dictate equality of role. The divine Persons are distinct and with differing roles. So human beings can be equal in value – but as persons be distinct and with differing roles. Did Jesus mind being the Son?

Can all men be ordained pastors or priests? And if we answer “well no – of course not” then are we thereby suggesting some men are somehow inferior to others? This point is frequently lost on the dominant leadership of the Episcopal Church.

One last point – expanding on the Church as the image of the Holy Trinity.

Metropolitan Jonah of the Orthodox Church in America touched on this during his address to the Anglican Church in North America 2009 gathering. He notes (starting around 31:20) that the “blurring of gender may create a larger core of workers” (a common argument for why women should have fully equal roles in the Christian church – and is one I have used the most) “but it destroys authentic personhood, it destroys authentic masculinity, it destroys authentic womanhood”. Here he is not addressing specifically the issue of “women in ministry”.

Later he does (starting around 49:00). He asserts that the new Anglican province must resolve the issue of “the ordination of women”.

I believe in women’s ministry. I believe that women have a critical role to play in the life of the Church. But I do not believe it’s in the presbyterate or the episcopate [as priests or as bishops]. Forgive me if this offends you. But this is the universal experience and vision and opinion and position of the Greek Orthodox World the Roman Catholic world and the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox churches.

This is a very important issue. And the issue is not so much about ordination – that’s the negative side of it.  The positive side – how can we come together to creatively find the right context for women’s ministry in the Church which is so critical?

Please do not think that there is any misogyny here. Not a bit.

So what am I saying? That I have changed my mind? That I am against women in ministry? or ordaining women? or women as pastors (or priests)?

No.

What I am saying is it appears some moderate Baptists are making “women in ministry” as one of their central dogmas. That it is an understandable but serious mistake to equate “women do not have the same role as some men” with “they are somehow inferior”. That they fail to understand adequately and fairly why some traditions distinguish the role of women from that of some men in the Christian church – even if still they disagree!

Posted in Baptists, Christian Practice, Christianity, Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, Orthodoxy, Personal, Southern Baptist Convention, Women | No Comments »

God and politics for me – but not for thee

Thursday, August 27th, 2009

Losing respect for people with whom I used to identify is painful. And I am beginning to despair for the future of rationality and honesty in our nation.

Where does one even begin?

I made the mistake of following a link to EthicsDaily.Com which is the website of the Baptist Center for Ethics. Two or three years ago I visited it on occasion. Most of time agreeing with the articles they published.

Remember when moderate Baptists criticized strongly the Southern Baptist Convention for how often it seemed to confuse Christian faith with conservative politics? for wanting a “wedding” with the Republican Party?

The irony seems completely lost on Robert Parham when he writes:

The Blue-Dog Democrats, many of whom are from the Bible Belt, and Republicans who have claimed for 25 years that GOP stands for God’s Only Party, seldom, if ever, frame health care as a moral imperative.

Read the whole thing here. Brace yourself. It is perhaps the single most offensive article by Robert Parham I have ever read.

Apparently he is fighting leukemia. Baptist deacon comes in and asks to pray for him. Parham replies “I won’t let you pray for me”. Why? Because the deacon is a sanctimonious jerk? Get this:

Then I told the bug-eyed deacon I would let him pray for me-under one condition. He and his church had to pray and to work for social justice related to the looming health care crisis in Tennessee, where some 300,000 people were at risk of finding themselves without health care coverage.

Uninsured Tennesseans deserved the same quality of care that I was receiving, I said, sharing that I was one of the wealthy Americans with good insurance and a community of support. Then, I asked him why he hadn’t written down what I had said on the pad he was holding.

Talk about moral blackmail. “I will not let you pray for me until you and your entire congregation agrees with me on this particular social and political issue. And why are you not writing this down?” Parham casually assumes that his understanding of “justice” is not only correct but the one that others must subscribe to or else he will not let them pray for him. And if they do not then they are “indifferent” to the “biblical imperative: seek justice”.

Not mistaken. Not wrong. Not sincere faithful Christians with different understandings of what “seeking justice” looks like. There are indifferent.

Look. To be honest he is indeed entitled to his opinion even to his convictions. That “seeking justice” in this particular context means helping 300,000 Tennesseans get health care coverage. We can extend that courtesy and generosity to Parham even when he will not extend it to brothers in Christ who came to the hospital to visit him and pray for him.

But therein lies the irony and the hypocrisy.

The Baptist Center for Ethics has pretty much taken the gloves off and declared not only their support for President Obama and “healthcare reform” (as understood by liberals in the Democratic party) but has done so in the name of God. This is what God wants. This is part and parcel of the biblical imperative to seek justice.

Those silly Southern Baptists. Those silly Republicans who claim that GOP stands for “God’s Only Party”. (Really? First time I have heard of that.) How dare they think God is on their side politically.

“No – we are on God’s side politically”. That is the irony. God and politics for me – but not for thee.

And the hypocrisy is to criticize Southern Baptists and Republicans for allegedly saying something similar.

Let me address at least two more articles I had the misfortune to peruse.

The first is “Choosing Sides: In Health Care, Jesus Sides with Poor” by Drew Smith.

Toward the beginning he writes:Many Christians are ignorant to the social justice message of Jesus. Preferring to see Jesus in only spiritual terms, and his message as only about salvation and heaven, we often miss the significance of Jesus as a political figure.

But if we are to call ourselves Christian, we must broaden not only our understanding of Jesus’ message as having social and political ramifications, we must also be open to how that message shapes how we live socially and politically today. Certainly this should influence how Christians should treat the current health care debate.

Read the whole thing here.

Fair enough so far. Although Smith might be careful about (1) assuming that if people disagree with him it is because they are “ignorant” (an all too common assumption people make about those who hold different views) and (2) professing to know just what those social and political ramifications are. I have strong political convictions myself. But (3) I do not push them on my congregation partly because (4) although I think my political convictions are good and reasonable I am not quite prepared to identify them entirely with what the Bible teaches about justice. In other words we can all (okay – mostly) agree that the Bible calls the people of God to seek justice. Even that God has special concern for the poor. But we might exercise a little humility when it comes to articulating exactly how we think that plays out in terms of specific political and social and economic policies in the United States in the year 2009.

I think I am right. I think my views are compatible with the “biblical imperative to seek justice”. But they might not be.

This is where Smith begins to lose it.

Why do many of our leaders side with big insurance and pharmaceutical companies instead of with those who need quality and affordable health care? Why do they listen to the lunatic fringe of the right wing misinformation machine, instead of standing firmly on what is right and just for the vulnerable of our nation?

Yet, we must not place all the blame on these leaders, for many of the citizens of this country, and tragically many who claim to be Christian, are also standing vehemently against any sort of reform.

Well now. Does Smith mean the pharmaceutical companies that have now offered to spend $130 million in support of President Obama and his healthcare reform proposals? Why assume that they “side” with insurance and drug companies out of malice? And Smith accidentally demonstrates he is not interested in serious honest conversation the instant he talks about “listen to… right wing misinformation machine”. As oppose to what? The left wing information hegemony? Why assume that people oppose the current healthcare reform proposals (of President Obama and the Democratic leadership) only because they are evil or are misled? And to say they are against any sort of reform is a lie.

A lie.

Let me say that again.

A lie.

Tell us that Republican proposals for healthcare reform are wrong. Tell us that ordinary citizens have support wrong alternatives for reform. Do not tell us they are against reform. What was that about misinformation sir?

If we read our Bible carefully, we will find that God is always on the side of the poor and vulnerable. If we are to be on God’s side of the issue of health care, then we must side with the poor and vulnerable of this nation. We can and we must speak with greater authority, even if those who stand against health care reform continue to scream. We have the power to change things, if we only will.

Like Jesus, we need to have a sincere consciousness about the plight of people in our country, especially the vulnerable. We have a moral and godly responsibility to care about this issue and especially the people who are greatly affected by this problem. We must, if we claim to follow Jesus, speak up for the vulnerable of our nation; we must be the voice of the voiceless. If we are not, then we cannot claim to follow Jesus.

There is some truth here I think. But once again Smith – while persistently caricaturing and demonizing his opponents – confuses the specific policies that he favors with “God’s side of the issue of health care”. And it is revealing that is precisely how Smith frames the issue. There is indeed a “God’s side of the issue”. And Smith and President Obama and the Democratic leadership are on that side.

And if you disagree – “you cannot claim to follow Jesus”.

I could also tackle “Infusing Health Care Debate with Nazi Imagery” by Rabbi Fred Guttman. But after reading through it a few times I found more irony than hypocrisy. When conservatives employ Nazi language and imagery against opponents – that is a classic mistake. But how quickly we forget (1) how Speaker Nancy Pelosi has done precisely that and (2) how some of the people who employ this language and imagery have been proven to be fakes and plants intended to make opponents of the current healthcare reform proposal(s) look bad.

(For the record – I myself have been the target of such fakery when I was in college. People pretending to be part of my group trying to make us look bad.)

Let us wrap this up with “What’s Really Motivating Angry Town-hall Mobs?” by Jim Evans. This borders on evil and is one of the chief reasons why my respect for many moderate Baptists is evaporating.

Members of Congress trying to hold town hall meetings on health care reform are being shouted down by angry mobs of constituents. Attendees at these events are reportedly carrying weapons. Conspiracy theorists are awash with nonsense about President Obama being a socialist, not a natural-born citizen and intent on dismantling the American way of life.

This is mostly slander. “Reportedly carrying weapons”. Oh really? You mean like the “angry white guy with an assault rifle” that MSNBC showed – never letting us see his hands or face because he was in fact an African-American? Most conservatives and Republicans I know have little patience for “birthers” (those who keep going on about whether the President is really a natural-born citizen).

It gets worse:

Pure, unadulterated paranoia? No, not really. Actually it’s displaced racism. There is a segment of the population that will not accept that we have an African American president. Any notion that seemingly disqualifies him is embraced with the ferocity of a pit bull at a dog fight.

One struggles to disentangle the slander from the sophistry in that paragraph.

So now if you have legitimate concerns about the Obama Administration and its policies including and especially his healthcare reform proposals – you must be a racist.

Yes of course. That must be why I applied to live in Ujamaa my sophomore year and become one of three white people surrounded by about 120 people who also happened to be African-American. That must be why I was one of the few Ujamites who bothered to visit his little brother (who happened to be African-American) regularly – and continued to do so for 4 years after I no longer lived in Ujamaa. That must be why I pastor a congregation in which several congregants are African. That must be why I led a mission trip and worked myself to exhaustion in order to purchase and assemble and distribute 1300+ backpacks with school supplies in one of the poorest areas of the United States that is also predominantly African-American. That must be why I pulled my children out of a predominantly white and affluent private school so they could go to a public middle school in which more than 2/3 of the students are African-American. That must be why my wife left her state job to become a public school teacher and now works diligently at an elementary school in which one occasionally has a white student.

Because we are racists?

Come on Jim Evans. Is that the best you got? Cheap slander? You bore me.

(This is why I have decided no longer to participate in discussions with people who employ such tactics. They do not respect me. In fact they rush to defame me. They have demonstrated repeatedly they are not interested in serious honest discussion of the issues. So why should I waste my time and energy with them? But I will try to pray for them and I do not mean pray that God would change their minds. Let his will be done. What else can we ask?)

What boggles my mind – really leaves me in a pit of despair for the future of sanity and rationality in the United States – is why people like Smith and Evans and Parham and President Obama and Nancy Pelosi and so on and so on and so on cannot do something like this.

“We think you are wrong about healthcare reform. We think this really is the best approach. We have read the bill in all its details. Here are some facts and figures and studies. We are aware of the arguments against this approach. We think those arguments are wrong or mistaken in the following ways. You are not bad people. You are not ignorant. You are not angry mobs. You are not dupes. You are not racists. We understand that dissent is still American and we are happy to listen to respectful calm disagreement. But we think you are wrong. And this is why.”

You know – if supporters of President Obama and proponents of the current healthcare reform proposals took that approach…

I think they would win.

And yes you can quote me on that. But will you take my advice?

Addendum: My friend Chris Brady kindly directs our attention to an excellent preamble from Sojourners:

Good health is the will of God for each and every one of God’s children. Death, disease, and pain did not exist in the garden of Eden, and Revelation tells of a “new heaven and new earth,” where once again they will not exist.

In the fallen world in which we live, injury and sickness are a fact of life; physical death on this earth will never be overcome. But scripture paints a clear picture that health was God’s intent from the beginning and will be the goal once again in the end. This means that on a personal, national, and global level the physical well-being of all God’s children is close to God’s heart — and should be close to ours as well.

There is no religious mandate for a specific, God-ordained system of health care or insurance. No amount of biblical exegesis will lead you to a policy conclusion about health care savings accounts, personal versus employer-provided insurance, single-payer public systems, or private insurance plans. Luke might have been a physician, but he never commented on whether or not computerizing medical records should be a national priority.

Read the whole resource page here.

Second addendum: Jonah Golberg at National Review Online welcomes – in a way – how the left is beginning to invoke God and religion in defense of their initiatives.

President Obama briefly switched from wonkish frippery about bending cost curves to speaking of faith. Reaching out to progressive faith leaders in two massive conference calls, Obama insisted that God was on his side. Expanding health care fulfills a “core moral and ethical obligation that we look out for one another . . . that I am my brother’s keeper, my sister’s keeper.”

This would be an easy opportunity to call attention, once again, to the double standards applied to Obama. When Pres. George W. Bush invoked God as his inspiration, many liberals saw our theocrat-in-chief taking a sledgehammer to the wall between church and state. When Obama does likewise, it’s inspiring, spiritual leadership.

But, frankly, I find it refreshing.

Of all the silly arguments that have been passed off as deeply profound in American politics, the notion that politicians can’t “impose” their personal morality on others tops the list.

Read the whole thing at National Review.

Posted in Christianity, Healthcare, Politics, Propaganda, Religion, Rhetoric | 1 Comment »

« Older Entries