|
Week of 8/18-8/24
Alan Keyes and the Ten Commandments
Judge Roy Moore and the Ten
Commandments
Alabama Tax Reform
Nicholas Kristof, James Fowler
and Progressive Christianity
Progressives and Christians
Sunday, August 24,
2003
A Couple of Things
My friend Matt Zemek of Zemek's
Wellstone Cornerstone
is having some health problems. I think his mailbox
is full from well wishers, so maybe go over to
his site and use the comments to let him know
you're thinking of him. You could even order a
copy of his book while you're there.
Thanks to Liberal
Oasis for including us in its weekly "Best
of the Blog" for the third time. Bill is
one of those A-list bloggers who enjoys helping
us newbies build readership.
We're very glad to see Truth
Laid Bear back up and running. We learn from
that site about some of the other bloggers who
have linked to us. BTW, the most recent figures
from N. Z. Bear show us for the first time topping
100 inbound links from blogs listed with his site.
It was a little over two months ago that we got
our first link--from Liberal
Oasis.
We have rather belatedly added links to two About.com
sites: Atheism and Christianity. Austin
Cline, Guide at About.com's Atheism site,
linked to TRC some time ago under his "Fighting
the Religious Right" category and links to
posts here on a regular basis. He also has been
a great sounding board for me as I try to keep
this site interesting for our many agnostic and
atheist readers. Charles
Henderson, Guide at christianity.about.com,
is also executive director of Crosscurrents
and a former chaplain at his alma mater, Princeton.
Charles has been kind enough to direct a lot of
traffic our way through his site, and has provided
some welcome encouragement.
We've also added a link to Ralph
Luker's blog site on the History News Network.
Ralph is an historian and theologian who is an
expert in the civil rights movement.
Finally, Jeanne at Body
and Soul had another interesting post about
religion and politics that was prompted by Wayne's
(we don't have your blog URL, Wayne) feedback
to CNN about the kind of Christians they always
choose for shows like "Crossfire." Jeanne
asks if people can come up with some "questioning
Christians" who might represent the faith
better than Pat and Jerry. I was flattered to
be mentioned by a couple of commenters in some
very illustrious company.
Feedback
Comment
Home
Friday, August 22, 2003
Would You Want to Live in Alan Keyes' America_
Surely Alan Keyes is playing Jonathan
Swift. In the midst of Judge Roy's circus
(see yestersday's post), he travels to Alabama
and argues that states can and should engage in
the establishment
of religion within their boundaries.
"Americans should demand that they be
granted 'what the tyranny of the courts has
sought to wrest from us -- the freedom to live
in communities that are governed by laws that
reflect our beliefs,' Keyes said, adding that
what a state does regarding religion is 'none
of the federal government's business.'"
The former Republican Presidential candidate
claims history in on his side:
"When the First Amendment was passed,
he noted, "there were a majority of states
in the United States ... where there were religious
tests" and there were 'established churches.'
If religious tests and established churches
were unconstitutional, Keyes said, then they
would have been abolished prior to the First
Amendment's passage. Such a state-sanctioned
church would be sanctioned not by the federal
government but instead by an individual state,
he said."
Jack Balkin has effectively demolished
Keyes from a legal and historical standpoint.
When the First Amendment was passed, it should
be noted, some states also sanctioned slavery.
After the Civil War, three new amendments were
added to the Constitution that significantly restricted
the authority of the states, and one of these,
the Fourteenth Amendment, has been interpreted
to apply the restrictions of the Establishment
Clause of the First Amendment to state governments.
What is shocking to me is not Keyes' myopic view
of history but his future vision for America:
"With such a change in American thought,
there would be no controversy over a Ten Commandments
monument in Alabama, Keyes said. Of course,
that would mean that people of a particular
faith might decide to avoid living in certain
parts of the country. For instance, a Baptist
might decide not to live in Mormon-dominated
Utah, which logically could have Mormon-controlled
schools...With such a constitutional interpretation,
Keyes acknowledged, Catholicism likely would
dominate in the Northeast and Protestantism
down South. With a growing Muslim population,
a state could even have state-sanctioned Islamic
symbols and schools. 'I don't think it would
be likely, but it would be possible,' Keyes
told Baptist Press. 'It was intended that folks
who were of a similar persuasion in terms of
religion would be able to establish communities.
That's what the first colonialists to America
did.'"
First of all, not all colonial communities were
established on that model. Massachusetts was,
but South Carolina and Pennsylvania encouraged
religious pluralism. More importantly, does anyone
really think that such a Balkanized nation would
be workable_ Something like variations in the
size and weight limits of tractor-trailer trucks
can present obstacles to interstate commerce.
What if General Electric wanted to transfer its
Catholic executive Jane who has three school-age
children to a Salt Lake City that teaches Mormon
doctrine in its schools_ I don't think corporate
America is too likely to be receptive towards
Keyes' idea. What if a high level of animosity
developed between "Baptist
Arkansas" and "Catholic Louisiana_"
I guess we could always build a fence.
Keyes also acknowledges that there might be some
difficulty in states where there is a population
closely divided between two religions:
"'There might be states in which they
require a religious test on oaths of office,'
he said. 'There might be states in which they
have established churches where subventions
are given to schools and so forth to teach the
Bible. There might be places where you and I
might disagree with the religion some folks
want to put in place over their ... community.'"
Oh really. It doesn't take long to think about
other places in the world where religions struggle
over control of the state apparatus. That pesky
Fourteenth Amendment has prevented us from having
all kinds of fun.
It's all worth it, Keyes claims, since the alternative
is "imposing a uniform national regime of
disbelief and atheism on the people of this country."
I don't believe that. Nicholas Kristof is concerned
about the growth
of fundamentalism in the United States and
cites his "virgin birth" numbers to
back it up. The evidence is that religious faith
is becoming more, not less widespread. If those
godless federal judges are trying to force us
to give up our faith, they have been very unsuccessful.
If Keyes is saying that Christianity or any other
religious faith needs the state to spread
its message, that is sad. Jesus gave the Great
Commission not to the Roman Empire but to the
believers who make up the Church, and the federal
courts have done absolutely nothing to prevent
the faithful from carrying it out. Not one judge,
federal or otherwise, has closed a church or issued
an injunction against attending one. Neither the
First nor the Fourteenth Amendment has been invoked
to prohibit billboards for Jesus, Christian radio
stations or old-fashioned door-to-door evangelism.
There is every opportunity for Christians to deliver
(not impose) the Good News and the numbers show
it.
I have argued that religious
points of view should be heard in the public
square, but Keyes' approach will make it impossible
for that to happen in a beneficial way. I don't
want live in the kind of America he describes.
Surely he is only engaging in hyperbole to stimulate
discussion on an important topic. Surely.
All Eyes on Alabama
Ralph Luker lets fence-sitting
pastors in the Alabama tax battle hear some
Law today:
"'Alabama clergy say they understand the
moral and theological arguments made by Gov.
Bob Riley in his push for tax reform, but many
church leaders are wary of talking taxes from
the pulpit.' In other words, the brothers of
the cloth fear to proclaim of the word of the
Lord. As well they might. It comforts the afflicted
and afflicts the comfortable."
Obscure Bible Passage of the Day: Romans 13:1-7
"Let every person be subject to the governing
authorities; for there is no authority except
from God, and those authorities that exist have
been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists
authority resists what God has appointed, and
those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers
are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad.
Do you wish to have no fear of the authority_
Then do what is good, and you will receive its
approval; for it is God's servant for your good.
But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid,
for the authority does not bear the sword in
vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath
on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject,
not only because of wrath but also because of
conscience. For the same reason you also pay
taxes, for the authorities are God's servants,
busy with this very thing. Pay to all what is
due them—taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue
to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect
is due, honor to whom honor is due." (NRSV)
Comment
Unlike Alan Keyes, Paul experienced real persecution
from the authorities for preaching the Gospel.
Yet this is how he counselled those who lived
under the Roman Emperor. Dr. Keyes should examine
his remarks
on Hannity and Colmes about the federal judiciary
and Judge Myron Thompson in light of Romans 13.
Feedback
Comment
Home
Thursday, August 21, 2003
Which Ten Commandments_
Judge Roy Moore's Alabama colleagues have finally
taken action to bring
the Montgomery sideshow to an end. At least
they understood how the 14th Amendment of the
United States Constitution applied to this case
even
if Alan Keyes doesn't.
I have little hope that this is the last we will
hear of Ten Commandments controversies considering
how many of these kinds of monuments there are
in this country (check
out the slideshow). One thing I'd like to
get straight before the next Judge Roy pops up
is which Ten Commandments are we talking about_
Versions of the Ten Commandments appear in Exodus
20 and Deuteronomy
5, and there are some differences. The Deuteronomy
version supplies an extra reason for honoring
father and mother and reverses the priority of
house and wife in the prohibition against coveting.
Most significant, entirely different justifications
are given for the Sabbath in Exodus and Deuteronomy.
In Exodus, the seventh day is honored because
it is the day God rested from creation. In the
always more socially-conscious Deuteronomy, the
basis is found in the remembrance of Israel's
past as slaves in Egypt who were denied a day
of rest.
Once a version is chosen, advocates for publicly-funded
displays of the Ten Commandments need to decide
on the numbering scheme. While "ten"
appears nowhere in the texts of Exodus 20 or Deuteronomy
5, most scholars agree that Deuteronomy
10:4 refers to the Ten Commandments.
But there are Thirteen second person plural
verbs in the Exodus passage--thirteen "thou
shall" or "thou shalt nots"--so
some human judgment is required to arrange things
into ten. Not all Christians agree on how to do
this. Roman Catholics and Lutherans, among others,
count the prohibitions against having other gods,
making idols and bowing down before idols as one
commandment. Most Protestants count these as two.
Catholics and Lutherans count each instance of
"don't covet" as a separate commandment.
Those Protestants count them as one. Then there
is the Jewish tradition of counting "I am
the Lord, your God" as the First Commandment.
So much for the unity of the "Judeo-Christian
ethic." The difficulty in getting even all
Christians to agree on what a Ten Commandments
monument should look like is reason enough to
take the issue off the table.
What really puzzles me most is why Christians
would want to go to the barricades over the Ten
Commandments anyway. They are hardly the core
of the faith. At least those folks in the end
zones with their "John 3:16" signs have
a better understanding of what constitutes a Christian
confession. I think the Establishment Clause as
the Supreme Court has interpreted it reduces sectarian
strife, and as we look around the world, that
is surely a blessing. But if I am ever in a place
where the protections of the Freedom to Exercise
Clause are not in place, it is not the Ten Commandments
for which I would be willing to go to the stake
(or whatever). It is the Gospel of forgiveness
and life, and it only, that is worth dying for.
Thanks to Sojourners
We appreciate the mention in Sojourners'
"Sojomail" and the new readers it
has brought us.
Obscure Bible Passage of the Day: Ephesians
2:14-15a
For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made
both groups into one and has broken down the
dividing wall, that is, the hostility between
us. He has abolished the law with its commandments
and ordinances, that he might create in himself
one new humanity in place of the two, thus making
peace. (NRSV)
Comment
Judge Roy needs to meditate on this verse.
Feedback
Comment
Home
Wednesday, August 20,
2003
We Need Barnabas
The Alabama tax reform movement is in serious
trouble. The most recent poll shows that among
likely voters in the September 9 referendum, Governor
Riley's proposal
is losing 52 to 27 with the rest undecided.
The frustrating thing is that the plan finds some
of its lowest levels of support among the voters
who will benefit the most from reform. Only 22
percent of voters with reported incomes between
$20,000 and $40,000 support the proposal that
would raise taxes on corporations and higher income
voters to avoid drastic cuts in education and
health care while lowering taxes on Alabama's
overburdened poor. Perhaps most stunning: only
32 percent of black voters support the plan.
Misleading advertising from reform opponents
has contributed to this discouraging example of
citizens voting against their own and their children's
interest. But there is another problem as well.
Russakof writes
in the Washington Post:
"Black people in particular and poor people
in general have always been very suspicious
when somebody in Montgomery says, 'I'm going
to help you,' because usually in the end we
get ripped off," said state Sen. Hank Sanders,
an influential black politician. Sanders has
taped ads supporting Riley's plan, but many
other black leaders, including pastors, have
been conspicuously silent."
Why should African-Americans, working class whites
and Hispanics trust this man who has long been
identified with Newt Gingrich and his brand of
social Darwinist Republicanism_
Two thousand years ago, a man named Saul was
preeminent among the persecutors of the young
Christian Church. He personally went house to
house and dragged off men and women to be thrown
into prison for their beliefs. Saul was so determined
to wipe out the church of Jesus that he traveled
to Damascus to track down believers there and
kill or imprison them.
Something happened on his way to Damascus. Nobody
else witnessed it, so we have only Saul's retellings
of the event to rely upon. Whatever took place,
it profoundly changed Saul. This enemy of Christ
became the greatest Christian evangelist. The
tormentor of the Church took the Gospel to Gentiles
throughout the Mediterranean world and eventually
died himself as a martyr for Jesus.
After his conversion, Saul returned to Jerusalem
to meet with the leading disciples of Jesus. Considering
that Saul had earlier led the mob that stoned
to death their brother Stephen, the disciples'
reaction was understandable:
What would have happened if it had ended right
there_ Would Christianity ever have spread to
the Gentiles--to you and me_ Would we have today
those great epistles like Romans and Galatians
and the letters to the Corinithians where the
Gospel of forgiveness and life is proclaimed in
all its sweetness_
"Yes!," you say. God the Holy Spirit
would never have let the Gospel wither and die
just because of those disciples' fear. And you're
right. Fear and suspicion did not win out over
Christian forgiveness and the fellowship formed
by the power of the Holy Spirit. But God didn't
just zap Peter and James and the rest with magic
thought waves. God became a human being to save
us, and God uses human beings to spread the word
of that salvation.
"But Barnabas took [Saul], brought
him to the apostles, and described for them
how on the road he had seen the Lord, who had
spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had spoken
boldly in the name of Jesus. So he went in and
out among them in Jerusalem, speaking boldly
in the name of the Lord."
We need Barnabas in Alabama. In fact, we need
not one but hundreds, even thousands of them.
Those disciples weren't swayed by a television
ad. They didn't change their minds because of
a radio commercial. My guess is that Saul could
have presented them with stacks of position papers,
and still they wouldn't have trusted him.
But they trusted Barnabas. And Barnabas was willing
to reach out beyond his fear and suspicion, and
trust not so much Saul as God. Could God change
the heart of even Saul who thought the only good
Christian was a dead Christian_ Barnabas believed
he could. Was it alright that this former enemy
of the Church was going to become one of its leading
apostles_ Barnabas thought that was up to God.
Was there a chance that those Jerusalem disciples
might no longer trust Barnabas if he befriended
Saul_ Of course there was, but it was more important
to Barnabas to be forgiving than to be popular.
It was more important to be faithful than to be
politically correct.
The powers-that-be in Alabama are spending a
lot of money to sow fear and suspicion among the
voters. To this point, they've been pretty successful.
But fear and suspicion are no match for forgiveness
and trust, and TV and radio ads are no match for
the person-to-person efforts of all the Barnabases
who are ready to be forgiving and faithful. Those
poll numbers can turn in favor of justice and
progress over the next few weeks if the leaders
that people trust are willing to do the work of
Barnabas.
This really isn't about Bob Riley. It is only
necessary to compare those who support the plan
to those who oppose it to see whom the plan will
benefit and whom it will cost. But if concern
about Riley's sincerity is what is hampering support
for this movement among those whom it will help
the most, it's time to put away fear and suspicion.
The man tells us he is a Christian. He has experienced
some of the same trials and tests in his life
that you and I have. He has read, studied and
heard proclaimed that same Gospel that you and
I have. Can the God who changed the heart of murderous
Saul not open an Alabama Republican's eyes to
the need for decent education and health care
for everyone and a fairer tax system_ Is it for
us to object if the man who once followed Newt
Gingrich is now leading a bold movement for fairness_
Will God abandon us if we dare to speak out in
favor of this effort to our fellow Christians_
The example of Barnabas provides the answers.
Saul, now called Paul, looked back at that critical
time in Jerusalem as he wrote the Galatians:
God was glorified because Barnabas was willing
to forgive and trust--forgive Saul and trust in
God.
Obscure Bible Passage of the
Day: Acts 4:32-37
"Now the whole group of those who believed
were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed
private ownership of any possessions, but everything
they owned was held in common. With great power
the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection
of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon
them all. There was not a needy person among
them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold
them and brought the proceeds of what was sold.
They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was
distributed to each as any had need. There was
a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom
the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which
means "son of encouragement").
He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought
the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet."
(NRSV)
Comment
Barnabas, the son of encouragement, had many
gifts.
Feedback
Comment
Home
Tuesday, August 19, 2003
Clarifying Some Terminology
Most people reach the synthetic-conventional
stage where the concept of the deity as distributor
of rewards and punishments gives way to a God
who is merciful, understanding, loving and supporting.
But even this stage is marked in part by a lack
of critical reflection upon one's own faith. The
beliefs and values of family, peers and authority
figures are internalized, and the ability to step
outside one's self and take a third-person perspective
is absent. People in the synthetic-conventional
stage are subject to "The Tyranny of the
They" because they cannot separate their
beliefs and values from their need for acceptance
of those around them. Rejecting the virgin birth
would both threaten the stability of the rest
of their belief system and their relationships
with family, peers and authority figures who retained
that belief.
Some adults never move beyond synthetic-conventional
faith. Those who do undergo a dual crisis of critical
examination of their beliefs and values along
with a search for identity apart from that provided
by the family, peers and authority figures around
them. Symbols are demythologized. Creeds are dissected
and examined critically. Among these people with
individuative-reflective faith are found most
of the minority "unbelievers" in Kristof's
virgin birth poll.
For those who reach the fifth stage of conjunctive
faith, there is a reappropriation of symbols and
creeds by means of a "willed naiveté."
A more humble epistemology is adopted that recognizes
the influence of the unconscious upon our perceptions
and reasoning. Paradox and mystery are appreciated.
Other worldviews, religious and otherwise, are
valued, investigated and assimilated to some degree.
One might understand Pelikan's critical argument
about the source of the narratives in Matthew
and Luke and still "affirm" the virgin
birth.
In Faithful
Change: the Personal and Public Challenges of
Postmodern Life, Fowler undertakes a very
ambitious effort to apply his theory of faith
development to social, political and cultural
movements. He finds an analogy between the transition
from synthetic-conventional faith to individuative-reflective
faith and the movement into modernity we call
the Enlightenment. Even more critical, he posits
that we are now in a transition from the modern
to postmodern eras that is like the emergence
of conjunctive faith.
In other words, our culture is experiencing a
transitional crisis. Modernity's faith in progress,
reason and science is no longer persuasive to
many people. One option is to move backward to
a pre-modern mindset. That is what Kristof--and
I--find troubling. Another is to move forward,
but that will mean, by analogy, that we will be
reappropriating symbols and creeds and treasuring
paradox and mystery in our culture and our political
discourse as well as in our spiritual lives. A
new synthesis of the intellectual and the religious
can rescue our culture from both reactionary Fundamentalism
and the collapse of modernity. But before we save
the world, or at least Western civilization, we'll
have to get our terminology straight.
Feedback
Comment
Home
Monday, August 18, 2003
[permanent
link]
Getting It Out in the Open
Last Thursday's post, "The Importance of
'Some,'" has stimulated some discussion on
other blogs about the problem of some progressives'
stereotyping of Christians. Mary at Pacific
Views picked up the topic first:
"I believe it behooves us to build up
as strong as a coalition as we can in order
to instrument regime change at home. This means
finding language that is inclusive rather than
divisive. And it means finding words that ask
us to htmlire to the best examples of what it
means to be good humans. It means using language
that also speaks to those who have strong religious
beliefs. Our American tradition has some compelling
and beautiful language based in Christianity
that can help us in the fight for the soul of
our country. The language used by Abraham Lincoln
and Martin Luther King was instrumental in helping
the country get past some horrible times in
our country. Today we need all the passion and
eloquence we can find from progressive preachers
if we are to have a prayer of reaching the broad
swath of believing Americans and to engage them
to help us rescue our country."
Go there to read it all and the important discussion
going on in the comments with contributions from
Mary's co-blogger Natasha and Matt Zemek among
others.
Next, Jeanne at Body
and Soul added her take on this issue:
"I'm constantly amazed at how many progressives
seem unaware that liberal Christianity did not
die with Dr. King, or that a huge, decent middle
ground exists between anti-war nuns and Pat
Robertson. And I'm even saddened by how many
don't seem to know enough conservative Christians
to realize that many of them are good-hearted
people who care about the same things we do,
but come to different conclusions (in some cases,
I'd argue, are conned into different conclusions...but
I won't go into that here) about what to do
about them. I've been stunned any number of
times by how many things conservative Christians
and I agree on."
Again, it's worth the click to go there and read
Jeanne's piece in its entirety, the Linkbacks
to other bloggers who've picked up on it, and
the comments.
Finally, Laura at Interesting
Monstah provided some historical background
on theology and the progressive movement along
with this:
"Many people I know these days express
the sentiment that well, why bother to change
these reactionary religious institutions_ Why
doesn't everyone become like us intellectually
superior secular liberals and just abandon these
churches_
Simple solution to a complicated problem. Becuz,
what they are lacking completely is an understanding
of the way religion works, in the first place.
It's a contemporary take on an age-old dilemma:
the nut really doesn't fall so far from the
tree. This, I believe, is what frightens our
good-hearted but misinformed secular humanist
friends the most. I don't know how many times
I've been told, regarding my background, somethig
like, we, that was you back then; you're no
longer like that, so it doesn't matter,"
as if spirituality follows some kind of Enlightenment-induced,
linear model. As if they are trying to convince
themseves of this, rather than me..."
This is an important discussion that's taking
place. It has been a wound close to the heart
of the progressive movement for sometime. It's
time to expose it, air it out and begin the healing
process.
Finally
The Washington Post finally managed to
get around to covering
the events of the past two weeks in the Alabama
tax reform battle. If they had only mentioned
the important role of Susan Pace Hamill...
Obscure Bible Passage of the Day: Galatians
2:11-14
"But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed
him to his face, because he stood self-condemned;
for until certain people came from James, he
used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they
came, he drew back and kept himself separate
for fear of the circumcision faction. And the
other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so
that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.
But when I saw that they were not acting consistently
with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas
before them all, 'If you, though a Jew, live
like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you
compel the Gentiles to live like Jews_'"
(NRSV)
Comment
Even the apostles had to "air it out"
from time to time.
Feedback
Comment
Home Permanent
Link
|