I’ll post another entry in the next day or two, but I didn’t want to let another day go by without pointing out these two posts by Bob Cornwall. Yesterday was the 65th anniversary of the execution of Dietrich Bonhoffer at Flossenburg concentration camp. I’ve always had a special place in my heart for Bonhoffer since I first picked up “Letters and Papers from Prison”. The second post was about a resurgence in Christian terrorism (yes, the “fundamentalist” fringe of any religion is a danger). Bob covers it better than I, so go read them.
Category: religion
Religious Diversity
I know I still owe a story about the book I read the Sunday before last, but that probably needs to wait until next week. This evening, I just want to point to a blog post over on Faithful Progressive I read last week. This definitely looks like a book I need to read (as if I need another book to add to my pile). :- I’ve always had problems with the usage of the passage from John to condemn the majority of humanity for eternity. Anyway, go read the blog entry and I’ll probably post something more after I read the book.
A couple of links
I know I haven’t been posting much here. I hope to rectify that soon, but in the meantime, I have a couple of links I’ll post here for anyone who is actually reading this.
- The first is one that I really like from James McGrath is a thoughtful discussion (continued in the comments) about what it means to be Christian and about the historical accuracy of the Bible.
- The second one is one I put up as a link on Facebook, too about what we should be doing as a church during tough economic times.
A Universalist, huh?
I’ve mentioned here before that I regularly read Rev. Bob Cornwall’s blog. He posted something there last week (a week ago today to be exact) that I wanted to comment on, but I didn’t get to it this week. He’s prolific enough that this one has already fallen off his front page. I wish I had the time (and enough interesting things to say) to write that much. Oh, well. The entry was mostly an excerpt from a book by William Barclay. Barclay was a much better biblical scholar than I will ever be, but he describes himself as a Universalist and goes on to explain why. What is really interesting to me, is that, while he can back it up biblically better than I ever could, he describes almost exactly the place I reached during one of my undergraduate religion classes when we were discussing process theology. I didn’t even realize I was a Universalist. Anyway, go read it. I’m going to have to see if the local library has a copy of that book now. As a result of this and a couple of other things I’ve been looking into lately, I’ve also added a couple of new books to my Amazon Religion Wish-List (to the left).
Blindsided by Grace – thoughts
I just finished reading Bob Molsberry’s book Blindsided by Grace: Entering the World of Disability. I won’t call this note a review because it isn’t. I’m not going to critique the book in any way. I will, however, recommend it unabashedly. I’ve known Bob and Ann for almost 2 years(?). I was on the Ohio Conference UCC’s Board of Trustee’s when Bob’s name was brought forward by the search committee for Conference MInister although I was unable to attend the meeting where he was introduced to the board and I was off the board by the time he started the job, but I met hime not too long after. I like Bob and he’s not a bad preacher, either. đ When I saw that he had written two books, I certainly wanted to read them, but I didn’t buy them then. Now I wish I had. I read Tour de Faith: A Cyclist’s Lessons for Living a few months ago and as a cyclist (somewhat out of practice of late) myself, I could relate to some of his stories, and I enjoyed it very much. But this one touched me more. The book is basically (as the subtitle suggests) about how Bob dealt with the devastating 1997 accident that cost him the use of his legs. The closest I’ve come to what our society would call a disability was my back/nerve issues prior to my 1998 back surgery. I had to make some adjustments to compensate, but as I read Bob’s book, I wondered how I would respond in similar circumstances. I hope I’d do half as well. I also appreciated his perspective on life since the accident and especially the story about taking the youth group to Mexico after the accident. The disabled ones in the group were those who couldn’t communicate. I don’t have the book in front of me and I know I’m not really doing him justice, pick the book up yourself. You won’t be sorry.
A few random thoughts for a Tuesday evening
As I sit here watching the All-Star game and hoping the NL wins (if only because one league shouldn’t dominate for a decade at a time, well, that and I’m a Reds fan, of course), I’m happy to see Josh Hamilton did so well last night in the Home Run Derby (though I didn’t actually watch it). And, here he just got a hit leading off the bottom of the 6th inning. But, this post isn’t really about baseball. This week, I read these two posts on marriage and the church. The first argues that the church should get out of the marriage business entirely, that it is (and should be) a completely civil function. The second, which is from Kim Fabricius (whose “10 propositions” posts are always thought provoking even if you don’t entirely agree with them). I was especially interested in a couple of his points.
2. A marriage is not to be confused with a wedding. âA wedding is only the regulative confirmation and legitimation of a marriage before and by society. It does not constitute a marriageâ (Karl Barth). A ceremony does not make a marriage, consent makes a marriage. And even in the ceremony, and even in the Roman Catholic Church, the ministers of the marriage are the bride and bridegroom, not the minister. Indeed it was only with the Council of Trent in 1563 that the Roman Catholic Church insisted on an ecclesial occasion, and mainly to ensure, through the presence of witnesses, that the marriage was, in fact, consensual. In short, a church wedding does not create a marriage, it recognises and blesses a marriage that already exists. Nor should consent itself be taken as a punctiliar act but as part of an ongoing project of mutual discovery and affirmation. It is always sad to hear a couple say that their wedding day was the happiest day of their lives.
…
5. Although marriage is complete without procreation (Genesis 2:24) and remains complete after the kids have left home, marriage is the God-given unit for the birth and nurture of children (Genesis 1:28). There is, however, a teleology to raising children, namely that they may grow up to experience the joy and freedom of faith. âThis means,â as Bonhoeffer says, âthat marriage is not only a matter of producing children, but also of educating them to be obedient to Jesus Christ,â so that they too might become friends of God. The obedience course begins by telling your children that Jesus loves them â even when they are disobedient. As for the learning curve (or slider!), I recommend a Hauerwasian pedagogy: âStart with baseball and also teach them to read. Donât teach kids a bunch of rules. Help them submit their lives to something that they find to be a wonderful activity that transforms them.â
…
7. Tina Turner puts the problem â and the question I always put to dumfounded couples whom I prepare for marriage: âWhatâs love got to do with it?â Stanley Hauerwas: âChristians have far too readily underwritten the romantic assumption that people âfallâ in love and then get married. We would be much better advised to suggest that love does not create marriage; rather, marriage provides a good training ground to teach us what love involves.â Thus, most provocatively, to disabuse us of conventional notions of Mr or Miss Right, Hauerwasâs Law: âYou always marry the wrong person.â (As Henny Youngman jested: I married Miss Right. I just didnât know her first name was Always.) Thus does marriage become Lutherâs âschool of characterâ, or, better, a âclass of characterâ in the school of the church. Of course a relationship begins with the chemistry of attraction, but unless it does graduate work in the art of loving, it shouldnât be surprising if it ends in an explosion.
and
10. Finally, if the heart of marriage is friendship, if marriage is for procreation in a gratuitous rather than an instrumental sense, as overflow rather than essence, then do we not open the way for the blessing of same-sex relationships? I think we do, though I think the term âmarriageâ is unhelpful. (And by the way, whatever the social and legal conventions, homosexual Christians, like heterosexual Christians, may have a vocation as parents in the church.) This view presupposes that natural law arguments against same-sex relationships are otiose â but then I think that the concept of natural law is otiose in a theology of marriage too! The point is this: if Luke Timothy Johnson is right to suggest that âIf sexual virtue and vice are defined covenantally rather than biologically, then it is possible to place homosexual and heterosexual activity in the same context,â it is also possible to see same-sex relationships, blessed by the church, as an analogue of the relationship between God and his people, and a model of the churchâs own proper economy of grace. In short, nihil obstat.
Finally, (for this evening), I came across this new blog by Fred Anderson, a retired Presbyterian minister. I was impressed/moved/touched/challenged by his very first post which includes a statement of faith. Read it for yourself here.
Christian Principles in an Election Year
I first saw this over on the UCC blog (the original from the National Council of Churches is here), but I thought it was good enough to repeat here.
Your church, your communion, and the National Council of Churches USA do not endorse any political party or any candidate.
Be that as it may, our Christian faith compels us to address the world through the lens of our relationship to God and to one another. Public discourse is enhanced as we engage civic leaders on the values and ethics affirmed by our faith. At the same time, religious liberty and the integrity of our democracy will be protected as candidates refrain from using faith-based organizations and institutions for partisan gain. We offer these 10 principles to those seeking to accept the responsibility that comes with holding public office.
1. War is contrary to the will of God. While the use of violent force may, at times, be a necessity of last resort, Christ pronounces his blessing on the peacemakers. We look for political leaders who will make peace with justice a top priority and who will actively seek nonviolent solutions to conflict.
2. God calls us to live in communities shaped by peace and cooperation. We reject policies that abandon large segments of our inner city and rural populations to hopelessness. We look for political leaders who will re-build our communities and bring an end to the cycles of violence and killing.
3. God created us for each other, and thus our security depends on the well being of our global neighbors. We look for political leaders for whom a foreign policy based on cooperation and global justice is an urgent concern.
4. God calls us to be advocates for those who are most vulnerable in our society. We look for political leaders who yearn for economic justice and who will seek to reduce the growing disparity between rich and poor.
5. Each human being is created in the image of God and is of infinite worth. We look for political leaders who actively promote racial justice and equal opportunity for everyone.
6. The earth belongs to God and is intrinsically good. We look for political leaders who recognize the earth’s goodness, champion environmental justice, and uphold our responsibility to be stewards of Godâs creation.
7. Christians have a biblical mandate to welcome strangers. We look for political leaders who will pursue fair immigration policies and speak out against xenophobia.
8. Those who follow Christ are called to heal the sick. We look for political leaders who will support adequate, affordable and accessible health care for all.
9. Because of the transforming power of Godâs grace, all humans are called to be in right relationship with each other. We look for political leaders who seek a restorative, not retributive, approach to the criminal justice system and the individuals within it.
10. Providing enriched learning environments for all of Godâs children is a moral imperative. We look for political leaders who advocate for equal educational opportunity and abundant funding for childrenâs services.
IRS v. UCC
You may have heard by now that the IRS is investigation the UCC (and threatening loss of tax exempt status) because of the speech that Sen. Obama gave at last year’s General Synod in Hartford, CT. There has been plenty of coverage, so I won’t rehash too much of it, but it still seems an awful lot like it is politically motivated (whether by more fundamentalist members of the UCC as has been rumored or by someone out to embarrass Sen. Obama remains unclear). The invitation (one of dozens of speakers including Bill Moyers and Lynn Redgrave) was to a UCC member to discuss how his faith affected his life in politics. The invitation was extended before he became a presidential candidate and the leaders at Synod went out of there way to make sure that there was no campaigning allowed and didn’t come close to an endorsement, so it is hard to see how they could have violated the tax exempt status. Regardless, after 7 months (and coincidentally just before the Ohio primary?), the IRS makes it public that they are investigating. While they probably have an obligation to investigate to avoid the appearance of impropriety, the facts here would seem so overwhelming that they ought to quickly end the investigation by finding that the denomination did nothing wrong. The facts are so overwhelming that a prestigious Washington, DC law firm has agreed to take the case on for free and the lead is a former Solicitor General of the United States who (I believe) has never lost a case before the US Supreme Court. Sigh….
Thoughts from a middle-aged middle-class guy
I read two interesting posts on the God’s Politics blog today that got me thinking and I wanted to put some of those thoughts down in writing, but I may not be able to do them justice in such a short time. The first post was this one by Tony Jones. I have to say that a great deal of what is coming from the “emergent” community resonates with me. Anyway, I agree that
Carried into the modern world by the French and American revolutions, individual rights became the foundation of liberal democracy, clearly the most robust and equitable of all systems of government yet conceived. And although it happened more slowly than many people would have liked, the concept of individual rights brought about great goods like ending government-backed slavery, women’s suffrage, and the civil rights movement.
But as he points out, it goes further than that. We who call ourselves Christians are called to go further than be concerned with our own individual rights, we are called to be concerned with the individual rights of others. Part of me thinks that is easier for a middle-aged (or approaching it) middle-class guy like me who isn’t worried about if I’ll have anything to eat tonight or whether my kids have jackets and socks and underwear and a roof over their heads. On the other hand, I’m constantly reminded of those who have practically nothing who still seem to find it in their hearts to be more concerned about others than themselves. I wonder if I could do the same. I’d like to think so, but I honestly don’t know. Sherry just got back from El Salvador and the stories she tells of the people they worked with there (and in Ukraine where she is going again in April) are gut-wrenching. The stories she tells of some of the people who went down to “help” are sickening (maybe I’ll expound on that later). Anyway, I’ll be interested to see what he says in part 2.
The second article was this one by Becky Garrison. She writes about discovering she is directly descended from Rev. Roger Williams who founded Rhode Island. He had some very strong views on the separation of church and state based on the very real persecution that he was fleeing. As far as her question about whether religious leaders should be endorsing candidates, they are human beings, too. As individuals they have every right to support the candidate of their choice, but as she points out, they must be careful not to become “political pawns.” To borrow a phrase from the Quakers (see also this) religious leaders have an obligation to “speak truth to power.” When they cease to be able to take their chosen leader to task for his/her failure to do the right thing (like torturing prisoners to name just one example), then they lose their moral authority. The other extreme though, and something that bothers me a little about this year’s election, is the apparent requirement that candidates have to have some strongly held religious beliefs. While I don’t think that is necessarily a detriment, it also certainly isn’t a requirement to be able to govern and I’d rather the politicians be going to church for reasons other than political expediency.
I like this guy
I was browsing some of the blogs I follow and today came across two posts that I enjoyed from a Disciples of Christ pastor in St. Joseph, MO. The first one was an interesting look at Lent from someone who didn’t observe it growing up, and only discovered it in seminary. As a UCC PK, I’ve known what Lent was for as long as I can remember, but that doesn’t mean that I always take it all that seriously (hey, I’m human), but this did get me to stop and think for a moment. This year, I’ll try to be more serious about my observance of it. The second one was about the movie Juno which I haven’t seen yet, but probably will. By most accounts it seems to be a good movie, though in the last day or two, all of the sudden I’m seeing arguments on whether the movie is “pro-life” or “pro-choice” or whether Hollywood is selling out to the “Religious Right” (as if they’d have each other), give me a break. I couldn’t help but chuckle at this passage on abortion though (as it largely describes my feelings, though obvious the particulars are his — and in case you’re counting there are at least 5 hands there).
I feel more than a bit conflicted about it. On the one hand, I’m a card-carrying liberal with a lot of white male guilt, so the last thing I want to do is tell a woman what to do with her body. On the other hand, I’m a father, because two women felt very strongly that abortion was wrong for them and made an adoption plan instead. On the other hand, that was their choice and who am I to say what is the right choice for someone else when it comes to such a personal and painful issue? On the other hand, even if I remain unconvinced that life begins at conception or even the first trimester or even beyond that–I’m not sure when it begins, I still believe the potential for life is there. I’ve counseled couples who grieved over a miscarriage and that grief was real–we did not have a funeral but we did grieve together. On the other hand, so many anti-abortion people are just so arrogant and mean and ridiculous–you want to stop abortion but you’re against sex education and birth control! What’s up with that? I could go on.
Oh, and finally, I was also amused by a story in today’s Columbus Dispatch about the problems being caused by the fact that St. Patrick’s Day falls during Holy Week this year (drinking your green beer to excess doesn’t exactly seem appropriate during Holy Week).