Uncategorized

I’ve just recently gotten back from a roadtrip over Christmas so I have a backlog of posts to put up. Hopefully I’ll get to those this weekend. In the meantime, listening to coverage of last night’s Iowa Caucus brought my attention to this. The God-o-meter at beliefnet.com which gauges how much religious rhetoric each candidate is using to pander for the “value voter”. While I don’t like their categorization of “theocrat” it’s pretty amusing nonetheless. It’s updated daily with related articles, so I might just have to add a permanent link to it.

On Thursday Major League Baseball released the results of “The Mitchell Report” detailing steroid use in baseball. Don’t worry, this isn’t another Barry Bonds rant. Instead, what catches my attention is how strongly and quickly the players deny every detail. Honestly, I don’t care who did or who didn’t use, I just want someone, anyone, to stand up and say, “I did it, and I take responsibility.” And I really don’t care about any records or asterisks, either. I just care about the “integrity of the game.” That phrase is tossed around a lot, but what does that mean, anyway?

Well, The American Heritage Dictionary defines integrity as “Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code.” And dictionary.com follows that definition up with “honesty.” I like this definition from Proverbs myself, “A truthful witness gives honest testimony, but a false witness tells lies.” (Pr 12:17) To me, integrity is letting your “yes be yes and your no, no.” (Mt 5:37, Js 5:12)

In this case, it means that all those players who do the Sign of the Cross, thank God for their accomplishments, and face the world when a microphone is shoved in their faces tell the honest to God truth. And athletes aren’t the only ones I wish this for. How many religious leaders who claim to speak for God have been brought low by scandal that was denied for who knows how long before the truth could no longer be hidden. I think of the Catholic priests, the Ted Haggards, the Bob Jones Jrs, and on and on. Why is it so hard in this world to find someone who you can trust to tell the truth?

But instead we live in a fallen world being led by sinners just like you and me. I know I’m not honest all the time. We’ve all told that “white lie” to protect our self interest. But at the same time, I’m not thanking God for something I should really be thanking a chemist for. It’s one thing to lie to save face or to stay out of trouble (not that I’m excusing that either), but it’s another thing to credit God for your accomplishments that you attained by any and every means necessary.

So I’m still grappling with what happened in Colorado and what would motivate someone to do such a thing. And I think about the kid in Omaha too and many, many others who turned their personal demons into another’s hell. Quite common with nonsensical shootings like these are that the shooter is overwhelmed with a feeling of rejection.

Sunday morning, before seeing the news, I taught Sunday School to a group of 3rd graders. My lesson juxtaposed the sinful woman caught in adultery in John 8 with the sinful woman who anointed Jesus in Luke 7. When I present lessons from the Bible to this age group, I need to emphasize why the story I’m telling them is important. In this case, the lesson was how Jesus accepts anyone and everyone despite their sin and despite what religious leaders might say about it. A lesson certainly applicable today. There are a lot of religious leaders, Pharisees of this day and age, who are quick to condemn, quick to judge. But not Jesus. Jesus accepts. Jesus forgives.

I think about the modern parable (an oft-forwarded email, actually) of a young man in ratty clothes, long hair, piercings and tattoos who walks late into a Catholic Mass. The church is full and he can’t find a seat and even where there is a seat available the looks from the parishioners made it clear he wasn’t welcome. So without any other seats, he sat down right in the middle of the center isle. Of course, the priest had yet to come down the isle himself and everyone in the church was breathless with anticipation to see what he would do when he came to the young man. The organ stated the opening hymn as the priest and altar boys began down the isle. But no one sang along. All eyes were on the priest to see what he would do next. Noticing everyone’s stares, the priest looked at the young man and…

sat down with him.

Maybe the young men involved in these shootings could relate to this young man. Maybe they could relate to the women described in the Gospels above. Maybe they never understood that Jesus would sit right down next to them, even if no one else would.

What makes this even more sad is that I know of ministries in and around Denver whose sole purpose is to reach out to the unaccepted, the rejected. The one that I think of first is Scum of the Earth. Yeah, you read that right. The name comes from 1 Corinthians 4:11-13, “To this very hour we go hungry and thirsty, we are in rags, we are brutally treated, we are homeless. We work hard with our own hands. When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it; when we are slandered, we answer kindly. Up to this moment we have become the scum of the earth, the refuse of the world.” They say Matthew Murray came from a very religious family, so maybe he had no interest in finding a community that would accept him. But sources also say that he was once part of Youth with a Mission and was looking at enrolling in Colorado Christian College. So somewhere in his heart and soul there was a desire to reach out to God.

Now some will say it’s arrogant for a Christian to say, “well, he just needed Jesus and this would’ve never happened.” To that I can respond based on experience in ministering to addicts, that while Jesus forgives us there’s no promise that he’ll heal us. No doubt he can, but there will always be scars. We need to face and deal with the baggage we carry and lay it at the foot of the cross. If he “had Jesus” would this have been prevented? There’s really no way of knowing. Did he “need Jesus”? Well, only Jesus knows the answer to that.

Instead of worrying about the arrogance of us Christians having all the answers, or of the eternal fate of the shooter, the focus should be on the victims. And to follow Jesus’ example and forgive.

So I turned in to tonight’s YouTube debate just in time to see the candidates questioned if they believe the words in the Bible. That’s a pretty loaded question, in fact it was prefaced with, “how you answer this question will tell us everything we need to know about you.” Not only is it loaded, but it’s also misleading. Many people wrongly equate believing that the Bible is the Word of God and believing that every word is true. At the same time, believing that the Bible is the Word of God also isn’t the same as believing that every word applies to you. But that’s a nuance that is often ignored in the public debate about the influence of Christianity on many political issues, namely evolution and homosexuality. The way the argument goes is that if you believe the Bible is the Word of God then therefore you believe every word is true and you are a strict creationist. At the same time, you also therefore believe that every word applies to us today and thus are homophobic based on the Levitical Law calling homosexuality an “abomination.” See how suddenly by being “prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have” (1 Pt 3:15) now has painted you into a corner on two very hot political topics? Like the questioner said, “how you answer this question will tell us everything you need to know about you.”

But that’s just not true. Just because I believe the Bible is the Word of God doesn’t mean I take every word literally. It’s obvious that some is poetry and some is allegorical. And I admit that my faith isn’t strong enough to take a literal view of creation. When it comes to homosexuality, unfortunately many christians (intentional little c) quote Leviticus to condemn homosexuality. I sure hope they don’t eat shrimp because that too, is an abomination according to Levitical Law. And since Jesus died “once for all” (Heb 10:10) and established a “new covenant” (Lk 22:20) and “fulfill[ed] them [the law]” (Mt 5:17) the Levitical Law no longer applies to us today. (After all, where’s our temple?)

But it’s intentional to not ask the specific questions regarding these issues. Instead the question is framed to require candidates to dance around their faith. So how did the candidates do tonight? Well, Mayor Giuliani answered the question pretty much like I did. Governor Romney answered it directly saying he believed the Bible is the Word of God but then tripped all over himself to expand on that. And Governor Huckabee hit it out of the park. I’ll paraphrase: “Yes, I believe the Bible is God’s revelation to his people. And there are parts that are up to interpretation that are the center of debates. But there are parts that are so clear that everyone can agree on them, ‘love your neighbor’ and ‘what you’ve done for the least of these, you’ve done to me’. I think we can all agree in these principles. But we get too distracted by the other debates that we don’t live out what we do agree on.” (for direct quote, go here) Of course, would we expect any less from a minister?

Huckabee’s answer was honest and direct. And unlike either Giuliani or Romney, you could tell from his body language, his tone, and the words themselves, that he really meant it. And I have to respect that. I saw him on “Real Time with Bill Maher” and he held up pretty well against attacks on his creationist stance. He said point blank that it doesn’t matter what he thinks about that issue because it doesn’t affect how he would govern. And Bill Maher couldn’t say anything against that, other than going off on a rant against Christianity as a whole.

While this entry might look like a political endorsement, it’s not. Instead, it’s a lesson on exactly how we, as Ambassadors of Christ, should “be prepared to give an answer… with gentleness and respect.”

And I can say that with a clear conscience without fear of the PC police… for now anyway.

Thanksgiving is easily my favorite holiday. I grew up in retail so Christmas wasn’t the least bit fun. But Thanksgiving (with Black Friday after of course) was a chance to close shop for a day and spend the time with family. We would often host a big feast at our church with family from out of town, our employees, our neighbors, and the close friends of the family that were, really, family. The advantage of growing up in a small town, I guess. I can’t imagine doing something like that today. But I do pray that someday my family can host a Thanksgiving like I remember growing up.

Thanksgiving, to me, isn’t the least bit religious. There’s no doctrine behind it like the birth or resurrection of my Savior. It’s simply a time to stop the world for a moment and enjoy the blessings in our lives, wherever we believe they originated from. And even though the folklore is rooted in Puritan religious tradition, the symbols of the holiday are turkeys, cornucopias, gourds, and leaves in all the fall colors. Anyone can celebrate this holiday. And it’s not just Christians who celebrate it.

But yet, there are some who feel that there is a War on Thanksgiving like there is a War on Christmas, with bumper stickers that say “remember to thank HIM”. If it was me, I’d play off the slogan of “Keep Christ in Christmas” with something like “Keep the Thanks in Thanksgiving.” I don’t think there’s a reason for the Christian Right to be paranoid about the religious roots of Thanksgiving eroding in the name of Political Correctness. But I do think it’s right to remind everyone why we celebrate this holiday. We are blessed in this country. The poorest among us are rich compared to much of the world. We celebrate freedoms that few others share. And despite how screwed up our country can seem at times, thousands still come to this country regularly to seek a better life.

Abraham Lincoln established Thanksgiving as a national holiday in 1863. It is worth it to look to his words to remind us why we celebrate this holiday today.

No human counsel hath devised, nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great
things. They are the gracious gifts of the most high God, who while dealing with
us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.

It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently, and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American people. I do, therefore, invite my fellow-citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set
apart and observe the last Thursday of November next as a day of thanksgiving
and praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens. (full text here)

And while we are called to give thanks for our blessings, we are also called to remember those less fortunate:

And I recommend to them that, while offering up the ascriptions justly due to
him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble
penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to his tender
care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners, or sufferers…

Today, let’s remember to Keep the Thanks in Thanksgiving.

On Tuesday, the Governor of Georgia held an all-faith rally to pray for rain. If you haven’t heard, Georgia is suffering an unprecedented drought and a call for everyone in the state to pray for relief wouldn’t be unheard of. But to hold it on the capitol steps? Is that going too far? Like my title says, if there really is a separation of Church and State, where’s the line? Was it crossed when Congressmen and women sang God Bless America on the steps of the US Capitol following September 11? Is it crossed when the president suggests we pray for the victims of a natural disaster?

There were a few protesters, but not as substantial as I would’ve expected. But there was an online debate on one of the message boards I frequent over whether this sets a bad precedent (of course, in order for that to be the case this would have to be the first time something like this has ever happened). The person who started the thread, about halfway through the debate, stated that he was afraid of what this country will look like in 20 years if such violations of the First Amendment are allowed to continue. I hate to break it to him, but there was a nationwide vigil when the Apollo 13 mission failed. And that was more than 20 years ago. Have we been sliding down the slippery slope ever since? Of course not. That wasn’t the first such event and it certainly wasn’t the last. I already mentioned 9/11. And while that spike of patriotism and religion might have alarmed the most paranoid Church/State activists, a majority of those who rushed to their churches to pray, hold vigil, donate blood, or just take communion for the first time in years have since dropped back out into the world of sleeping in on Sundays or staying home to watch football.

But were the prayers effective? Well, it did rain believe it or not. Although the weather service did predict rain. But this whole event reminds me of a common anecdote of the girl who, when her town gathered to pray for rain to end a drought, was the only one who brought an umbrella. Relate this to Mark 11:24, “Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.” So I wonder, of all the people who showed up, did anyone think to bring an umbrella?

So Pat Robertson endorsed Rudy Giuliani the other day. To quote Adam Sandler in one of my all-time favorite movies, “Well, whoopidee dooo!” Meanwhile, Sen Sam Brownback, I guess the standard bearer for Christianity in the Senate, has endorsed John McCain. Rev. Donald E. Wildmon, founder of the American Family Association, has endorsed Mike Huckabee (so did Chuck Norris FWIW). And a couple of weeks ago, Bob Jones endorsed Mitt Romney. All that while Dr. James Dobson and other evangelical leaders threaten to endorse a third party if the Republicans fail to nominate a pro-life candidate (see this post below). Do these differing opinions mean anything? Is it a harbinger of the collapse of the Religious Right?

Not really. It’s really more reflective of a reality of Christians overlooked by political “experts.” Remember, there are hundreds of different denominations split over things as important as whether or not you have Sunday School. Do you honestly think if Christians can’t be united under Jesus that some politician can unite them? And this is a good thing, really. I’d rather have a fractured “christian” political base than one united on only one or two issues. I’d rather not be shoe-horned into a political party just because of my faith. And I especially don’t want dishonest politicians pandering to me in the name of my Lord with the aim to be elected to office, not to bring Him glory.

There are a lot of people surprised by Pat Robertson’s endorsement. After all, Rudy doesn’t have the most conservative record when it comes to abortion and gay rights. However, this isn’t an indication of Robertson becoming less narrow minded. Instead, it represents his strong and very public stance on the Global War on Terror. As much as it seems he says some ridiculous things like Hurricane Katrina being about homosexuality, he talks much more frequently and more firmly about terrorism. So this news shouldn’t be taken as an encouraging sign of the Christian Right, but instead an endorsement of a 21st Century Crusade.

But again, these figureheads don’t speak for me. And I don’t pledge allegiance to any doctrine based on their words, but on God’s alone. There is some discussion online that this endorsement will drive moderates away from Giuliani. I don’t think so. I just think reality is finally exposing the mythology of the “value voter”. And I’m not the only one who thinks so. (For a counter argument on the state of the evangelical voter, see this article)

I love these, I really do. Especially when they take a Christian theme and end with something like, “if you really love God, you’ll forward this to 500 people. I won’t know if you forward it or not, but God will.” But seriously, they are usually encouraging (at least until that last sentence) or are pontificating on an issue or issues I somewhat agree with. In fact, because I often agree in principle with many of these emails I tried to start one several years ago citing statistics about the number of so-called Christians in this country versus the number who read their Bible or attend church regularly, the numbers of teen-pregnancies and abortions, and the percentage of the population who are addicted to drugs or alcohol. I was curious to see if I’d ever get it back and what transformations it would take before it got back to me. But it never did. Perhaps it hit too close to home. Or perhaps I failed to attribute my rant to a celebrity.

I just got one of these. Maybe you’ve seen it. It’s titled, “Paul Harvey on Prayer.” I’m always suspicious whenever I see one of these credited to someone famous. So I checked it out on Snopes and sure enough, it’s not true. It is a real article, but not by Paul Harvey.

What gets my goat, is that even though I agree with the thoughts contained therein and the desire to forward it to the whole world, at some point some well-intended Christian flat out lied when he or she originated this email. And for all the times it’s been forwarded, how many Christians have actually checked to see if what is written is true or if it is credited to the right author? In fact, this particular email dates back to 2000. So just think about how many times it’s been forwarded, or how many times it’s shown up in your inbox, in those seven years!

Here’s my email in all it’s glory (minus the Meg-or-so of graphics that came with):

Last week it was reported that leaders on the Christian right agreed that if either party fails to nominate a pro-life candidate, they would throw their support behind a third party. The biggest problem I have with this stance (and the Christian right movement in general) is that it draws a line in the sand relative to only two, very narrow, issues with the attitude of you’re either with us or against us. In two interviews I saw with Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, he painted these issues as, “non-negotiable” and, “black and white.” These two issues? Abortion and gay-marriage of course.

The problem with taking a stand on a platform of two issues, is that it considerably narrows your base, rendering it ineffective. In a more plural government, where there are many parties such as the Green Party, Communist Party, Labour Party, etc, that is fine because they often form coalitions on issues outside of their platform. But the American government is a two party system, and with good reason. The public frequently complains about the extremes of each party and how Congress is unable to compromise in the middle. This is the point of a two party system. The framers of the Constitution didn’t want extremists an opportunity to seize control over any branch of the government. They provided a system where there will always be a dissenting voice. When it comes to issues near and dear to a particular party, it requires compromise in order to receive favor from the opposition party. The complaint that nothing ever happens in Congress is actually a good thing. We don’t want Congress doing a lot. If our Senators and Representatives can’t reach a compromise on an issue, that is better than approving something on the fringes of either side. Now I admit that lately there seems to be an overwhelming unwillingness to compromise and meet in the middle with many issues, most visibly immigration reform. But the lack of compromise keeps the debate going.

By narrowing all you care about to two issues and giving an ultimatum to the major parties eliminates any possibility for each side to meet in the middle. And a majority of Americans are in the middle on most, if not all, issues. Many Christians, I would argue, oppose abortion but aren’t necessarily in favor of Roe v Wade being overturned. Similarly, I would argue that most Christians oppose gay-marriage, but wouldn’t support a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting it.

So a two-issue party isn’t the answer. History shows that in the two-plus decades conservative Christian voters have been rallying around the pro-life banner, there has been little to show for it on a national scale. The issue has created the “litmus test” for judges and political candidates. It is the first question asked of any Republican running for president or really just about any other office. And it is what is keeping the “Christian Right” from supporting either Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney. And what has that gotten us? Not much. And the reason is that the issue isn’t a political one. Even when a candidate is chosen based on who they would nominate to the Supreme Court, that judge still has to be approved by a divided Congress. So how much power does a President or a single Congressperson really have? The Constitution intended for not a lot.

On the issue of gay-marriage, that’s even stickier. That’s why some would favor a Constitutional Amendment. Because that’s the only way an all-out prohibition would stick without being overturned by the courts. There needs to be a compelling public interest in limiting the legal right to marry. Such is the case for polygamy, pedophilia, and common-law marriage. And despite your personal views on the issue, such a case has not yet been made when it comes to gay-marriage.

So no matter a candidate’s view on any single issue, he or she will always face political opposition, the separation of powers, and constitutionality. That’s why I could care less about a candidate’s view on those two issues. In the end, they really can’t make that much difference.

I believe the battle for the “culture of life” is not a political one, but a spiritual one and is therefore not fought in Washington, but in the heart and soul of the common individual. And the way it is fought is by preaching and living the Gospel and, “watch[ing] your life and doctrine closely. Persever[ing] in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.”

As for a third party, I admit that part of me longs for a legitimate “Christian” party with a tent big enough to include both the social gospel and the culture of life. One that is beyond only two issues, but also addresses poverty, the importance of family, the culture of greed so evident in this country, sex permeating our culture and influencing our children, and on and on. Yet, there’s a reason we still have, after over 200 years, only two parties. We need the debate. And we need to prevent radicals on all sides from gaining too much political power.