Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Witnesses to the faith: Dearborn, MI
Christian missionaries Negeen Mayel, Nabeel Qureshi, Paul Rezkalla, and David Wood are facing charges for proselytizing at the at the Arab International Festival in Dearborn, Michigan. Dearborn is known for its large Muslim community.
Many Muslim countries have harsh laws against Christians engaging in "proselytizing". In some places such as Egypt merely trying to bring a Bible into the country is enough to land you in prison. Apparently the authorities in Dearborn have decided to immitate the spirit of these laws, if not the letter.
It should be noted that the secular media is often deeply hostile towards Christianity. Care should be taken when reading any news story involving Christians such as this one.
Friday, July 09, 2010
Witness to the faith: Ken Howell
Ken Howell, an adjunct professor at the University of Illinois who taught courses on Catholicism, was fired for stating that he believed that homosexuality is immoral. The charge that such beliefs constitute a "hate crime" is rapidly becoming the weapon of choice for the suppression of views and beliefs that happen to annoy the rich and powerful few.
The day is coming in the United States when disagreeing with state-approved religious beliefs (homosexuality, environmentalism, feminism, etc.) will be punishable by firing - or worse. More and more will suffer Ken Howell's fate.
Many American Christians have watched the persecution of Christians in Communist and Muslim countries and have breathed a prayer, "Thank God we have freedom here!" That freedom is slowly but inexorably coming to an end as the princes of this world flex their muscle and crack down on those they view as enemies.
It is safe to say that on the University of Illinois campus one could find a course or two in which tactics of the late Senator Joseph McCarthy are denounced as a dark and sinister threat to American civil liberties. Ironically, the University of Illinois has taken a page out of McCarthy's book in adopting its own blacklist and eliminating professors who will not swear an oath of fealty to the state religious belief of homosexuality.
UPDATE: (4:00 PM 7/10/10) The AP article states that Howell was recognized in 2008 and 2009 for being an outstanding teacher.
Then there is this:
Shouldn't secular universities like the University of Illinios live up to their pledges to be places of free and open inquiry, free from discrimination and hostility towards the opinions of others?
The day is coming in the United States when disagreeing with state-approved religious beliefs (homosexuality, environmentalism, feminism, etc.) will be punishable by firing - or worse. More and more will suffer Ken Howell's fate.
Many American Christians have watched the persecution of Christians in Communist and Muslim countries and have breathed a prayer, "Thank God we have freedom here!" That freedom is slowly but inexorably coming to an end as the princes of this world flex their muscle and crack down on those they view as enemies.
It is safe to say that on the University of Illinois campus one could find a course or two in which tactics of the late Senator Joseph McCarthy are denounced as a dark and sinister threat to American civil liberties. Ironically, the University of Illinois has taken a page out of McCarthy's book in adopting its own blacklist and eliminating professors who will not swear an oath of fealty to the state religious belief of homosexuality.
UPDATE: (4:00 PM 7/10/10) The AP article states that Howell was recognized in 2008 and 2009 for being an outstanding teacher.
Then there is this:
Cary Nelson, president of the American Association of University Professors, said professors should be able to tell students their own views and even argue in favor of them, provided students can disagree without being penalized.
"It's part of intellectual life to advocate for points of view," said Nelson, an emeritus English professor at the University of Illinois. "Hopefully when they go out in the world, they can emulate that. They can argue a case, and do it in a well-informed and articulate way, and can make a more productive contribution to our democracy that way."
Shouldn't secular universities like the University of Illinios live up to their pledges to be places of free and open inquiry, free from discrimination and hostility towards the opinions of others?
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
Martyr: Son Jong Nam
Son Jong Nam was tortured to death for trying to spread the Gospel in North Korea.
Please pray for Christians in North Korea.
UPDATE: (12:30 PM 7/7/10) For some reason Yahoo! has this story on its sports page. Here is the picture:
It would be wrong to suggest that Yahoo! considers the killing of Christians to be some kind of sport (although I could be wrong). But it is clear they consider it no big deal, and perhaps worthy of a bit of mocking.
Just imagine the outrage if Yahoo! had published news about the death of Matthew Shepard on Yahoo Sports......
Please pray for Christians in North Korea.
UPDATE: (12:30 PM 7/7/10) For some reason Yahoo! has this story on its sports page. Here is the picture:
It would be wrong to suggest that Yahoo! considers the killing of Christians to be some kind of sport (although I could be wrong). But it is clear they consider it no big deal, and perhaps worthy of a bit of mocking.
Just imagine the outrage if Yahoo! had published news about the death of Matthew Shepard on Yahoo Sports......
Thursday, June 03, 2010
Reading List
Over at Cyberbretheren Rev. Paul McCain is challenging people to read the Book of Concordia this summer. I am teaching two 5-week remedial math classes, as well as taking an online class for my MS in Mathematics degree, so I doubt I will finish by the end of the summer. But I will complete it at some point.
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
Prayers
Tomorrow (Thursday, June 3) is the start of the Summer I session at the community college where I teach. Please say a prayer for students, faculty, and staff.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Witnesses to the Faith: Maryam Rostampour and Marzieh Amirizadeh Esmaeilabad
Do not take your Christian freedom as something that exists just like air. It certainly did not for these women.
Divorce rings?
Again, this is not a story from The Onion.
Divorce rings, eh? It would seem that there are some who believe that there is not enough pain and suffering already in divorce. It's instructive that the writer of the article linked above writes for a wedding planning website. Talk about working both sides of the street!
I would like to say that churches would never go for this sort of rubbish. But when denominations make themselves slaves to fashion and politics anything can happen. Bishop Margot Kaessmann of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Hanover thinks that churches should have "religious separation ceremonies" for husbands and wives who want to get divorced. Now thanks to some enterprising capitalists the soon-to-be-split couple can exchange divorce rings.
Maybe they can get a trade-in on their wedding bands. And just as there is Carfax for used cars, maybe there can be Ringfax to see how much milage is on that wedding ring you are considering purchasing.
It's not surprising that at least one official in an American denomination thinks that "religious separation ceremonies" are a swell idea. Commenting on the desirability of such a service:
These are the words of the associate director of Christian Education, Children and Family Ministry of - wait for it - the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
Somehow I don't think the idea of the ELCA having its very own version of Divorce Court is going to be of much spiritual help to the couple. Such a service would be grim indeed, and appealing only to voyeuristic sickos.
I have heard nothing recently about "religious separation ceremonies" in the ELCA. Possibly such an idea went over like a lead balloon even among the hipsters. But given the recent decision of the ELCA to cast out Jesus of Nazareth and install their own personal god who is more obedient to their wishes, perhaps the idea will now gain traction. With that pesky carpenter from Nazareth out of the way the ELCA is now finally free to take a walk on the wild side.
Maybe the moratorium on "religious separation ceremonies" will turn out to be an idea ahead of its time (this is the sort of rallying cry the ELCA's leadership cares about). The ELCA has certainly begun to flirt with turning back the clock to the good old paganism of a bygone millennium. Aside from embracing Nature religions (which often masquerade as "environmental concern") there is the creepy goddess worship of "Herchurch" which seems to be a fashionable combination of the spiritual and the political. There is also the worship of sex (a true "golden oldie" of paganism) which seems to be the foundation of the mad rush to bless gay/lesbian weddings in the ELCA.
If I were still a Lutheran, I don't know how I would react. Cry my eyes out? Or sell tickets and popcorn? Maybe I would do both. But at least I wouldn't flog divorce rings to the unhappy couple.
Divorce rings, eh? It would seem that there are some who believe that there is not enough pain and suffering already in divorce. It's instructive that the writer of the article linked above writes for a wedding planning website. Talk about working both sides of the street!
I would like to say that churches would never go for this sort of rubbish. But when denominations make themselves slaves to fashion and politics anything can happen. Bishop Margot Kaessmann of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Hanover thinks that churches should have "religious separation ceremonies" for husbands and wives who want to get divorced. Now thanks to some enterprising capitalists the soon-to-be-split couple can exchange divorce rings.
Maybe they can get a trade-in on their wedding bands. And just as there is Carfax for used cars, maybe there can be Ringfax to see how much milage is on that wedding ring you are considering purchasing.
It's not surprising that at least one official in an American denomination thinks that "religious separation ceremonies" are a swell idea. Commenting on the desirability of such a service:
"This is important not only for confession but for a version of absolution too."
These are the words of the associate director of Christian Education, Children and Family Ministry of - wait for it - the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
Somehow I don't think the idea of the ELCA having its very own version of Divorce Court is going to be of much spiritual help to the couple. Such a service would be grim indeed, and appealing only to voyeuristic sickos.
I have heard nothing recently about "religious separation ceremonies" in the ELCA. Possibly such an idea went over like a lead balloon even among the hipsters. But given the recent decision of the ELCA to cast out Jesus of Nazareth and install their own personal god who is more obedient to their wishes, perhaps the idea will now gain traction. With that pesky carpenter from Nazareth out of the way the ELCA is now finally free to take a walk on the wild side.
Maybe the moratorium on "religious separation ceremonies" will turn out to be an idea ahead of its time (this is the sort of rallying cry the ELCA's leadership cares about). The ELCA has certainly begun to flirt with turning back the clock to the good old paganism of a bygone millennium. Aside from embracing Nature religions (which often masquerade as "environmental concern") there is the creepy goddess worship of "Herchurch" which seems to be a fashionable combination of the spiritual and the political. There is also the worship of sex (a true "golden oldie" of paganism) which seems to be the foundation of the mad rush to bless gay/lesbian weddings in the ELCA.
If I were still a Lutheran, I don't know how I would react. Cry my eyes out? Or sell tickets and popcorn? Maybe I would do both. But at least I wouldn't flog divorce rings to the unhappy couple.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Who are the savages now?
Originally I wanted to give this post the title "Just in the nick of time?". But after a bit of reflection, I realized this is not the time for levity.
Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is one of the cruelest ways in which women are oppressed. Briefly put: a young girl's clitoris is mutilated or sliced off completely in order to honor tradition or religious belief. Not only does this deprive the girl of sexual pleasure when she becomes a woman, but is often done without any anesthetics or antibiotics.
A modern society that prides itself on gender equality would abhor such a practice, right? In fact, US federal law prohibits anything resembling FGM. You would also think modern physicians, free from primitive superstitions and religious practices, would also oppose FGM.
Well, maybe not all of them.
The American Academy of Pediatrics has issued a policy statement that opposes FGM - sort of. Read the relevant passage:
Notice what the AAP has done here. First, the substitution of the benign-sounding term Female Genital Cutting (FGC) for FGM. Almost like body-piercing, eh? Next come the it's-all-for-the-children shtick, which is the the new refuge of the scoundrel. Finally, the suggestion that allowing "FGC" will somehow result in its decrease.
It is a passionately held belief of our modern secular culture that Christians are fundamentalist misogynist savages who want to turn the clock back a millennium or two. But it was not the hated Christians who came up with the barbaric proposal to make the degradation of women an accepted medical practice.
In the "primitive" parts of the world unwanted infants are sometimes left in the wilderness to either die of expose or be eaten by wild animals. In the modern Western world we slice them up in the womb and call it abortion. Criminals sentenced to execution get painkillers to prevent their suffering. What steps are taken to prevent pain to the unborn fetus as it is ripped limb from limb?
Likewise, we have joined hands with "primitives" who want the aged and sick to die. Only we call it euthanasia, and in certain parts of the Western world you can make a living snuffing the unwanted. In America we watched a ghoul named Jack Kevorkian become a folk hero, and we can be thankful that Dr. Joseph Mengele never made it to the 21st century (otherwise Hollywood might be making hagiographic movies about him).
It is hard to look at the actions of the American Academy of Pediatrics and not come to the conclusion that something has gone terribly amiss in that organization. Does the AAP really believe that "FGC" will stop at just a little nick? It certainly didn't with abortion, which we were assured would decrease after legalization. One wonders when the AAP will address the issue of foot-binding, sati (wife burning), and child brides, and decide that multiculturalism trumps human rights in those cases as well.
Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is one of the cruelest ways in which women are oppressed. Briefly put: a young girl's clitoris is mutilated or sliced off completely in order to honor tradition or religious belief. Not only does this deprive the girl of sexual pleasure when she becomes a woman, but is often done without any anesthetics or antibiotics.
A modern society that prides itself on gender equality would abhor such a practice, right? In fact, US federal law prohibits anything resembling FGM. You would also think modern physicians, free from primitive superstitions and religious practices, would also oppose FGM.
Well, maybe not all of them.
The American Academy of Pediatrics has issued a policy statement that opposes FGM - sort of. Read the relevant passage:
Most forms of FGC are decidedly harmful, and pediatricians should decline to perform them, even in the absence of any legal constraints. However, the ritual nick suggested by some pediatricians is not physically harmful and is much less extensive than routine newborn male genital cutting. There is reason to believe that offering such a compromise may build trust between hospitals and immigrant communities, save some girls from undergoing disfiguring and life-threatening procedures in their native countries, and play a role in the eventual eradication of FGC. It might be more effective if federal and state laws enabled pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ritual nick as a possible compromise to avoid greater harm.
Notice what the AAP has done here. First, the substitution of the benign-sounding term Female Genital Cutting (FGC) for FGM. Almost like body-piercing, eh? Next come the it's-all-for-the-children shtick, which is the the new refuge of the scoundrel. Finally, the suggestion that allowing "FGC" will somehow result in its decrease.
It is a passionately held belief of our modern secular culture that Christians are fundamentalist misogynist savages who want to turn the clock back a millennium or two. But it was not the hated Christians who came up with the barbaric proposal to make the degradation of women an accepted medical practice.
In the "primitive" parts of the world unwanted infants are sometimes left in the wilderness to either die of expose or be eaten by wild animals. In the modern Western world we slice them up in the womb and call it abortion. Criminals sentenced to execution get painkillers to prevent their suffering. What steps are taken to prevent pain to the unborn fetus as it is ripped limb from limb?
Likewise, we have joined hands with "primitives" who want the aged and sick to die. Only we call it euthanasia, and in certain parts of the Western world you can make a living snuffing the unwanted. In America we watched a ghoul named Jack Kevorkian become a folk hero, and we can be thankful that Dr. Joseph Mengele never made it to the 21st century (otherwise Hollywood might be making hagiographic movies about him).
It is hard to look at the actions of the American Academy of Pediatrics and not come to the conclusion that something has gone terribly amiss in that organization. Does the AAP really believe that "FGC" will stop at just a little nick? It certainly didn't with abortion, which we were assured would decrease after legalization. One wonders when the AAP will address the issue of foot-binding, sati (wife burning), and child brides, and decide that multiculturalism trumps human rights in those cases as well.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Friday, May 14, 2010
Witness to the Faith: Tiffany
Those who doubt the healing power of God's love should read this.
God is not a remote god judging right and wrong and dispensing punishment like a judge in a court of law. He is a God who stoops to conquer (as C.S. Lewis wrote), and in love will chase you to the very ends of the Earth.
God is not a remote god judging right and wrong and dispensing punishment like a judge in a court of law. He is a God who stoops to conquer (as C.S. Lewis wrote), and in love will chase you to the very ends of the Earth.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Sunday, May 09, 2010
Interview with Sabatina James
Sabatina James is an ex-Muslim who converted to Christianity. She has received numerous death threats and lives in a secret location in Europe under police protection.
Saturday, May 08, 2010
ELCA South Dakota Synod
ELCA South Dakota Synod warns 4 SD congregations and pastor that their dual membership with the LCMC is in violation of the ELCA constitution.
I have to be honest: I have some sympathy for the ELCA's position here. I don't know what the ELCA's constitution actually says, but the defense that "the ELCA has never enforced this before" does not strike me as very strong. The ELCA appears to be well within their rights to take this action.
There is also some quibbling over whether this action by the ELCA constitutes "censure" of Rev. Frezil Westerlund and the four congregations in question. Again, I have to be honest: it does not seem that way. Censure would involve some penalty or threat of penalty, and that does not quite seem to be the case here. I would be interested in seeing the actual ELCA statement to know for sure.
Regardless, this move by ELCA South Dakota Bishop David Zellmer was perhaps not the wisest that could have been made, since it conflicts with the ELCA's publicly expressed desire to honor the consciences of those who oppose the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly.
I believe that the ELCA has a decision to make. The ELCA has jettisoned the God of Abraham in favor of a new and shiny god of political activism. But this new god is a jealous god, and will not countenance heretics like Pastor Westerlund and the South Dakota congregations. The ELCA must choose between "dialog" or obedience to its new god. It cannot have both. This is the price of the 2009 General Assembly's actions, although the ELCA leadership may not wish to admit it.
My wife and I felt called to leave the ELCA. However, God may have issued a different call for Pastor Westerlund and the four congregations she serves. They need our prayers.
I have to be honest: I have some sympathy for the ELCA's position here. I don't know what the ELCA's constitution actually says, but the defense that "the ELCA has never enforced this before" does not strike me as very strong. The ELCA appears to be well within their rights to take this action.
There is also some quibbling over whether this action by the ELCA constitutes "censure" of Rev. Frezil Westerlund and the four congregations in question. Again, I have to be honest: it does not seem that way. Censure would involve some penalty or threat of penalty, and that does not quite seem to be the case here. I would be interested in seeing the actual ELCA statement to know for sure.
Regardless, this move by ELCA South Dakota Bishop David Zellmer was perhaps not the wisest that could have been made, since it conflicts with the ELCA's publicly expressed desire to honor the consciences of those who oppose the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly.
I believe that the ELCA has a decision to make. The ELCA has jettisoned the God of Abraham in favor of a new and shiny god of political activism. But this new god is a jealous god, and will not countenance heretics like Pastor Westerlund and the South Dakota congregations. The ELCA must choose between "dialog" or obedience to its new god. It cannot have both. This is the price of the 2009 General Assembly's actions, although the ELCA leadership may not wish to admit it.
My wife and I felt called to leave the ELCA. However, God may have issued a different call for Pastor Westerlund and the four congregations she serves. They need our prayers.
Thursday, May 06, 2010
Comedy Central Update
Comedy Central has decided to create an animated show dedicated to nothing but mocking Jesus. No, this is not a story from The Onion.
Some things are beyond parody.
Some things are beyond parody.
Saturday, May 01, 2010
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Tanzania rejects ELCA's decision concerning homosexuality
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in Tanzania (ELCT) has reiterated her opposition to same-sex marriage and stated that those who are in such unions are not welcome to work in the ELCT because such practice is incompatible with Biblical teaching.
Key quote:
This will be interesting if the ELCA tries to knowingly send homosexual couples to Tanzania as missionaries.
Do not underestimate the resolve of Tanzanian Christians on this issue. As economically poor as the ELCT is, they will not sell out. I know these Christians well, and they will stand strong.
In a way, this could be a blessing in disguise. Many Tanzanian Christians have been concerned about the growing Western influence on Tanzanian culture - especially sexual and family customs. Independence from American denominations may help Tanzanian churches avoid the spiritual poison that is destroying the ELCA.
Key quote:
The ELCT Executive Council meeting, held in Moshi on April 27 to 28 this year, received and approved "The Dodoma Statement" prepared in January this year by the ELCT Bishops' Council. The bishops met in Dodoma to discuss in details steps to take after the decision of some European and American churches to recognize same-sex marriages.
The Statement says: "Those in same sex marriages, and those who support the legitimacy of such marriage, shall not be invited to work in the ELCT. We further reject their influence in any form, as well as their money and their support."
This will be interesting if the ELCA tries to knowingly send homosexual couples to Tanzania as missionaries.
Do not underestimate the resolve of Tanzanian Christians on this issue. As economically poor as the ELCT is, they will not sell out. I know these Christians well, and they will stand strong.
In a way, this could be a blessing in disguise. Many Tanzanian Christians have been concerned about the growing Western influence on Tanzanian culture - especially sexual and family customs. Independence from American denominations may help Tanzanian churches avoid the spiritual poison that is destroying the ELCA.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Raising Arizona
The debate over the recent Arizona law (SB 1070) that makes it a crime to be in the state illegally has generated a great deal of heat - but not much light. Many of the news stories have been negative (if not openly hostile), but in view of the fact that most of the American media tilts rather openly to the political Left their reporting needs to be treated with some skepticism.
I do not know what is in SB 1070, so I will refrain from either endorsing or opposing the new law. But it is very hard to take seriously the accusations that the bill is an act of racism, and that proponents are xenophobic reactionaries. Much political debate seems never to rise above this kind of hysterical fear mongering, and I have learned to be cautious.
Unfortunately, the dust up in Arizona has attracted the attention of the ELCA. Their denomination may be disintegrating as congregations and members head for the exit, giving is down with no relief in sight, the rest of the Lutheran world is appalled at the rejection of the Gospel, but it seems that the ELCA is not willing to pass on the oportunity to do what it loves best - immerse itself in secular politics.
The ELCA has set up a Facebook page dedicated to immigration and refugee issues. Some of the links on Facebook caught my eye, since they lead to websites like DailyKos and the Huffington Post. Are these really the voices the ELCA wishes to echo? Abandoning the Gospel for political activism is nothing new, and I don't expect the ELCA to provide a forum for points of view they disagree with (name me one political party or lobbying group that gives equal time to its opponents), but it's hard to maintain the illusion you are still a religious organization dedicated to peace, love and tolerance when you ally yourself with voices that do little beyond shrieking how much they hate those they disagree with.
The issue of immigration is of more than passing interest to me. My wife and I have lived through it.
In 1999 I went to Tanzania as an ELCA missionary. The individuals at the Division for Global Mission (DGM) were wonderful. No matter what happened - delays in getting work permits, lost paperwork - they always stood with me, and I never felt abandoned. It was in Tanzania where I met and married my wife, and I owe DGM a deep debt of gratitude. But by the time we left in early 2005 things had changed drastically at DGM - and not for the better.
During my tenure as an ELCA missionary, DGM seemed to undergo a radical change. Many whom I had known either retired or left, and were replaced by others who seemed to have a different concept of mission. Worse still, communication between ELCA missionaries like myself and DGM became less and less frequent, as the new leadership seemed to turn to other matters they found more worthy of their attention.
My wife and I were married in September of 2003, and immediately we began the process of applying for her visa. Working with USCIS is like existing in a kind of purgatory. You are never sure where you are in the process, and always you are made to feels as though you are some guilty of ... something.
Feeling in over our heads, I contacted DGM asking for help. We were ignored - no response whatsoever. We tried again - same (non)response. It was as though we had ceased to exist in the eyes of DGM.
So bad did the situation get that when my wife was hospitalized I never bothered to contact DGM. Why bother? Why would this time be any different? Why would they care now when they didn't before?
My wife's case was so tangled that it took the efforts of two different Members of Congress - one Democrat and one Republican - to finally get her visa and her I-551 ("green card"). There was nothing unusual about her situation (she is not a criminal or otherwise attracted the notice of US authorities), but as a citizen of Tanzania she was considered a major risk. I found out later that what happened to us was not out of the ordinary. Apparently US Embassy staff are so terrified of letting in a potential terrorist through the regular immigration process they will try to throw up one roadblock after another in an effort to discourage applicants.
The ELCA's Lutheran Immigration and Relief Service's website has the following:
One expat told me, "The reason that the ELCA won't help you is that your wife is an immigrant from Africa trying to enter the USA legally. If she came from Central America and was an illegal alien things would be different." At the time that struck me as too cynical. But given the overheated rhetoric on the LIRS Facebook page concerning both the opponents of immigration "reform" and SB 1070 I have come to the conclusion they were probably right.
At any rate, it is hard for me to take seriously the ELCA's claim of compassion with respect to immigrants. I don't believe that the ELCA meant my wife any harm: it's just that we did not fit the preferred political narrative. And it's politics (not the Gospel) that has become the ELCA's true passion.
I do not know what is in SB 1070, so I will refrain from either endorsing or opposing the new law. But it is very hard to take seriously the accusations that the bill is an act of racism, and that proponents are xenophobic reactionaries. Much political debate seems never to rise above this kind of hysterical fear mongering, and I have learned to be cautious.
Unfortunately, the dust up in Arizona has attracted the attention of the ELCA. Their denomination may be disintegrating as congregations and members head for the exit, giving is down with no relief in sight, the rest of the Lutheran world is appalled at the rejection of the Gospel, but it seems that the ELCA is not willing to pass on the oportunity to do what it loves best - immerse itself in secular politics.
The ELCA has set up a Facebook page dedicated to immigration and refugee issues. Some of the links on Facebook caught my eye, since they lead to websites like DailyKos and the Huffington Post. Are these really the voices the ELCA wishes to echo? Abandoning the Gospel for political activism is nothing new, and I don't expect the ELCA to provide a forum for points of view they disagree with (name me one political party or lobbying group that gives equal time to its opponents), but it's hard to maintain the illusion you are still a religious organization dedicated to peace, love and tolerance when you ally yourself with voices that do little beyond shrieking how much they hate those they disagree with.
The issue of immigration is of more than passing interest to me. My wife and I have lived through it.
In 1999 I went to Tanzania as an ELCA missionary. The individuals at the Division for Global Mission (DGM) were wonderful. No matter what happened - delays in getting work permits, lost paperwork - they always stood with me, and I never felt abandoned. It was in Tanzania where I met and married my wife, and I owe DGM a deep debt of gratitude. But by the time we left in early 2005 things had changed drastically at DGM - and not for the better.
During my tenure as an ELCA missionary, DGM seemed to undergo a radical change. Many whom I had known either retired or left, and were replaced by others who seemed to have a different concept of mission. Worse still, communication between ELCA missionaries like myself and DGM became less and less frequent, as the new leadership seemed to turn to other matters they found more worthy of their attention.
My wife and I were married in September of 2003, and immediately we began the process of applying for her visa. Working with USCIS is like existing in a kind of purgatory. You are never sure where you are in the process, and always you are made to feels as though you are some guilty of ... something.
Feeling in over our heads, I contacted DGM asking for help. We were ignored - no response whatsoever. We tried again - same (non)response. It was as though we had ceased to exist in the eyes of DGM.
So bad did the situation get that when my wife was hospitalized I never bothered to contact DGM. Why bother? Why would this time be any different? Why would they care now when they didn't before?
My wife's case was so tangled that it took the efforts of two different Members of Congress - one Democrat and one Republican - to finally get her visa and her I-551 ("green card"). There was nothing unusual about her situation (she is not a criminal or otherwise attracted the notice of US authorities), but as a citizen of Tanzania she was considered a major risk. I found out later that what happened to us was not out of the ordinary. Apparently US Embassy staff are so terrified of letting in a potential terrorist through the regular immigration process they will try to throw up one roadblock after another in an effort to discourage applicants.
The ELCA's Lutheran Immigration and Relief Service's website has the following:
Since 1939 Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service has worked to create welcoming communities for newcomers—immigrants and refugees who have been forced to leave their homes and begin anew.
One expat told me, "The reason that the ELCA won't help you is that your wife is an immigrant from Africa trying to enter the USA legally. If she came from Central America and was an illegal alien things would be different." At the time that struck me as too cynical. But given the overheated rhetoric on the LIRS Facebook page concerning both the opponents of immigration "reform" and SB 1070 I have come to the conclusion they were probably right.
At any rate, it is hard for me to take seriously the ELCA's claim of compassion with respect to immigrants. I don't believe that the ELCA meant my wife any harm: it's just that we did not fit the preferred political narrative. And it's politics (not the Gospel) that has become the ELCA's true passion.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Phillips Craig & Dean: I Want To Be Just Like You
For my son, James. Your father on Earth and your Father in Heaven both love you.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Laugh 'till you get beheaded
I am not a fan of either Comedy Central or South Park. Too much of their programming is enjoyable only to those who thinks that dirty words scrawled on the walls of public toilet stalls represents the highest form of comedy. For the rest of us - meaning most of us - we prefer our laughs to come another way.
You may have heard the story by now. South Park, which is supposed to be an "edgy" show, was recently censored by Comedy Central. I did not see the episode in question, but South Park is supposed to have showed the Prophet Muhammad in a bear costume (I don't think I want to know why). What caused the uproar was a death threat made against the show's creators by a radical Islamist website, and Comedy Central's decision to block out the offending part.
Many writers and commentators have pointed out that in the past Comedy Central has gone out of its way to attack Christians and Christianity (Jesus seems to be a favorite target). Some will dispute this, but frankly the facts are not on their side. Other's have suggested (tongue in cheek, I hope!) that if Christians lopped off the heads of a few heathens and heretics, they would get similar respectful treatment from Comedy Central and others in the entertainment industry.
I have to dispute the second assertion. Leave aside the fact thak killing the enemies of Christ is not an option: far from gaining respectful treatment, any remote hint of violence by Christians against Comedy Central and South Park would bring instant nuclear retaliation. Lawsuits, protest marches, attack journalism, violence directed against Christians, legal crackdowns - you name it.
I believe that the real reason the entertainment industry and the media will attack Christianity at the drop of a hat but avoid anything even remotely critical of Islam and other religions is simple - they just don't like Christianity. They view Islam and other religions as competitors to Christianity, and are willing to cut non-Christian religions a tremendous amount of slack.
I am not suggesting that many in the entertainment industry and the media are Muslims, or even sympathetic to Islam. But it is clear that their humanistic view is directly at odds with Christianity. Christianity holds that humanity is fallen, and is in need of a Savior. Many secularists do not believe in any Savior at all (expect perhaps Barack Obama). "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" seems to be the operating idea here, not a deep attachment to any non-Christian religion.
I think that Christians often underestimate the hatred than many in popular culture have for Christianity. Often I hear Christians call for "engagement" with popular culture (whatever that means). While I am not suggesting that Christians head for the hills and squat in heavily-fortified compounds, it is clear that "engagement" has brought forth no fruit whatsoever. The danger is that Christians will become corrupted by popular culture rather than have any moderating influence. It is best to keep more than a little distance.
Some have suggested that fear also played a role in Comedy Central's decision to avoid controversy. There may be some truth to that charge. Hollywood and the media have for a long time loved to portray Christians as theocratic terrorists, and that shows like South Park represent a heroic stand against the reactionary forces of darkness. This creates the illusion of courage under fire while not actually facing any danger. Some Muslims, on the other hand, have shown the ability to enforce their murderous threats - Van Gogh's death being just one example - and this presents a problem. It's one thing to bravely face down an imaginary legion of angry, bloodthirsty Christianists on the rampage. It's quite another to face a real threat that does not quite fit into a preferred political paradigm.
Still ... I doubt that Comedy Central's primary motivation was fear. Even without the threat of Islamist extremism. I think that the pressures of multiculturalism (and the belief that Islam is a useful weapon against Christianity) was behind the self-censorship.
You may have heard the story by now. South Park, which is supposed to be an "edgy" show, was recently censored by Comedy Central. I did not see the episode in question, but South Park is supposed to have showed the Prophet Muhammad in a bear costume (I don't think I want to know why). What caused the uproar was a death threat made against the show's creators by a radical Islamist website, and Comedy Central's decision to block out the offending part.
Many writers and commentators have pointed out that in the past Comedy Central has gone out of its way to attack Christians and Christianity (Jesus seems to be a favorite target). Some will dispute this, but frankly the facts are not on their side. Other's have suggested (tongue in cheek, I hope!) that if Christians lopped off the heads of a few heathens and heretics, they would get similar respectful treatment from Comedy Central and others in the entertainment industry.
I have to dispute the second assertion. Leave aside the fact thak killing the enemies of Christ is not an option: far from gaining respectful treatment, any remote hint of violence by Christians against Comedy Central and South Park would bring instant nuclear retaliation. Lawsuits, protest marches, attack journalism, violence directed against Christians, legal crackdowns - you name it.
I believe that the real reason the entertainment industry and the media will attack Christianity at the drop of a hat but avoid anything even remotely critical of Islam and other religions is simple - they just don't like Christianity. They view Islam and other religions as competitors to Christianity, and are willing to cut non-Christian religions a tremendous amount of slack.
I am not suggesting that many in the entertainment industry and the media are Muslims, or even sympathetic to Islam. But it is clear that their humanistic view is directly at odds with Christianity. Christianity holds that humanity is fallen, and is in need of a Savior. Many secularists do not believe in any Savior at all (expect perhaps Barack Obama). "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" seems to be the operating idea here, not a deep attachment to any non-Christian religion.
I think that Christians often underestimate the hatred than many in popular culture have for Christianity. Often I hear Christians call for "engagement" with popular culture (whatever that means). While I am not suggesting that Christians head for the hills and squat in heavily-fortified compounds, it is clear that "engagement" has brought forth no fruit whatsoever. The danger is that Christians will become corrupted by popular culture rather than have any moderating influence. It is best to keep more than a little distance.
Some have suggested that fear also played a role in Comedy Central's decision to avoid controversy. There may be some truth to that charge. Hollywood and the media have for a long time loved to portray Christians as theocratic terrorists, and that shows like South Park represent a heroic stand against the reactionary forces of darkness. This creates the illusion of courage under fire while not actually facing any danger. Some Muslims, on the other hand, have shown the ability to enforce their murderous threats - Van Gogh's death being just one example - and this presents a problem. It's one thing to bravely face down an imaginary legion of angry, bloodthirsty Christianists on the rampage. It's quite another to face a real threat that does not quite fit into a preferred political paradigm.
Still ... I doubt that Comedy Central's primary motivation was fear. Even without the threat of Islamist extremism. I think that the pressures of multiculturalism (and the belief that Islam is a useful weapon against Christianity) was behind the self-censorship.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Coexist?
Living in a college town, I often see a variety of bumper stickers on the backs of cars. Today two of them caught my attention.
A particular car had several bumper stickers on the back. Some referred to causes and individuals I had never heard of. However, two caught my eye because of their popularity among both Christians and non-Christians. The first simply said, "Coexist", and was spelled used religious symbols. The other was a famous quotation from Mohandas Gandhi: "I like their Christ. I do not like their Christians. They are so unlike Christ."
Let me begin with an admission: Gandhi was correct. Many who call themselves Christians do not act at all like their Lord. From the Inquisition to the recent sex abuse scandal by some Catholic priests; from the military support some Christians gave for Marxist terrorists in Central America to the defense of apartheid in South Africa and the support of Jim Crow laws, the record of Christians being guided by the love of Christ is problematic. Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, Adolph Hitler, Hugo Chavez and Joseph Stalin are just a few of the monsters that have enjoyed unqualified worship and adulation from some Christians. Churches have raised uncertain banners in fighting against slavery, abortion, pornography, divorce, and other societal ills.
But despite what Gandhi may have liked to believe, not all Christians engaged in the ill behavior he deplored. Many Christians are in fact very much like their Christ.
I wonder if the owner of the car with the two bumper stickers recognized the incompatibility of the two sentiments being expressed. How can you call for coexistence between religions and also make a demonstrably false charge against one of them? Would the car owner be scandalized if (for example) they saw a bumper sticker saying, "I like their Mohamed. I do not like their Muslims. They are so unlike Mohamed."?
Christians should be aware of the ideas and beliefs behind the two bumper stickers, and be prepared to answer them. Christians will be told that in order to "coexist" with other beliefs they must give up many of their own. They must not publicly challenge the homosexual lifestyle, the disintegration of public education, the pornographic industry, the rise of radical Islam, the sexualization of society, the coarseness of popular culture, and many others. With supreme illogic Christians will be told they must accept other beliefs without question while not defending the Christian faith against challenges. In short, Christians are being told to be quiet.
Do you intend to be quiet?
A particular car had several bumper stickers on the back. Some referred to causes and individuals I had never heard of. However, two caught my eye because of their popularity among both Christians and non-Christians. The first simply said, "Coexist", and was spelled used religious symbols. The other was a famous quotation from Mohandas Gandhi: "I like their Christ. I do not like their Christians. They are so unlike Christ."
Let me begin with an admission: Gandhi was correct. Many who call themselves Christians do not act at all like their Lord. From the Inquisition to the recent sex abuse scandal by some Catholic priests; from the military support some Christians gave for Marxist terrorists in Central America to the defense of apartheid in South Africa and the support of Jim Crow laws, the record of Christians being guided by the love of Christ is problematic. Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, Adolph Hitler, Hugo Chavez and Joseph Stalin are just a few of the monsters that have enjoyed unqualified worship and adulation from some Christians. Churches have raised uncertain banners in fighting against slavery, abortion, pornography, divorce, and other societal ills.
But despite what Gandhi may have liked to believe, not all Christians engaged in the ill behavior he deplored. Many Christians are in fact very much like their Christ.
I wonder if the owner of the car with the two bumper stickers recognized the incompatibility of the two sentiments being expressed. How can you call for coexistence between religions and also make a demonstrably false charge against one of them? Would the car owner be scandalized if (for example) they saw a bumper sticker saying, "I like their Mohamed. I do not like their Muslims. They are so unlike Mohamed."?
Christians should be aware of the ideas and beliefs behind the two bumper stickers, and be prepared to answer them. Christians will be told that in order to "coexist" with other beliefs they must give up many of their own. They must not publicly challenge the homosexual lifestyle, the disintegration of public education, the pornographic industry, the rise of radical Islam, the sexualization of society, the coarseness of popular culture, and many others. With supreme illogic Christians will be told they must accept other beliefs without question while not defending the Christian faith against challenges. In short, Christians are being told to be quiet.
Do you intend to be quiet?
Sunday, April 04, 2010
Easter 2010
Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome brought spices, that they might anoint Him. Very early in the morning, on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. And they said among themselves, "Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us?" But when they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away - for it was very large. And entering the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a long white robe sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed. But he said to them, "Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He is risen! Here is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go and tell his Disciples - and Peter - that he is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, as He said to you." And they went out quickly and fled from the tomb, for they trembled and were amazed. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.
In Biblical times the weight that the testimony of women was given was half that of a man. If Christianity were an invented religion, then it would be a source of embarrassment to the early Church that women were the first witnesses. Why not Peter? Why not have Jesus appear to all of his enemies and strike them dead, like something out of a Hollywood movie?
Within a few weeks the disciples - the same ones who could not run away from Jesus fast enough - were proclaiming the fact of His Resurrection. One by one they died for their faith. Some, like Stephen, were stoned to death. Peter was crucified upside down! Only John apparently avoided execution, and he spent time on the island of Patmos in exile.
Only one thing could have brought about this change: the fact that Jesus was raised from the dead and they saw Him alive.
Friday, April 02, 2010
Good Friday 2010
Perhaps those who consider Christianity a made-up religion have not fully read the story of Good Friday.
Consider just the basic facts of the story. Even after traveling with Him and hearing His teachings firsthand, Jesus disciples still did not seem to comprehend the chain of events that must happen. The Last Supper seemed to be a source of confusion to them, and the disciples who accompanied Jesus to the Garden of Gethsemane preferred to take a snooze rather that stay awake with their Lord. One of the disciples betrayed Jesus (for cash, no less), another publiclly denied Him, and none stood trial with Him. After His death, His body was buried in a tomb borrowed from a member of the Sanhedrin - the very people who were loudest in the demands to kill Him.
None of the disciples looks like anything more than a poltroon or a traitor. A very odd, uninspiring story if your goal is to fool people into believing a false religion so you can exploit them.
But if you understand the human condition, that humans are more likely than not to run away from danger and to look out for Number 1, then the actions of the disciples makes sense. Uncomfortable sense, but sense.
Within a few weeks of the events of Good Friday, these same disciples (except Judas, of course) were fearlessly proclaiming the Gospel. They were heckled, beaten, thrown into prison, and even executed. What changed?
To be continued....
Consider just the basic facts of the story. Even after traveling with Him and hearing His teachings firsthand, Jesus disciples still did not seem to comprehend the chain of events that must happen. The Last Supper seemed to be a source of confusion to them, and the disciples who accompanied Jesus to the Garden of Gethsemane preferred to take a snooze rather that stay awake with their Lord. One of the disciples betrayed Jesus (for cash, no less), another publiclly denied Him, and none stood trial with Him. After His death, His body was buried in a tomb borrowed from a member of the Sanhedrin - the very people who were loudest in the demands to kill Him.
None of the disciples looks like anything more than a poltroon or a traitor. A very odd, uninspiring story if your goal is to fool people into believing a false religion so you can exploit them.
But if you understand the human condition, that humans are more likely than not to run away from danger and to look out for Number 1, then the actions of the disciples makes sense. Uncomfortable sense, but sense.
Within a few weeks of the events of Good Friday, these same disciples (except Judas, of course) were fearlessly proclaiming the Gospel. They were heckled, beaten, thrown into prison, and even executed. What changed?
To be continued....
Monday, March 29, 2010
Timeline
An interesting summary of the events that have led to the ELCA's current meltdown.
One of the most frustrating parts of the entire debacle was the insistence by the ELCA's leadership that the Word of God be put up for a vote. This happened in 2004, and much to the leadership's surprise 57% of the ELCA membership voted to uphold Biblical authority. Only 22% were in favor of overturning the Bible.
In 2009 the ELCA's leadership did it again. Only this time they simply rammed it through a series of steps where the deck was stacked in their favor. Unlike 2004, the membership of the ELCA had no voice - the leadership perhaps fearing yet another defeat.
There is something unseemly about the ELCA's leadership calling for discussion and participation from everyone, and then shutting down those lines of communication and engaging in back-room political log-rolling to get what they want.
The irony of this deal is that the ELCA membership will soon dwindle to the point they can get the remaining membership to go along with whatever political scheme they propose without a lot of fuss. The Bride of Christ will have been torn apart in the process, but that is not as important as "speaking truth to power".
One of the most frustrating parts of the entire debacle was the insistence by the ELCA's leadership that the Word of God be put up for a vote. This happened in 2004, and much to the leadership's surprise 57% of the ELCA membership voted to uphold Biblical authority. Only 22% were in favor of overturning the Bible.
In 2009 the ELCA's leadership did it again. Only this time they simply rammed it through a series of steps where the deck was stacked in their favor. Unlike 2004, the membership of the ELCA had no voice - the leadership perhaps fearing yet another defeat.
There is something unseemly about the ELCA's leadership calling for discussion and participation from everyone, and then shutting down those lines of communication and engaging in back-room political log-rolling to get what they want.
The irony of this deal is that the ELCA membership will soon dwindle to the point they can get the remaining membership to go along with whatever political scheme they propose without a lot of fuss. The Bride of Christ will have been torn apart in the process, but that is not as important as "speaking truth to power".
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Palm Sunday 2010
Today marks the start of Holy Week - the ultimate expression of love.
"He who does not love does not know God, for God is love," writes the Apostle John in 1 John 4:8 (NKJV). The promise that was made on Christmas comes true this week.
Although God is love, God is also holy and just. For that reason God cannot tolerate sin and still be holy and just. But humanity - every person throughout history - is sinful. Therefore, humanity cannot be reconciled to a loving God by their own efforts. A hopeless situation, if ever there was one.
The solution? In the name of love, God will voluntarily lay aside His power and become a Man. He will experience hunger, fatigue, rejection, betrayal, pain, and eventually death. By doing so He will take the punishment that we deserve and suffer in our places.
The weight of my own sin is unbearable if I dwell upon it too much. To add the weight of the sin of someone else to my own is something I cannot even comprehend, let alone bear. And to take the weight of the sins of every single person who has lived or will ever live - I cannot even begin to fathom the depth of the powerful love that motivated this.
By taking the punishment for our sins upon Himself, God remains both a loving God as well as a holy and just God. God did not try to evade the punishment, or give Himself special consideration. He took it all - my sin, your sin, the sin of everyone you know and everyone you don't know - and set us free.
On Good Friday we will remember that day of love. God did not ignore our sins in the name of Tolerance on that day so long ago. He did not vote them out of existence in the name of Majority Rule. He did not redefine sins in the light of Modern Scientific Understanding. He did not compromise to hear the applause of men and women or win the favor of governments. He took His Cross, was punished, and died.
To be continued.....
"He who does not love does not know God, for God is love," writes the Apostle John in 1 John 4:8 (NKJV). The promise that was made on Christmas comes true this week.
Although God is love, God is also holy and just. For that reason God cannot tolerate sin and still be holy and just. But humanity - every person throughout history - is sinful. Therefore, humanity cannot be reconciled to a loving God by their own efforts. A hopeless situation, if ever there was one.
The solution? In the name of love, God will voluntarily lay aside His power and become a Man. He will experience hunger, fatigue, rejection, betrayal, pain, and eventually death. By doing so He will take the punishment that we deserve and suffer in our places.
The weight of my own sin is unbearable if I dwell upon it too much. To add the weight of the sin of someone else to my own is something I cannot even comprehend, let alone bear. And to take the weight of the sins of every single person who has lived or will ever live - I cannot even begin to fathom the depth of the powerful love that motivated this.
By taking the punishment for our sins upon Himself, God remains both a loving God as well as a holy and just God. God did not try to evade the punishment, or give Himself special consideration. He took it all - my sin, your sin, the sin of everyone you know and everyone you don't know - and set us free.
On Good Friday we will remember that day of love. God did not ignore our sins in the name of Tolerance on that day so long ago. He did not vote them out of existence in the name of Majority Rule. He did not redefine sins in the light of Modern Scientific Understanding. He did not compromise to hear the applause of men and women or win the favor of governments. He took His Cross, was punished, and died.
To be continued.....
Witnesses to the Faith: Kabal24
Kabul24: The Story of a Taliban Kidnapping and Unwavering Faith in the Face of True Terror.
Christians never know if they will be called upon to defend the faith in the way these did.
Christians never know if they will be called upon to defend the faith in the way these did.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Martyrs: Nigeria
A second wave of attacks in Nigeria has claimed another thirteen lives.
The (relative) tolerance for Christianity in the United States is certainly not a worldwide phenomenon, and even that appears to be coming to an end. But we are not yet at the stage Nigeria seems to be entering.
The (relative) tolerance for Christianity in the United States is certainly not a worldwide phenomenon, and even that appears to be coming to an end. But we are not yet at the stage Nigeria seems to be entering.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Marytrs: World Vision in Pakistan
Six Christian workers for World Vision in Pakistan have been murdered. Eight others were hospitalized.
Please pray for all aid workers in Pakistan and in other dangerous places.
Please pray for all aid workers in Pakistan and in other dangerous places.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Reading List
Over Spring Break I hope to finish the following:
Unknown Quantity: A Real and Imaginary History of Algebra, by John Derbyshire.
Roving Mars: Spirit, Opportunity, and the Exploration of the Red Planet, by Steve Squyres.
Unknown Quantity: A Real and Imaginary History of Algebra, by John Derbyshire.
Roving Mars: Spirit, Opportunity, and the Exploration of the Red Planet, by Steve Squyres.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Nigeria
John Hinderaker at Power Line recently had a post titled, "Why Don't Christians Care?" He was referring to the recent slaughter of 500 Christians in Jos, Nigeria.
Since Hinderaker is a Lutheran and I am an ex-Lutheran, I went to the ELCA's website to see what the leadership had to say about the massacre. Here is what I found:
It is possible that this search was flawed, and the the information I was looking for is elsewhere. However, I have yet to run across it. If the leadership of the ELCA - ostensible a Christian denomination - has any official expression of concern over the slaughter of their brothers and sisters in Christ, it is very well concealed.
Puzzling over the apparent lack of concern, Hinderaker had this to say:
Perhaps. But I think that much more is going on here. The ELCA is not merely post-Christian, it is in the process of transforming itself into a far-Left political party that pursues a purely secular political agenda. While I do not think that we will ever see a "Lutheran Party" that nominates and runs candidates for elective office (I could be wrong), I do believe that eventually we will see the ELCA using the tax-exempt status that churches enjoy to pursue political goals and ends that would otherwise require them to follow campaign finance laws.
One of the more common phrases that my wife and I heard during our time as ELCA missionaries was "speaking truth to power". But never once did we hear it used outside of a purely political context. Opposing the Iraq War, capital punishment and the Bush tax cuts was "speaking truth to power". Supporting immigration reform and increased social welfare and public education spending was "speaking truth to power". And so on. Ironically, many of these same individuals were scandalized every time Jerry Falwell or James Dobson or some other non-liberal Christian opened his/her mouth.
As I wrote previously, the ELCA acts and feels like an ecclesiastical version of MoveOn.org - complete with crackpot conspiracy theorists (I lost count of the number of 9/11 Truthers I met in the ELCA) and prejudice (Southern Baptists were probably the favorite target). Given the Left's growing hostility towards traditional Christianity, and the fact that the ELCA eschews preaching the Christian Gospel in favor of "speaking truth to power", is it any wonder that the deaths of so many Christians fails to arouse any outrage?
UPDATE 3/12/10: Here is a screen shot of the ELCA's news releases:
Among the stories listed, there is one about peace building in Senegal, another one about several Minnesota bishops releasing a pastoral letter to the Minnesota state legistature asking for ... something, a report by ELCA lobbyists in Washington on the 2011 Federal budget, and a response to Lutheran CORE. Still nothing about Nigeria.
UPDATE 3/13/10: I can find nothing on the Word Alone website about the killings. Same for LCMC website and the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod website. I don't expect Lutherans to be marching in the streets waving the blood shirt, but this is alarming.
Perhaps this issue bothers me because my wife is African. For me Africa is more than a place with beautiful parks, wild animals, and starving children in need of Western help. It is home - a place where I have friends and family.
The secular media coverage of Africa tends to be shallow and frequently misleading. Nevertheless, they reported on this slaughter. I with that someone in the Lutheran community would at least mention the deaths of over 500 Nigerian Christians.
Since Hinderaker is a Lutheran and I am an ex-Lutheran, I went to the ELCA's website to see what the leadership had to say about the massacre. Here is what I found:
It is possible that this search was flawed, and the the information I was looking for is elsewhere. However, I have yet to run across it. If the leadership of the ELCA - ostensible a Christian denomination - has any official expression of concern over the slaughter of their brothers and sisters in Christ, it is very well concealed.
Puzzling over the apparent lack of concern, Hinderaker had this to say:
Maybe "mainstream" Christianity is dead, except as an appendage of secular liberal opinion. Maybe, as the world's largest religion, Christianity has become so diffused that New World Christians don't much relate to their co-religionists in Africa and Asia.
Perhaps. But I think that much more is going on here. The ELCA is not merely post-Christian, it is in the process of transforming itself into a far-Left political party that pursues a purely secular political agenda. While I do not think that we will ever see a "Lutheran Party" that nominates and runs candidates for elective office (I could be wrong), I do believe that eventually we will see the ELCA using the tax-exempt status that churches enjoy to pursue political goals and ends that would otherwise require them to follow campaign finance laws.
One of the more common phrases that my wife and I heard during our time as ELCA missionaries was "speaking truth to power". But never once did we hear it used outside of a purely political context. Opposing the Iraq War, capital punishment and the Bush tax cuts was "speaking truth to power". Supporting immigration reform and increased social welfare and public education spending was "speaking truth to power". And so on. Ironically, many of these same individuals were scandalized every time Jerry Falwell or James Dobson or some other non-liberal Christian opened his/her mouth.
As I wrote previously, the ELCA acts and feels like an ecclesiastical version of MoveOn.org - complete with crackpot conspiracy theorists (I lost count of the number of 9/11 Truthers I met in the ELCA) and prejudice (Southern Baptists were probably the favorite target). Given the Left's growing hostility towards traditional Christianity, and the fact that the ELCA eschews preaching the Christian Gospel in favor of "speaking truth to power", is it any wonder that the deaths of so many Christians fails to arouse any outrage?
UPDATE 3/12/10: Here is a screen shot of the ELCA's news releases:
Among the stories listed, there is one about peace building in Senegal, another one about several Minnesota bishops releasing a pastoral letter to the Minnesota state legistature asking for ... something, a report by ELCA lobbyists in Washington on the 2011 Federal budget, and a response to Lutheran CORE. Still nothing about Nigeria.
UPDATE 3/13/10: I can find nothing on the Word Alone website about the killings. Same for LCMC website and the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod website. I don't expect Lutherans to be marching in the streets waving the blood shirt, but this is alarming.
Perhaps this issue bothers me because my wife is African. For me Africa is more than a place with beautiful parks, wild animals, and starving children in need of Western help. It is home - a place where I have friends and family.
The secular media coverage of Africa tends to be shallow and frequently misleading. Nevertheless, they reported on this slaughter. I with that someone in the Lutheran community would at least mention the deaths of over 500 Nigerian Christians.
Saturday, March 06, 2010
More on Faith & Science
An interesting article concerning evolution and homeschooling was published by Associated Press. The article deals with the availability of homeschooling materials for biology courses. Having been critical of the media in the past, honest compels me to write this new post.
What surprised me was the general tone of the article. Normally, the news media reports on the evolution versus creation debate with a mixture of fear-mongering (Here Come the Ignorant Reactionary Homophobic Right-Wing Christianist Theocrats! may as well be the the universal title for such articles), condescension, and (sometime) an unmistakable dash of pure religious bigotry. This article, while not completely free of these sentiments, actually managed to present the other side without stereotype.
The part that was most interesting to me - astounding, to be honest - was the fact that the high school students and their parents were not portrayed as Bible thumpin' hillbillies. In fact, they were actually given credit for their intellectual prowess - something I do not recall AP doing before. The author(s) avoided the usual homeschooling-is-an-abomination meme and tried to be fair.
Disclosure: I am a mathematics instructor at a local community college, and have mixed feelings about homeschooling. If done right, homeschooling can be a blessing by allowing students to flee failing public schools and get the intellectual stimulation they need. But if it is done poorly, these kids will never catch up. In other words, it is not a guarantee of anything.
UPDATE 3/7/10: My local paper had an edited version of the same article. The original article had a rebuttal to the view expressed by the evolutionist professor that a Christian-based home school curriculum can cause children to avoid science. The edited version dropped the rebuttal, and the result was much more slanted.
Naturally, in a free society a newspaper can print what it wants. But there really wasn't any need to doctor the original story to make it appear that the author wrote something other than what he originally put out.
What surprised me was the general tone of the article. Normally, the news media reports on the evolution versus creation debate with a mixture of fear-mongering (Here Come the Ignorant Reactionary Homophobic Right-Wing Christianist Theocrats! may as well be the the universal title for such articles), condescension, and (sometime) an unmistakable dash of pure religious bigotry. This article, while not completely free of these sentiments, actually managed to present the other side without stereotype.
The part that was most interesting to me - astounding, to be honest - was the fact that the high school students and their parents were not portrayed as Bible thumpin' hillbillies. In fact, they were actually given credit for their intellectual prowess - something I do not recall AP doing before. The author(s) avoided the usual homeschooling-is-an-abomination meme and tried to be fair.
Disclosure: I am a mathematics instructor at a local community college, and have mixed feelings about homeschooling. If done right, homeschooling can be a blessing by allowing students to flee failing public schools and get the intellectual stimulation they need. But if it is done poorly, these kids will never catch up. In other words, it is not a guarantee of anything.
UPDATE 3/7/10: My local paper had an edited version of the same article. The original article had a rebuttal to the view expressed by the evolutionist professor that a Christian-based home school curriculum can cause children to avoid science. The edited version dropped the rebuttal, and the result was much more slanted.
Naturally, in a free society a newspaper can print what it wants. But there really wasn't any need to doctor the original story to make it appear that the author wrote something other than what he originally put out.
Friday, March 05, 2010
Response to Pastor David Baer
In response to Pastor Baer's article at Lutheran CORE, I wrote the following (the words in italic are Pastor Baer's):
What does it mean that the ELCA expects its pastors to oppose all forms of harassment based on sexual orientation and gender identity and to support legislation to protect civil rights. Is same-sex marriage a civil right as some advocates claim? Does this require pastors to take a particular political position on the topic?
That would be awkward for the ELCA (to say the least), particularly given the public assurances that diversity is welcome. "Be Tolerant - Or Else" is probably not the message the ELCA wants to send - right now, anyway.
Far more likely is this scenario. My former church just completed a long process of calling a new pastor. The synod sent a list of approved candidates, and the church interviewed the people on the list.
The calling process for pastors would be an excellent way for the ELCA to enforce its political ideology. Pastors who did not share the denomination's views on homosexuality might find it hard to get an interview, let alone a calling. Congregations would have to search for traditional candidates themselves, which they may not have the resources to do. Over time pastors and congregations with "intolerant" views on homosexuality could be weeded out through attrition and discouragement and replaced with more compliant ones.
Remember always that leftist secular politics is the ELCA's primary mission. Both the inclination and opportunity to use political litmus tests to produce ideological uniformity will only grow over time as more and more non-liberals like myself leave the ELCA.
Faith & Science
One of the most fascinating aspects of living in the 21st century is watching the growing animosity between science and Christianity.
By "science" I mean the use (or misuse) of science by individuals when attacking religious beliefs they do not agree with.
In recent months we have watch the unfolding of "Climategate". To recap: much of the scientific evidence underpinning Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) came under fire when it was revealed that some of the leading climate scientists behind the theory had been falsifying data to make the planet seem warmer that it actually is. Worse still - there were active attempts by many of these same individuals to silence critics by preventing them from publishing in scientific journals.
AGW, we have been told, is "settled science", and that even raising questions about it makes one some sort of ignorant barbarian. Although NASA scientist James Hansen and scientists at University of East Anglia have been leading proponents, the loudest voices supporting the "settled science" claim have arguably been Hollywood stars and journalists the media, whose scientific credentials are meager at best.
The debate about evolution is eerily similar to the AGW debate. Like AGW, evolution is considered "settled science". Like AGW, evolution has its most vocal (and unprincipled) support outside the scientific community, particularly in the media and Hollywood. Just as AGW skeptics are portrayed by the media as tools of the oil industry, evolution skeptics are labeled as Christianist theocrats determined to cover the world in a second Dark Age. And like AGW, there is no room for skepticism in the evolution debate.
In both the AGW and evolution debates, there are scientists of good will and integrity on both sides. And - this must be pointed out - the ill behavior of a James Hansen or a Richard Dawkins does not disprove either AGW or evolution.
My background is in engineering and mathematics, and I am a skeptic of both AGW and evolution. A scientific theory is supposed to be experimentally verifiable or directly observable, and evolution is a theory spectacularly lacking in this regard. To accept evolution one must believe that life arose from purely natural causes, although no one can yet demonstrate how this might have happened in a scientific experiment, much less seen evidence for it in Nature. These simple life forms then changed over time (evolved) into more and more complex organisms - again, without any way to observe or experimentally verify whether this has happened or not.
Evolutionists point to the fossil record that they say shows more and more complex organisms coming into existence over time as one organism changed into another, but this is conjecture. How do they know (for example) that fish crawled out of an ocean millions of years ago, and these fish somehow became land-dwelling animals? As evolutionists will admit, fossils suggesting one species changing into another are rare, and none are without controversy. For this reason evolution has to be considered a "safe" theory since it is forever beyond proof or disproof by experimentation or direct observation. I have to ask: is this really science?
When pressed, many non-scientist (and some scientists) who subscribe to the theory of evolution claim that scientists are motivated by a dispassionate search for truth, while Christians are motivated by less intellectual goals (or worse). In short: naturalistic science is true while religion is false.
The cold, hard truth is this: science can become a "religion" (meaning as system of metaphysical beliefs). Naturalistic science starts with the assumption that everything in the Universe can be explained without resorting to the supernatural - a metaphysical argument, not a scientific one. And the suggestion that science is engaged in a dispassionate search for the truth misses the point - science may be a lofty ideal, but is also a discipline practiced by all too human scientists. Scientists, as recent events in the Climategate fiasco has shown, can be just as biased, reactionary, bigoted, close-minded and dishonest as non-scientists.
By "science" I mean the use (or misuse) of science by individuals when attacking religious beliefs they do not agree with.
In recent months we have watch the unfolding of "Climategate". To recap: much of the scientific evidence underpinning Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) came under fire when it was revealed that some of the leading climate scientists behind the theory had been falsifying data to make the planet seem warmer that it actually is. Worse still - there were active attempts by many of these same individuals to silence critics by preventing them from publishing in scientific journals.
AGW, we have been told, is "settled science", and that even raising questions about it makes one some sort of ignorant barbarian. Although NASA scientist James Hansen and scientists at University of East Anglia have been leading proponents, the loudest voices supporting the "settled science" claim have arguably been Hollywood stars and journalists the media, whose scientific credentials are meager at best.
The debate about evolution is eerily similar to the AGW debate. Like AGW, evolution is considered "settled science". Like AGW, evolution has its most vocal (and unprincipled) support outside the scientific community, particularly in the media and Hollywood. Just as AGW skeptics are portrayed by the media as tools of the oil industry, evolution skeptics are labeled as Christianist theocrats determined to cover the world in a second Dark Age. And like AGW, there is no room for skepticism in the evolution debate.
In both the AGW and evolution debates, there are scientists of good will and integrity on both sides. And - this must be pointed out - the ill behavior of a James Hansen or a Richard Dawkins does not disprove either AGW or evolution.
My background is in engineering and mathematics, and I am a skeptic of both AGW and evolution. A scientific theory is supposed to be experimentally verifiable or directly observable, and evolution is a theory spectacularly lacking in this regard. To accept evolution one must believe that life arose from purely natural causes, although no one can yet demonstrate how this might have happened in a scientific experiment, much less seen evidence for it in Nature. These simple life forms then changed over time (evolved) into more and more complex organisms - again, without any way to observe or experimentally verify whether this has happened or not.
Evolutionists point to the fossil record that they say shows more and more complex organisms coming into existence over time as one organism changed into another, but this is conjecture. How do they know (for example) that fish crawled out of an ocean millions of years ago, and these fish somehow became land-dwelling animals? As evolutionists will admit, fossils suggesting one species changing into another are rare, and none are without controversy. For this reason evolution has to be considered a "safe" theory since it is forever beyond proof or disproof by experimentation or direct observation. I have to ask: is this really science?
When pressed, many non-scientist (and some scientists) who subscribe to the theory of evolution claim that scientists are motivated by a dispassionate search for truth, while Christians are motivated by less intellectual goals (or worse). In short: naturalistic science is true while religion is false.
The cold, hard truth is this: science can become a "religion" (meaning as system of metaphysical beliefs). Naturalistic science starts with the assumption that everything in the Universe can be explained without resorting to the supernatural - a metaphysical argument, not a scientific one. And the suggestion that science is engaged in a dispassionate search for the truth misses the point - science may be a lofty ideal, but is also a discipline practiced by all too human scientists. Scientists, as recent events in the Climategate fiasco has shown, can be just as biased, reactionary, bigoted, close-minded and dishonest as non-scientists.
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
The final authority?
Over at Lutheran CORE Pastor Steve King had this post concerning ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson's remarks about homosexuality and Biblical authority.
Two observations:
1. This is probably as close as we will ever get to an admission by the ELCA's leadership that the Bible does not condone homosexual behavior. Throughout the debate leading up to August's vote we had been told that the Biblical passages condemning homosexuality were either (a) an error in translation, and that the Bible was actually condemning forced homosexuality as opposed to consenting homosexuality, or (b) the Gospel brought Grace, and therefore the prohibitions against homosexuality had been overturned in the same way condemnation under Mosaic Law was now set aside.
Both (a) and (b) contradict one another to some extent, and they are certainly not the result of serious study of the Bible. But they make perfect sense if the ELCA is a political party instead of a church. In politics, log-rolling and bargaining with various factions is crucial. Proposition (a) would appeal to certain Lutherans who believe that the Bible is an instrument of racism, imperialism, colonialism, sexism, etc. and has been interpreted to suit the aims of rich and powerful. For lifelong liberals who nevertheless have been faithful to the Gospel and its teachings, and are troubled by this abrupt about face on homosexuality, Proposition (b) is a welcome escape hatch to dive out of.
If your goal is to supplant the Bible with a brand-new Gospel that appeals to the politics of a new and hip generation, then both (a) and (b) can be used to appeal to the faction it is aimed for. So what if (a) and (b) are inconsistent with each other? What is politics without a little inter-party tension?
2. If the Bible is not the last word on homosexuality (as Hanson suggests), then what else in the Bible can be discarded as not being able to stand up to our understanding of the world today?
In the past the Bible has been used to justify apartheid, colonialism, communism, imperialism, racial segregation, health care reform, Aryan supremacy, redistribution of wealth, monarchy, anti-war activism, and a host of other secular political causes. In each case adherents made the same type of arguments that the ELCA is now putting forward - that the Bible needs to be understood in the light of "modern" thinking. The notion that the writers of the Bible might have been wise and knew what they were talking about does not seem to have been seriously considered.
So I must ask: what other parts of the Bible can now be set aside, and how are we to determine what they are?
Leviticus is a special thorn in the side of proponents of ordaining homosexual ministers and blessing same-sex unions. So opponents point to dietary restrictions, laws concerning offerings, worship and the priesthood in Leviticus and say, "Since these are obsolete, so are prohibitions against homosexuality."
But Leviticus contains the only explicit condemnation of incest in the Bible. Should these prohibitions against incest be tossed along with the ones against homosexuality? If not, why not? Note also that Jesus, when presented with the opportunity to overturn Mosaic Law (Matthew 5), not only did not do so, but in the case of sexual matters strengthened them (verses 27-30).
I think that it would be more logically consistent - and honest - for the ELCA to simply discard the Bible altogether. There has been no consistent criteria cited by the ELCA's leadership in guiding us as to what parts of the Bible they see as valid (other than vague appeals to "modern understanding"). Why should they keep a book they clearly have serious problems with and are ready to disregard at the drop of a hat?
Two observations:
1. This is probably as close as we will ever get to an admission by the ELCA's leadership that the Bible does not condone homosexual behavior. Throughout the debate leading up to August's vote we had been told that the Biblical passages condemning homosexuality were either (a) an error in translation, and that the Bible was actually condemning forced homosexuality as opposed to consenting homosexuality, or (b) the Gospel brought Grace, and therefore the prohibitions against homosexuality had been overturned in the same way condemnation under Mosaic Law was now set aside.
Both (a) and (b) contradict one another to some extent, and they are certainly not the result of serious study of the Bible. But they make perfect sense if the ELCA is a political party instead of a church. In politics, log-rolling and bargaining with various factions is crucial. Proposition (a) would appeal to certain Lutherans who believe that the Bible is an instrument of racism, imperialism, colonialism, sexism, etc. and has been interpreted to suit the aims of rich and powerful. For lifelong liberals who nevertheless have been faithful to the Gospel and its teachings, and are troubled by this abrupt about face on homosexuality, Proposition (b) is a welcome escape hatch to dive out of.
If your goal is to supplant the Bible with a brand-new Gospel that appeals to the politics of a new and hip generation, then both (a) and (b) can be used to appeal to the faction it is aimed for. So what if (a) and (b) are inconsistent with each other? What is politics without a little inter-party tension?
2. If the Bible is not the last word on homosexuality (as Hanson suggests), then what else in the Bible can be discarded as not being able to stand up to our understanding of the world today?
In the past the Bible has been used to justify apartheid, colonialism, communism, imperialism, racial segregation, health care reform, Aryan supremacy, redistribution of wealth, monarchy, anti-war activism, and a host of other secular political causes. In each case adherents made the same type of arguments that the ELCA is now putting forward - that the Bible needs to be understood in the light of "modern" thinking. The notion that the writers of the Bible might have been wise and knew what they were talking about does not seem to have been seriously considered.
So I must ask: what other parts of the Bible can now be set aside, and how are we to determine what they are?
Leviticus is a special thorn in the side of proponents of ordaining homosexual ministers and blessing same-sex unions. So opponents point to dietary restrictions, laws concerning offerings, worship and the priesthood in Leviticus and say, "Since these are obsolete, so are prohibitions against homosexuality."
But Leviticus contains the only explicit condemnation of incest in the Bible. Should these prohibitions against incest be tossed along with the ones against homosexuality? If not, why not? Note also that Jesus, when presented with the opportunity to overturn Mosaic Law (Matthew 5), not only did not do so, but in the case of sexual matters strengthened them (verses 27-30).
I think that it would be more logically consistent - and honest - for the ELCA to simply discard the Bible altogether. There has been no consistent criteria cited by the ELCA's leadership in guiding us as to what parts of the Bible they see as valid (other than vague appeals to "modern understanding"). Why should they keep a book they clearly have serious problems with and are ready to disregard at the drop of a hat?
"I was there!"
The first words of the Bible are not, as some baseball fans think, "In the big inning....."
All serious baseball fans have an "I was there!" story concerning some major event or record-setting performance in baseball.
On my wall at home is a picture of my brother and I at a ballpark just after a game. There is also a ticket stub and a box score. The game was played at Arlington Stadium on September 27, 1992 between the Texas Rangers and the Seattle Mariners.
We had come to see Nolan Ryan pitch. Unfortunately, it was not one of his better days. Ryan had only 5 strikeouts in 7 innings. He also gave up 8 hits and issued 5 walks, was tagged for two runs (although only one of them was earned), and threw a wild pitch.
But as the game wore on both my brother and I began to notice the Seattle starting pitcher. He was a tall, lanky southpaw, and had arms so long that when the ball finally left his hand when he threw it seemed to be already halfway to home plate.
And we also noticed that he struck out one Texas Ranger after another.
We didn't know it then, but the pitcher was Randy Johnson. Johnson was at the time a talented but erratic young fireball thrower. In this game he fanned a total of 18 batter, which tied an American League record for strikeouts by a left-handed pitcher in a single game. What was even more amazing is that he did this in only 8 innings of work.
Yesterday I learned that Johnson (a.k.a. the "Big Unit") had decided to retire after 22 seasons. He went on to top his 18-strikeout performance with a pair of 19 strikeout games and a record-setting 20 strikeout gem. Johnson retired with 4,875 total strikeouts and a record of 303 wins against 166 losses. Johnson was also a 10-time All Star, 5 Cy Young award-winner, and had a World Series championship.
So thank you, Big Unit!
Oh - the game? Texas won 3-2 in the bottom of the night inning. The Rangers hit a single to left field off Johnson's replacement that scored the winning run. I know because ... I was there!
Monday, January 04, 2010
Christianity & society
La Shawn Barber is a Christian writer who is a daily "must read" for me. Today she had an excellent piece about Tiger Woods and Brit Hume.
It seems that not a few individuals are shocked - shocked! - that Hume would engage in "proselytizing" (as Steve Benen of the Washington Monthy put it). Given the tendency of Benen's colleagues to promote leftist positions on a wide range of issues (global warming, the need for health care reform, opposition to the Iraq war, etc.), he might want to be careful about railing against "proselytizing" by Christians.
But Hume's comments raise a larger issue: to what extent can Christianity reform an individual and (by extension) society at large?
Such an issue is far too big to be dealt with effectively in a single post. Large numbers of books could be written - in fact, have been written - on Christianity and its relationship to society. But I would like to comment on what happens when a Christian or a Christian church starts to view the Christian faith as a way to redeem society at large rather than the redemption of lost souls through the proclamation of the Gospel.
Christian activity in reforming society is nothing new. Christianity was instrumental in abolishing the slave trade in first Great Britain and later America. Christianity has been at the forefront of eliminating Jim Crow laws and segregation, and Christians today are putting up a brave fight (sometimes in the teeth of an intolerant media and hostile political leaders) against the genocide of abortion.
But there is always a danger when Christians become politically active. Not so much to society - much of the talk about "right-wing fundamentalist Christianist theocracy" is simple paranoia - but to the Christian community itself.
Some years ago C.S. Lewis wrote an excellent essay entitled Meditations on the Third Commandment. Lewis was commenting upon the desire of some Christians to form a Christian political party. Lewis speculated how such a party would likely split among ideological political lines, and how it would be tempted to downplay Christian beliefs in order to attach itself to a larger secular political party (and in the process perhaps obtain more power and influence).
To me this seems to be the true danger of mixing Christianity and politics: that Christianity will be made to serve secular political goals that are at odds with the Christian faith.
Regardless of your views on politics, if you are a politically active Christian you might want to look at what is happening right now to the ELCA. By voting to allow non-celibate gays and lesbians to become pastors, and by exploring the possibility of blessing same-sex unions, the ELCA is attempting to attach itself to a larger political movement by eliminating parts of Christianity.
To be sure, the ELCA has always been both politically leftist and politically active. But in recent years, the ELCA has become even more strident in its statements on a variety of issues.
Yet this forcefulness is inconsistent, if the ELCA is truly a church. For example: it unambiguously condemns the death penalty, yet waffles on the issue of abortion. On the environment the ELCA promotes a kind of heathen nature worship inconsistent with the Scriptures. On the issues of education and what it called "Economic Life" the aim is purely bureaucratic with the Bible being given only lip service. And the ELCA's views on race and culture are openly hostile to the Biblical teachings of sin being individual rather than corporate.
For a Christian church this would be embarrassing hypocrisy. But for a secular political party the ELCA's views makes sense.
In short, the ELCA must be considered to be a leftist political party with religious trappings - a kind of ecclesiastical Moveon.org. It is not surprising that it has now adopted the gay/lesbian agenda into its party platform, and that Lutherans who don't see the world in the purely political way that the ELCA does are leaving. Put another way - by transforming itself into a political party the ELCA has ceased being a church.
This is the danger of using Christianity to reform society, or (in Brit Hume's case) to transform a single broken individual. Christianity is the acceptance of a Savior who will take away our sins, and the Gospel is a love letter written by God to a fallen humanity.
Perhaps that is what Hume meant by his comments. But I hope that Woods will accept Jesus as his personal Savior in order to reconcile himself to God, and not just to become an example to the world.
It seems that not a few individuals are shocked - shocked! - that Hume would engage in "proselytizing" (as Steve Benen of the Washington Monthy put it). Given the tendency of Benen's colleagues to promote leftist positions on a wide range of issues (global warming, the need for health care reform, opposition to the Iraq war, etc.), he might want to be careful about railing against "proselytizing" by Christians.
But Hume's comments raise a larger issue: to what extent can Christianity reform an individual and (by extension) society at large?
Such an issue is far too big to be dealt with effectively in a single post. Large numbers of books could be written - in fact, have been written - on Christianity and its relationship to society. But I would like to comment on what happens when a Christian or a Christian church starts to view the Christian faith as a way to redeem society at large rather than the redemption of lost souls through the proclamation of the Gospel.
Christian activity in reforming society is nothing new. Christianity was instrumental in abolishing the slave trade in first Great Britain and later America. Christianity has been at the forefront of eliminating Jim Crow laws and segregation, and Christians today are putting up a brave fight (sometimes in the teeth of an intolerant media and hostile political leaders) against the genocide of abortion.
But there is always a danger when Christians become politically active. Not so much to society - much of the talk about "right-wing fundamentalist Christianist theocracy" is simple paranoia - but to the Christian community itself.
Some years ago C.S. Lewis wrote an excellent essay entitled Meditations on the Third Commandment. Lewis was commenting upon the desire of some Christians to form a Christian political party. Lewis speculated how such a party would likely split among ideological political lines, and how it would be tempted to downplay Christian beliefs in order to attach itself to a larger secular political party (and in the process perhaps obtain more power and influence).
To me this seems to be the true danger of mixing Christianity and politics: that Christianity will be made to serve secular political goals that are at odds with the Christian faith.
Regardless of your views on politics, if you are a politically active Christian you might want to look at what is happening right now to the ELCA. By voting to allow non-celibate gays and lesbians to become pastors, and by exploring the possibility of blessing same-sex unions, the ELCA is attempting to attach itself to a larger political movement by eliminating parts of Christianity.
To be sure, the ELCA has always been both politically leftist and politically active. But in recent years, the ELCA has become even more strident in its statements on a variety of issues.
Yet this forcefulness is inconsistent, if the ELCA is truly a church. For example: it unambiguously condemns the death penalty, yet waffles on the issue of abortion. On the environment the ELCA promotes a kind of heathen nature worship inconsistent with the Scriptures. On the issues of education and what it called "Economic Life" the aim is purely bureaucratic with the Bible being given only lip service. And the ELCA's views on race and culture are openly hostile to the Biblical teachings of sin being individual rather than corporate.
For a Christian church this would be embarrassing hypocrisy. But for a secular political party the ELCA's views makes sense.
In short, the ELCA must be considered to be a leftist political party with religious trappings - a kind of ecclesiastical Moveon.org. It is not surprising that it has now adopted the gay/lesbian agenda into its party platform, and that Lutherans who don't see the world in the purely political way that the ELCA does are leaving. Put another way - by transforming itself into a political party the ELCA has ceased being a church.
This is the danger of using Christianity to reform society, or (in Brit Hume's case) to transform a single broken individual. Christianity is the acceptance of a Savior who will take away our sins, and the Gospel is a love letter written by God to a fallen humanity.
Perhaps that is what Hume meant by his comments. But I hope that Woods will accept Jesus as his personal Savior in order to reconcile himself to God, and not just to become an example to the world.
Sunday, January 03, 2010
A Psalm for the New Year
Ee Mwenyezi-Mungu, Bwana wetu,
kweli jina lako latukuka duniani kote!
Utukufu wako waenea mpaka juu ya mbingu!
Kwa sifa za watoto wadogo na wanyonyao,
umejiwekea ngome dhidi ya adui zako,
uwakomeshe waasi na wapinzani wako.
Nikiangalia mbingu, kazi ya vidole vyako,
mwezi na nyota ulizozisimika huko,
mtu ni nini, ee Mungu, hata umfikirie,
binadamu ni nini hata umjali?
Umemfanya awe karibu kama mungu,
umemvika fahari na heshima.
Ulimpa madaraka juu ya kazi zako zote;
uliviweka viumbe vyote chini ya mamlaka yake:
kondoo, ng'ombe, na wanyama wa porini;
nedge, samaki, na viumbe vyote vya baharini.
Ee Mwenyezi-Mungu, Bwana wetu,
Kweli jina lako latukuka duniani kote!
Zaburi 8
O Lord our Lord,
how excellent is thy name in all the earth!
Who has set thy glory above the heavens.
Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings
has thou ordained strength because of thine enemies,
that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.
When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers,
the moon and the stars which thou has ordained:
what is man, that thou art mindful of him?
and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
For thou has made him a little lower than the angels,
and has crowned him with with glory and honor.
Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hand;
thou has put all things under his feet:
All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field.
The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea,
and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the sea.
Oh Lord our Lord,
how excellent is thy name in all the earth!
Psalm 8
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)