I may not feel like doing much writing at the moment, but I can at least point whoever's still reading toward some of the interesting things I've come across recently. In this installment:
1. Justin Lee explains what homosexuality is (graciously, as always) for those who still think of it as nothing more than a sex act.
2. Switchfoot's lead singer explains why they don't consider their music "Christian." As someone who grew up listening to Christian music (and continued the habit into my 30s), I'm happy to see the separatism of evangelical culture slowly fading away.
3. A group of gay bloggers, thinkers and activists have signed a statement emphasizing the importance of supporting our opponents' right to publicly disagree with us. It's often a fine line to walk when dealing with those who would deny us our rights, but we must be careful that we don't become that which we once deplored.
4. Which is not to say that we should let what our opponents say go unchallenged. And as Rachel Held Evans noticed, the things they're saying keep getting more hyperbolic.
5. On a lighter note, as a fan of the magicians who appear on America's Got Talent, I would be remiss in not sharing this amazing act that appeared recently on Britain's Got Talent.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
Monday, February 24, 2014
A Call For Help
As anyone who follows world news is undoubtedly aware, violence against LGBT people has been increasing in numerous countries across Africa, and several countries have made their already draconian anti-gay laws even harsher (most notably Nigeria and now Uganda). Unfortunately, political action has proven to be counterproductive in some cases; pressure applied by Western governments and activists has only caused the countries in question to dig their heels in and push back even harder. So while silence is never an option, clearly new approaches are called for.
Activist Melanie Nathan (a native of South Africa) is trying something different: she has set up a Rescue Fund to Help LGBT People Escape Africa. Click on the link for more details and/or to contribute.
Hopefully it will someday be possible to begin a sober and peaceful dialogue on human rights issues in these countries (and the many other parts of the world that are still hostile territory for sexual minorities), but right now it looks like that day is too far off to help the many people whose lives are currently in danger.
Activist Melanie Nathan (a native of South Africa) is trying something different: she has set up a Rescue Fund to Help LGBT People Escape Africa. Click on the link for more details and/or to contribute.
Hopefully it will someday be possible to begin a sober and peaceful dialogue on human rights issues in these countries (and the many other parts of the world that are still hostile territory for sexual minorities), but right now it looks like that day is too far off to help the many people whose lives are currently in danger.
Friday, January 31, 2014
Links
Yes, it's been a while. Here are a few items of interest that have come through my news reader in recent weeks...
-Rachel Held Evans puts the phrase "The Bible clearly teaches" into some much-needed perspective.
-David Brin offers a perspective on our current political situation that I find compelling. Granted, everyone thinks their political viewpoint is the best one, but he makes some good points.
-John Shore points out the hypocrisy that biblical literalists commonly display when they voice their condemnations of homosexuality.
-And in this pair of posts, we see how evangelism conducted by those (theists and non-theists alike) with a tribalistic 'us vs. them' mentality fails to be persuasive or winsome.
-Rachel Held Evans puts the phrase "The Bible clearly teaches" into some much-needed perspective.
-David Brin offers a perspective on our current political situation that I find compelling. Granted, everyone thinks their political viewpoint is the best one, but he makes some good points.
-John Shore points out the hypocrisy that biblical literalists commonly display when they voice their condemnations of homosexuality.
-And in this pair of posts, we see how evangelism conducted by those (theists and non-theists alike) with a tribalistic 'us vs. them' mentality fails to be persuasive or winsome.
Thursday, December 12, 2013
More Links
Some more interesting stuff for your week...
1. This Denver Post editorial clarifies why private businesses can't be allowed the right to turn away customers solely on the basis of personal prejudice. It also points out the distinction between that and freedom of speech exceptions, which answers my own concerns about cases like this.
2. Although I was never homeschooled myself, I knew a fair amount about the homeschool movement back in the 90s when evangelical groups were pushing hard for it. Thus, it's very interesting to get this update on the results of that grand experiment. Granted, there are many homeschooled children whose experiences are far more positive than these, and there are cases in which home schooling genuinely is the best option for a kid, but we now have a generation of young adults that can attest that separatism and indoctrination are never good reasons...
3. ThinkProgress points out five ways in which the world is becoming a better place. In the midst of all the reasons we have to worry for the future (destruction of the environment, terrorism, the decline of the American middle class, etc.), it's helpful to be reminded that all is not bleak.
4. From the "this is cool" department, a collection of maps that will help to clarify the way you see the world.
5. Finally, a plug for an upcoming project that I'm personally excited about: a live-action version of the long-running comic Knights of the Dinner Table...
1. This Denver Post editorial clarifies why private businesses can't be allowed the right to turn away customers solely on the basis of personal prejudice. It also points out the distinction between that and freedom of speech exceptions, which answers my own concerns about cases like this.
2. Although I was never homeschooled myself, I knew a fair amount about the homeschool movement back in the 90s when evangelical groups were pushing hard for it. Thus, it's very interesting to get this update on the results of that grand experiment. Granted, there are many homeschooled children whose experiences are far more positive than these, and there are cases in which home schooling genuinely is the best option for a kid, but we now have a generation of young adults that can attest that separatism and indoctrination are never good reasons...
3. ThinkProgress points out five ways in which the world is becoming a better place. In the midst of all the reasons we have to worry for the future (destruction of the environment, terrorism, the decline of the American middle class, etc.), it's helpful to be reminded that all is not bleak.
4. From the "this is cool" department, a collection of maps that will help to clarify the way you see the world.
5. Finally, a plug for an upcoming project that I'm personally excited about: a live-action version of the long-running comic Knights of the Dinner Table...
Tuesday, October 01, 2013
Random Links
Well, not so much random as diverse. Just a few interesting things I've come across recently.
1. If it happened there - how the media might report the US government shutdown if it were happening in another country. We Americans could only benefit from occasionally engaging in the academic exercise of judging ourselves by the same standards that we judge other countries.
2. 19 everyday situations that are impossibly difficult for the socially awkward. I can identify with almost all of these, and think Chandler Bing's quote at the end sums it up perfectly.
3. Every LGBT person could use a brother like this.
4. Another case to be made that Romans 1:26-27 works best as a clobber passage when its context is ignored.
5. Finally, a bit of geekery: size comparisons for a whole slew of ships from various science fiction properties.
1. If it happened there - how the media might report the US government shutdown if it were happening in another country. We Americans could only benefit from occasionally engaging in the academic exercise of judging ourselves by the same standards that we judge other countries.
2. 19 everyday situations that are impossibly difficult for the socially awkward. I can identify with almost all of these, and think Chandler Bing's quote at the end sums it up perfectly.
3. Every LGBT person could use a brother like this.
4. Another case to be made that Romans 1:26-27 works best as a clobber passage when its context is ignored.
5. Finally, a bit of geekery: size comparisons for a whole slew of ships from various science fiction properties.
Friday, August 23, 2013
Double-Edged
"My freedom ends where yours begins." While my politics aren't quite as libertarian as they once were (the Tea Party drove the final nail in my idealism's coffin), I still regard that principle as a good starting point for evaluating public policy. In an ideal society I should be as free as possible to conduct my life as I see fit, but that cannot include the freedom to impinge on your freedom. Viewed another way, it's a corollary to the Golden Rule.
It's never quite that simple in real life, of course; the boundary between my freedom and yours is a hazy line at best. But simply stated principles can still act as beacons to help us navigate through that haze. Applying this principle we can, for example, quickly see through the flimsy claims of discrimination that religious right groups have begun hurling around in the wake of victories for LGBT rights. Allegedly, by treating LGBT individuals as equals, society is infringing on the right of conservative Christians to treat them as inferiors. It's a shallow claim that fools nobody, in part because we instinctively understand that principle.
But freedom does extend in both directions, which is why I get uncomfortable when I hear about cases like that of the New Mexico photographer who was sued for refusing to photograph a gay couple's commitment ceremony. I say that not because I personally approve of the photographer's inhospitality, but because it raises issues surrounding freedom of association.
I do recognize the need for non-discrimination laws; the government (and its employees) must, in the name of justice, treat all citizens equally and apply the law without bias against disfavored groups. Likewise, in matters of employment, housing and health care (and other essentials), denial of service on the basis of personal prejudice can cause undue hardship.
And I can see where, in some cases, a gay customer in a socially conservative region might find him- or herself unable to find any photographer (or baker, or electrician, or pet-sitter, etc.) who wouldn't discriminate. For that reason I lean toward agreeing with the opinions of those courts that have ruled against the photographer and similar defendants, even though I'm not entirely comfortable doing so.
But it does still beg the question: are we willing to accept this interpretation of the law when the shoe is on the other foot? Should a gay-supportive photographer be forced to accept the business of a fundamentalist pastor known for his fiery anti-gay sermons? Should a bakery that celebrates diversity be legally obligated to bake a cake for a church that believes in white supremacy?
These questions are hypothetical, but I pose them as a reminder that anti-discrimination laws cut in all directions, and that each of us may one day find ourselves in the position of having to provide our services to someone that we find morally objectionable. For the most part that's simply the price of living in a free society - but it behooves us to be certain now that we're setting that price at an amount that we ourselves are willing to pay.
It's never quite that simple in real life, of course; the boundary between my freedom and yours is a hazy line at best. But simply stated principles can still act as beacons to help us navigate through that haze. Applying this principle we can, for example, quickly see through the flimsy claims of discrimination that religious right groups have begun hurling around in the wake of victories for LGBT rights. Allegedly, by treating LGBT individuals as equals, society is infringing on the right of conservative Christians to treat them as inferiors. It's a shallow claim that fools nobody, in part because we instinctively understand that principle.
But freedom does extend in both directions, which is why I get uncomfortable when I hear about cases like that of the New Mexico photographer who was sued for refusing to photograph a gay couple's commitment ceremony. I say that not because I personally approve of the photographer's inhospitality, but because it raises issues surrounding freedom of association.
I do recognize the need for non-discrimination laws; the government (and its employees) must, in the name of justice, treat all citizens equally and apply the law without bias against disfavored groups. Likewise, in matters of employment, housing and health care (and other essentials), denial of service on the basis of personal prejudice can cause undue hardship.
And I can see where, in some cases, a gay customer in a socially conservative region might find him- or herself unable to find any photographer (or baker, or electrician, or pet-sitter, etc.) who wouldn't discriminate. For that reason I lean toward agreeing with the opinions of those courts that have ruled against the photographer and similar defendants, even though I'm not entirely comfortable doing so.
But it does still beg the question: are we willing to accept this interpretation of the law when the shoe is on the other foot? Should a gay-supportive photographer be forced to accept the business of a fundamentalist pastor known for his fiery anti-gay sermons? Should a bakery that celebrates diversity be legally obligated to bake a cake for a church that believes in white supremacy?
These questions are hypothetical, but I pose them as a reminder that anti-discrimination laws cut in all directions, and that each of us may one day find ourselves in the position of having to provide our services to someone that we find morally objectionable. For the most part that's simply the price of living in a free society - but it behooves us to be certain now that we're setting that price at an amount that we ourselves are willing to pay.
Thursday, July 04, 2013
Happy 4th of July
Today I, with millions of others, celebrate American Independence Day. Although I'm not necessarily proud of everything that our country has done, there is still plenty of good in the United States that is worth celebrating.
But I do so as an American, not as a Christian. I've written in the past on why I believe the church loses its way whenever it entangles itself in politics (a viewpoint the religious right seems determined to validate on a daily basis), as have others (I still recommend Greg Boyd's The Myth of a Christian Nation).
So, in honor of the holiday, here is a new voice reiterating why the church should not treat the Fourth of July as a holy day. That said, enjoy the day and the freedom that it symbolizes.
But I do so as an American, not as a Christian. I've written in the past on why I believe the church loses its way whenever it entangles itself in politics (a viewpoint the religious right seems determined to validate on a daily basis), as have others (I still recommend Greg Boyd's The Myth of a Christian Nation).
So, in honor of the holiday, here is a new voice reiterating why the church should not treat the Fourth of July as a holy day. That said, enjoy the day and the freedom that it symbolizes.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Blogosphere Roundup
It's been a very long time since I posted three times in the course of a week. Don't count on that pace continuing, but it does feel good to be back in the saddle (with shoulders that are feeling better than they have for the last two and a half years - whatever my physical therapist earns, it's probably less than he's worth).
There's more than enough commentary being posted already over the Supreme Court's big gay rights decisions yesterday, and I don't feel like I have much to add to that. But here are a few links related to various things that are worth not missing:
1. Christine is back in the blogosphere, at least for the moment, and she has a thoughtful take on the closure of Exodus International that I haven't read elsewhere.
2. This wonderful post from a straight ally is not to be missed. If we had more people like her in our churches, we might not have the problems highlighted in #3:
3. Since it apparently still needs saying, here is a quick recap of the religious right's legacy to American Christianity.
4. Finally, a quote shared by a friend of mine on Facebook. It's a timely reminder that our current situation is not so different from the conflicts faced by previous generations.
The more things change, the more they remain the same...
(A shorter version of this statement was quoted by Rachel Held Evans a few months back.)
There's more than enough commentary being posted already over the Supreme Court's big gay rights decisions yesterday, and I don't feel like I have much to add to that. But here are a few links related to various things that are worth not missing:
1. Christine is back in the blogosphere, at least for the moment, and she has a thoughtful take on the closure of Exodus International that I haven't read elsewhere.
2. This wonderful post from a straight ally is not to be missed. If we had more people like her in our churches, we might not have the problems highlighted in #3:
3. Since it apparently still needs saying, here is a quick recap of the religious right's legacy to American Christianity.
4. Finally, a quote shared by a friend of mine on Facebook. It's a timely reminder that our current situation is not so different from the conflicts faced by previous generations.
"The tree of abolitionism is evil and only evil - root and branch, flower and leaf, and fruit; that it springs from, and is nourished by an utter rejection of the Scriptures. When the Abolitionist tells me that slaveholding is sin, in the simplicity of my faith in the Holy Scriptures, I point him to this sacred record, and tell him, in all candor, as my text does, that his teaching blasphemes the name of God and His doctrine.”-Rev. Henry van Dyke, Princeton-trained theologian and minister, 1860
The more things change, the more they remain the same...
(A shorter version of this statement was quoted by Rachel Held Evans a few months back.)
Monday, June 24, 2013
What Comes Next
The impending closure of Exodus changes many things - but it another sense it changes nothing. It does symbolize the sea change in American opinion on the issue of gay rights. A mere decade ago, the religious right was still parading its handful of "successful" ex-gays before an anti-gay majority to prove that LGBT individuals didn't need rights because they were just repressed heterosexuals. Today, even many evangelicals who still oppose gay rights recognize that the sort of change Exodus once promoted (at least implicitly) isn't, in fact, possible for the vast majority.
At the same time, the ex-gay movement lives on through the Restored Hope Network, PFOX, NARTH and other smaller organizations. And the leaders of Exodus themselves are merely changing how they do business; they still hold strongly to a Side B viewpoint theologically, even if they have largely pulled back from the political side of the culture war.
Wendy Gritter, who moved her ministry away from the ex-gay realm several years back, offers some valuable insights on the process of building the sorts of bridges that Alan Chambers seems interested in. One of the largest questions Chambers will have to confront is whether one can truly build those bridges while still holding to a Side B stance.
The idea that gay people are "broken" may seem pretty basic from a conservative perspective (everyone is "broken" in one way or another, and all have sinned), but I have yet to hear an articulation of that belief that doesn't sound condescending and belittling to any gay person who doesn't hold Side B beliefs. So while I don't question the sincerity of Chambers' apology (both because I understand where he's coming from, and because of how he has reached out to Jeremy Hooper and others), I do think it's valid to question whether his apology is adequate to build any bridges or initiate any sort of healing process.
And in the meantime, the religious right shows no sign of repentance. The threats they've been issuing over the advance of marriage equality may well be bluster, as Fred Clark theorizes, but in any case we can still count on them to do their best to burn down any bridges that do start to go up between the two sides in this conflict.
At the same time, the ex-gay movement lives on through the Restored Hope Network, PFOX, NARTH and other smaller organizations. And the leaders of Exodus themselves are merely changing how they do business; they still hold strongly to a Side B viewpoint theologically, even if they have largely pulled back from the political side of the culture war.
Wendy Gritter, who moved her ministry away from the ex-gay realm several years back, offers some valuable insights on the process of building the sorts of bridges that Alan Chambers seems interested in. One of the largest questions Chambers will have to confront is whether one can truly build those bridges while still holding to a Side B stance.
The idea that gay people are "broken" may seem pretty basic from a conservative perspective (everyone is "broken" in one way or another, and all have sinned), but I have yet to hear an articulation of that belief that doesn't sound condescending and belittling to any gay person who doesn't hold Side B beliefs. So while I don't question the sincerity of Chambers' apology (both because I understand where he's coming from, and because of how he has reached out to Jeremy Hooper and others), I do think it's valid to question whether his apology is adequate to build any bridges or initiate any sort of healing process.
And in the meantime, the religious right shows no sign of repentance. The threats they've been issuing over the advance of marriage equality may well be bluster, as Fred Clark theorizes, but in any case we can still count on them to do their best to burn down any bridges that do start to go up between the two sides in this conflict.
Friday, April 12, 2013
Icons
Margaret Thatcher's recent passing provided a stark reminder of the highly polarized nature of our political culture. To those on the right she was (and is) a patron saint, one of the great heroes of the late twentieth century. To those on the left she was (and is) a demon, a villain who callously trampled the working class and the poor. Love or hate her, the Iron Lady evoked strong emotions in just about everyone.
Granted, the same could be said about many politicians present and past, a fact that helps underscore the peril of entangling the church as a body in the political process. In politics, anyone who votes against us is an opponent to be fought. We are continually trained to view our neighbors in simplistic terms as allies or enemies. Politicians who take the "right" stances are our heroes, whether they really deserve our respect or not. Politicians on the "wrong" side are the embodiment of evil, again regardless of what they are really like. A politicized pulpit can quickly become a forum that dehumanizes friend and foe alike by reducing them to two-dimensional caricatures.
Lost in the melee is the fact that we are all human beings who bear the image of (and are equally loved by) God, that we are all complex, gloriously messy three-dimensional persons whose lives cannot be reduced to a label. Forgotten is Jesus' instruction that the Republican is my neighbor as well as the Democrat, and the Apostle Paul's reminder that even the most righteous among us is not superior to anyone else.
That's not to say that Christians living in a democratic society can (or should) avoid politics entirely, but if ever there was a time for followers of Christ to remember the command to be "in the world but not of it," the political process provides it. Whenever we find ourselves claiming that we are "loving" our neighbors by passing laws that force them to do what we believe to be the right thing, it is perhaps time to release our death-grip on the reins of power and remind ourselves what our real mission is supposed to be.
And whenever we begin to see our political leaders as larger-than-life icons (good or bad), it couldn't hurt to pause and refocus until we can once again see them as human beings.
Granted, the same could be said about many politicians present and past, a fact that helps underscore the peril of entangling the church as a body in the political process. In politics, anyone who votes against us is an opponent to be fought. We are continually trained to view our neighbors in simplistic terms as allies or enemies. Politicians who take the "right" stances are our heroes, whether they really deserve our respect or not. Politicians on the "wrong" side are the embodiment of evil, again regardless of what they are really like. A politicized pulpit can quickly become a forum that dehumanizes friend and foe alike by reducing them to two-dimensional caricatures.
Lost in the melee is the fact that we are all human beings who bear the image of (and are equally loved by) God, that we are all complex, gloriously messy three-dimensional persons whose lives cannot be reduced to a label. Forgotten is Jesus' instruction that the Republican is my neighbor as well as the Democrat, and the Apostle Paul's reminder that even the most righteous among us is not superior to anyone else.
That's not to say that Christians living in a democratic society can (or should) avoid politics entirely, but if ever there was a time for followers of Christ to remember the command to be "in the world but not of it," the political process provides it. Whenever we find ourselves claiming that we are "loving" our neighbors by passing laws that force them to do what we believe to be the right thing, it is perhaps time to release our death-grip on the reins of power and remind ourselves what our real mission is supposed to be.
And whenever we begin to see our political leaders as larger-than-life icons (good or bad), it couldn't hurt to pause and refocus until we can once again see them as human beings.
Monday, March 18, 2013
The Turning Tide
I have to admit to a certain amount of surprise at the amount of momentum the LGBT rights moment has gained since the 2012 elections. It's a pleasant surprise, to be sure, but my more pessimistic side was expecting resistance to temporarily increase - the religious right's last big push, as it were.
That could still be coming, of course. As social conservatives find themselves increasingly outnumbered, desperation may push them to extremes before the fight is over. And the Supreme Court has yet to issue its own verdicts that could further alter the political landscape.
For now, though, the good news keeps rolling in. The latest positive signs of change:
-Rob Bell has officially come out in favor of marriage equality. This is perhaps the least surprising of the three, given how quiet he has remained on the issue for quite a few years, but it's still a telling sign of the changes taking place even within the evangelical community.
-Less expected was Senator Rob Portman's change of heart. It's not every day that a staunch social conservative - even one with a gay family member - does a 180. And whether it was a sign of courage or political expediency on his part, every ally counts.
-This year's CPAC gathering was also quite revealing. When opponents of gay rights are outnumbered by supporters at a conference full of Republicans, even the most pessimistic have to admit things are looking up...
That could still be coming, of course. As social conservatives find themselves increasingly outnumbered, desperation may push them to extremes before the fight is over. And the Supreme Court has yet to issue its own verdicts that could further alter the political landscape.
For now, though, the good news keeps rolling in. The latest positive signs of change:
-Rob Bell has officially come out in favor of marriage equality. This is perhaps the least surprising of the three, given how quiet he has remained on the issue for quite a few years, but it's still a telling sign of the changes taking place even within the evangelical community.
-Less expected was Senator Rob Portman's change of heart. It's not every day that a staunch social conservative - even one with a gay family member - does a 180. And whether it was a sign of courage or political expediency on his part, every ally counts.
-This year's CPAC gathering was also quite revealing. When opponents of gay rights are outnumbered by supporters at a conference full of Republicans, even the most pessimistic have to admit things are looking up...
Monday, November 19, 2012
Miscommunication, Part 2
One of the biggest problems currently facing the United States is that we can no longer communicate with each other. People on each side of any given issue are coming from such a different worldview that they literally cannot understand what their opponents are saying. At the same time, however, they act as though their opponents understand them perfectly and are willfully disregarding and disrespecting that knowledge.
One of the things I love about Jon Stewart is that he makes a serious effort to dialogue with those he disagrees with (i.e. most Republicans) - something that rarely happens these days, even on "serious" news programs. But even he doesn't always succeed, as the above clip demonstrates.
Granted, Stewart has a perfectly valid point when he notes that many (if not most) viewers would interpret Mike Huckabee's commercial as saying that anyone who fails to vote in line with the religious right's agenda is going to hell. Even some evangelicals haven't studied the Bible well enough to recognize the allusion to the testing of believers' works by fire mentioned in 1 Corinthians. And the fact that Huckabee would give the go-ahead to such an easily misinterpreted message exposes his own blindness to the fact that not everyone understands his perspective.
Unfortunately, Stewart gets so caught up on that point that he leaves himself with inadequate time to point out that the commercial's intended message is just as manipulative, and only slightly less threatening. Huckabee may not be threatening people who vote the "wrong" way with a one-way trip to damnation, but he is still telling them that to disobey the religious right on the issues in question is to go directly against the will of God.
It's a message that gives Huckabee's allies a reinforced sense of their own rightness, and leaves them feeling as though they have done their duty to try to correct those who disagree with them. It's also a message that fails completely to communicate to anyone who doesn't already agree with them, while widening the rift. And Stewart, though I commend him for trying, failed to bridge any of that distance. I often wonder whether such a bridge is even possible in our current political climate.
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Post-Election
It's been quite a week. Whether this proves to be *the* turning point in the battle for LGBT equal rights or merely a bright spot in a protracted conflict, a clean sweep of victories in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington is worth celebrating. Across the country there are dozens of reasons for supporters of equality to be optimistic.
Even so, it would be premature to declare that it's all smooth sailing from here. And while I obviously don't buy the religious right's line that the results of this election are going to trigger God's wrath, I also don't think it would be appropriate to invoke God's favor in the other direction. What's wrong for one side is wrong for all sides, and my greatest hope is that more Christians will wake up, like this evangelical leader has, to how thoroughly (and inevitably) the quest for political power corrupts the Gospel. As individual Americans it's entirely appropriate for all of us to be involved in the political process. As a church, that's not how we're called to be defined.
That awakening appears to be gradually happening, but only time will tell if enough people wake up before the church's moral authority has been completely depleted by its current lust for power.
Even so, it would be premature to declare that it's all smooth sailing from here. And while I obviously don't buy the religious right's line that the results of this election are going to trigger God's wrath, I also don't think it would be appropriate to invoke God's favor in the other direction. What's wrong for one side is wrong for all sides, and my greatest hope is that more Christians will wake up, like this evangelical leader has, to how thoroughly (and inevitably) the quest for political power corrupts the Gospel. As individual Americans it's entirely appropriate for all of us to be involved in the political process. As a church, that's not how we're called to be defined.
That awakening appears to be gradually happening, but only time will tell if enough people wake up before the church's moral authority has been completely depleted by its current lust for power.
Friday, September 07, 2012
Seriously
Yes, I know they're serious, and even that their rhetoric is pretty tame compared to most of what comes from WorldNet Daily, but even so I think this video would work better as a parody than as a serious message.
For my own part I'm not greatly enamored with either party, or with the vast majority of politicians in general. But if you want me to vote for Barack Obama, just keep churning out over-the-top garbage like this.
Anyway, as long as we're talking about politics, Rachel Held Evans hits it on the nose with her response to the current convention rhetoric...
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Miscellany
A few random things that have caught my attention lately...
1. First, a belated nod to this post that nicely sums up why Jon Stewart has become my favorite TV personality. If only there were more journalists ("serious" or otherwise) like him.
2. Ten Cliches Christians Should Never Use. Seriously. Some of these made me cringe even when I was a card-carrying conservative evangelical.
3. Rachel Evans reviews a book I really need to read. Learning how to read the Bible on its own terms instead of literally has only made me love it more, so I'm happy to see more Christians waking up to the folly of treating it like a modern history book and instruction manual.
4. Finally, this picture, which could also be the motto of the religious right...
1. First, a belated nod to this post that nicely sums up why Jon Stewart has become my favorite TV personality. If only there were more journalists ("serious" or otherwise) like him.
2. Ten Cliches Christians Should Never Use. Seriously. Some of these made me cringe even when I was a card-carrying conservative evangelical.
3. Rachel Evans reviews a book I really need to read. Learning how to read the Bible on its own terms instead of literally has only made me love it more, so I'm happy to see more Christians waking up to the folly of treating it like a modern history book and instruction manual.
4. Finally, this picture, which could also be the motto of the religious right...
Friday, May 18, 2012
Quotable
A few random thoughts for an election year...
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it. -Upton Sinclair
It requires neither great oratory nor astute conspiracy to inflame a group with a sense of persecution. -Evelyn Waugh
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.
-Bertram Russell
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it. -Upton Sinclair
It requires neither great oratory nor astute conspiracy to inflame a group with a sense of persecution. -Evelyn Waugh
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.
-Bertram Russell
Thursday, April 26, 2012
The Turning Tide
The day after my last post went up, the Denver Post published this article on the changing political landscape within the evangelical church. It also highlights my church, as a nice bonus.
No, you can't see me in the Highlands Church worship service picture, though I was there when the photographer took it. Which is probably just as well, given the liberties cameras seem to like to take with my face...
No, you can't see me in the Highlands Church worship service picture, though I was there when the photographer took it. Which is probably just as well, given the liberties cameras seem to like to take with my face...
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Invocation
For as long as there has been government, rulers have sought to convince their subjects that they have a Divine mandate (or its nearest equivalent) to rule. This is little different in democratic societies, though in terms of the American political scene it hasn't always been as blatant (and polarizing) as it is today.
The religious right is the most obvious exemplar of this "God is on our side" mentality, with liberals continually framed as both anti-American and anti-Christian. But the religious left doesn't always refrain from playing the same game, even if it gets less attention for doing so. "Jesus was a socialist" is a commonly-heard catchphrase, often accompanied by verses like Matthew 19:21.
Inasmuch as such statements serve to jolt those who have come to associate the Gospel with laissez-faire economics, anti-gay politics and an interventionist foreign policy, the left does have a point. Jesus' advocacy for a self-sacrificial lifestyle with an emphasis on helping the poor and disadvantaged does in fact line up with socialistic ideals.
In the world we inhabit, however, the concept of socialism cannot be divorced from its political connotations. And in that regard, Jesus was not a Socialist - he never advocated government redistribution of wealth or, for that matter, any governmental system. Unless his statements on the subject all went unrecorded, Jesus seemed remarkably unconcerned with our politics and far more interested in how we treated others on an individual and community level.
Furthermore, while most would agree there is merit in government providing a social safety net for its citizens (though what that net should consist of is open to debate), the idea that Jesus would have been an activist for such a system doesn't add up any more than the idea that he would be standing with the Family Research Council against gay rights - it doesn't fit with the witness of the biblical authors who chronicled his life and ministry.
In contrast to what we see in the examples of Christ and the early church, government-run aid programs are the most depersonalized form of charity possible. In the early (pre-Constantinian) church, members gave not only their material resources but also their time and even their lives for the benefit of their neighbors. They were directly involved in each others' lives and knew (or got to know) the people they were helping.
When the government takes money from me via taxation, on the other hand, it doesn't matter whether I give willingly, or even whether I like of how it will spend that money; I can be as apathetic and self-centered as I want to be, as long as I care enough about avoiding a prison sentence to pay my taxes. I don't ever have to think about the poor people my tax dollars might be helping, and even if I do I can discharge my civic duty without ever having to actually meet any of them.
Similarly, the government employees who administer the aid programs my taxes help fund are seldom directly involved in the lives of the people they're helping. They have a list of rules (usually quite rigid) that they have to follow when determining who gets help and how much, and those arbitrary guidelines may or may not address the actual needs of those recipients. The government workers may genuinely care about they people they're working to help, but that concern is entirely irrelevant as long as they fulfill the minimum requirements of their job descriptions and do an adequate job of following and enforcing the rules.
And the recipients' attitudes are just as irrelevant. As long as they jump through all the right bureaucratic hoops, it doesn't matter to the government whether the aid they're receiving truly improves their lives, or whether it slowly hardens their hearts and smothers their own charitable instincts.
So to say that Jesus would be camping out with the 99 percenters, demanding higher taxes on the rich and agitating for a single-payer healthcare system is to miss the point of his message. Yes, it absolutely matters whether we help the poor and disadvantaged, but first and foremost it's about each of us engaging with our neighbors, living in community with them and addressing their needs as we become aware of them. Jesus instructed the rich young man to give away all of his possessions not because wealth is an inherent evil, but because it was what stood between the young man and God. As Christians we give to the poor in part for their sakes, but also in part for ours. No law or governmental program can ever transform the human heart or make a single one of us more compassionate.
Having said that, by all means vote your conscience, seek justice and allow your faith to inform your politics, whether you lean to the left or right (or in another direction). But invoking Socialist Jesus to browbeat others into accepting a social welfare platform as the Christian political agenda is only slightly less disingenuous than James Dobson or Chuck Colson conjuring visions of Sodom and Gomorrah to frighten the faithful into voting to oppress their gay neighbors. An iron fist waving a Bible is still an iron fist, no matter which page it's pointing to.
The religious right is the most obvious exemplar of this "God is on our side" mentality, with liberals continually framed as both anti-American and anti-Christian. But the religious left doesn't always refrain from playing the same game, even if it gets less attention for doing so. "Jesus was a socialist" is a commonly-heard catchphrase, often accompanied by verses like Matthew 19:21.
Inasmuch as such statements serve to jolt those who have come to associate the Gospel with laissez-faire economics, anti-gay politics and an interventionist foreign policy, the left does have a point. Jesus' advocacy for a self-sacrificial lifestyle with an emphasis on helping the poor and disadvantaged does in fact line up with socialistic ideals.
In the world we inhabit, however, the concept of socialism cannot be divorced from its political connotations. And in that regard, Jesus was not a Socialist - he never advocated government redistribution of wealth or, for that matter, any governmental system. Unless his statements on the subject all went unrecorded, Jesus seemed remarkably unconcerned with our politics and far more interested in how we treated others on an individual and community level.
Furthermore, while most would agree there is merit in government providing a social safety net for its citizens (though what that net should consist of is open to debate), the idea that Jesus would have been an activist for such a system doesn't add up any more than the idea that he would be standing with the Family Research Council against gay rights - it doesn't fit with the witness of the biblical authors who chronicled his life and ministry.
In contrast to what we see in the examples of Christ and the early church, government-run aid programs are the most depersonalized form of charity possible. In the early (pre-Constantinian) church, members gave not only their material resources but also their time and even their lives for the benefit of their neighbors. They were directly involved in each others' lives and knew (or got to know) the people they were helping.
When the government takes money from me via taxation, on the other hand, it doesn't matter whether I give willingly, or even whether I like of how it will spend that money; I can be as apathetic and self-centered as I want to be, as long as I care enough about avoiding a prison sentence to pay my taxes. I don't ever have to think about the poor people my tax dollars might be helping, and even if I do I can discharge my civic duty without ever having to actually meet any of them.
Similarly, the government employees who administer the aid programs my taxes help fund are seldom directly involved in the lives of the people they're helping. They have a list of rules (usually quite rigid) that they have to follow when determining who gets help and how much, and those arbitrary guidelines may or may not address the actual needs of those recipients. The government workers may genuinely care about they people they're working to help, but that concern is entirely irrelevant as long as they fulfill the minimum requirements of their job descriptions and do an adequate job of following and enforcing the rules.
And the recipients' attitudes are just as irrelevant. As long as they jump through all the right bureaucratic hoops, it doesn't matter to the government whether the aid they're receiving truly improves their lives, or whether it slowly hardens their hearts and smothers their own charitable instincts.
So to say that Jesus would be camping out with the 99 percenters, demanding higher taxes on the rich and agitating for a single-payer healthcare system is to miss the point of his message. Yes, it absolutely matters whether we help the poor and disadvantaged, but first and foremost it's about each of us engaging with our neighbors, living in community with them and addressing their needs as we become aware of them. Jesus instructed the rich young man to give away all of his possessions not because wealth is an inherent evil, but because it was what stood between the young man and God. As Christians we give to the poor in part for their sakes, but also in part for ours. No law or governmental program can ever transform the human heart or make a single one of us more compassionate.
Having said that, by all means vote your conscience, seek justice and allow your faith to inform your politics, whether you lean to the left or right (or in another direction). But invoking Socialist Jesus to browbeat others into accepting a social welfare platform as the Christian political agenda is only slightly less disingenuous than James Dobson or Chuck Colson conjuring visions of Sodom and Gomorrah to frighten the faithful into voting to oppress their gay neighbors. An iron fist waving a Bible is still an iron fist, no matter which page it's pointing to.
Friday, April 06, 2012
Truth in Advertising
Sadly, this parody (which originated here) pretty much sums up the "Christian" approach advocated by groups like Exodus and Focus on the Family for engaging with LGBT individuals. While I can attest to the existence of Side B individuals who genuinely love and respect their gay friends and family members, the waters have been so badly poisoned by fundamentalist and religious right groups that genuine dialogue is difficult to initiate, much less sustain. And that's not terribly likely to change on the so-called Day of Dialogue...
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Downfall, Part 5
There's something very surreal about seeing a predominantly Christian audience boo a speaker for appealing to the Golden Rule. There's certainly a debate to be had over whether (and/or how) the rules that apply to individual relationships can be applied to foreign policy, but for a political movement that shouts so loudly about "biblical" values to respond so derisively to an appeal to what is arguably the highest biblical principle of all speaks volumes.
It's a small example of how thoroughly American evangelicalism has been tainted and debased by politics, but it also encapsulates the problem quite succinctly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)