Religious News

« Previous Entries

Is America a Christian nation? What should textbooks say?

Is America a “Christian” nation? In what way can any nation be Christian? How should Christianity be treated in public school textbooks?

These are questions educators and parents have battled over and struggled with for decades. I have a strong opinion about whether America is a Christian nation, and I have strong feelings about how Christianity should be treated in public school textbooks.

I ran onto an interesting news story about textbooks in Texas, and the impact two men — neither of them historians and both of them advisers to the textbook selection committee — will have on social studies textbooks and teaching in the next few weeks.

Now if you choose to follow Christ and be a Christian, I think that’s a wonderful decision. You are absolutely free to express your faith, worship and the church you choose, send out first communion invitations to family and friends if appropriate, and all the rest.

But to use your faith as a litmus test for American history is going too far. In fact (and I am a historian), Christian faith and teachings played a role in the founding of the nation. BUT — that has never made America a “Christian nation,” nor should it give Christianity a special position in textbooks.

Simply put, I believe PEOPLE, not NATIONS, can be Christians. If you choose to believe that there are biblical mandates for America as a Christian nation, you simply are wrong. If you believe the personal faith of some of our founding fathers was Christian and therefore our nation is somehow Christian, you simply are wrong.

If you are a strong “Bible believer” or whatever conservative label you wish to use for yourself, leave a comment contrary to my statements above and I’ll be glad to discuss it further. And if you do leave such a comment, then I expect you to give me biblical evidence that America is somehow “Christian.” I would love to see the Bible references you might offer.

Only bad Bible exegesis says U.S. must ALWAYS back Israeli actions

Really bad Bible exegesis says the U.S. must ALWAYS back Israeli actions, no matter what Israel decides to do, no matter how the react to opposition, no matter how they treat the Palestinians or any of their Arab neighbors.

Those who insist opposing Israel in any way will bring God’s curse or judgment upon our nation usually base that on a Bible passage in the Book of Genesis, where God made a covenant with Abraham. It reads like this (from the New Revised Standard Version):

“Now the Lord said to Abram, ‘Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed’ … Then the Lord appeared to Abram, and said, ‘To your offspring I will give this land’ ” (Genesis 12:1-3, 7).”

Most fundamentalists and “hard core” biblical literalists use this passage of Scripture to teach two basic “facts” about Israel and the U.S.-Israeli relationship: 1) “cursing” or opposing Israel in any way will bring a curse upon the U.S., and, 2) God made his first promises here that the land we know as Israel will belong to the Jews as Abraham’s descendants.

As a graduate of an accredited Bible college and a one-time pastor, I speak from some understanding when I say the Bible does NOT teach that opposing Israel will bring some sort of condemnation or judgment upon the U.S., or any other nation in this Bible passage. That’s just plain wrong. And, the Bible does NOT teach in this passage that the “Holy Land” belongs to Israel as God’s chosen people.

You really don’t need to be a highly educated Bible scholar (I don’t claim to be; I have an undergrad degree in Bible and theology and most of an M.A. in history) to figure this out. You simply need to read the Bible and pay attention. I am perplexed and, yes, angered, at the so-called “Bible teachers,” evangelists, pastors, and “tele-vangelists” out there who have duped so many people, based on Genesis 13, into slavishly supporting everything modern Israel does.

I’ve already wasted too much time on this stuff, but here goes. Let’s assume there was a historical figure we know from Scripture as Abraham. Let’s assume God appeared to him and made these promises. Let’s further assume, as the rest of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers (the Pentateuch, as this section of Scripture is called), teach, that Abraham became the father of Isaac — from whom the Jews descended — and Ishmael, from whom the Arab nations descended.

Given all that, here’s the deal: This narrative of God’s promises to Abraham came BEFORE Isaac and Ishmael were conceived or born. So — to be consistent (and many biblical literalists have HUGE problems with consistency), Genesis 12 applies to ALL descendants of Abraham, Jews and Arabs. Given that truth, we are obligated, as far as the “blessing and cursing” conditions of Genesis 12 are concerned, to never oppose either Israel or the Palestinians.

In other words, the oddball teaching pushed by those who say we are facing judgment if we speak out against atrocities by Israel, must also say we face that issue if we speak out against atrocities by the Arabs or Palestinians.

End of game — it’s a draw. Israel gets no more of a “free pass” to destroy Palestinians and their villages than do the Palestinians to destroy Israelis and their villages.

Now can we set aside the silliness and work for some sort of reality in the Middle East?? Probably not.

Ah, well.

To me at least, pomposity seems off the mark for Christian leaders

I wonder — do they make a diet pill designed to trim down “fatheads”? Oh, of course I know they don’t. But the last post I made has me thinking about various pompous people I’ve had the misfortune of trying to deal with within an evangelical Christian setting over the years.

I grew up in a mainline Christian environment — until I reached my teen years and got very caught up in the zeal of what might be called “fundamentalist” evangelical Christianity. Most of that won’t matter to most of you reading this, but I’m sure some of you will understand.

At this point, I consider myself leaning much more toward my mainline roots. I spent almost 20 years as an ordained minister with a very large evangelical denomination. In 1994, feeling a need for a greater “connection” to the church universal/historic, I began looking around and ended up joining a different church. I was immediately asked to resign a position I held (mentioned in my last post) as news editor of their weekly denominational magazine. I intentionally resigned my ministerial credentials, not wanting to create any perceived conflict between my new church and anyone within the old one who might wonder why I had left.

I remained — in fact, I REMAIN — on good terms with the evangelical organization, though I’m still a member in a mainline church group. I’ve always felt the important thing about being a Christian wasn’t the “label” or church name you wore, but your relationship with God in Christ.

Sorry. Not trying to preach at you, but I felt it important to clarify my ramblings somewhat: I acknowledge Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior in the personal, biblical sense same as my evangelical brothers and sisters. Indeed, one of the delightful things I discovered after returning to my “mainline roots” was that there really ARE good, legitimate Christians outside that narrow evangelical circle.

And one of the most distressing things I found, both in my more evangelical past and in my mainline present, is that Christian leaders are often guilty of the same failings as their “secular” or “non-Christian” counterparts — they get too carried away with their own importance and become pompous. They even sometimes become downright hypocritical.

Yes, I know, that’s a shock, isn’t it?

I once did a short (5-10 minutes?) workplace devotional presentation titled, “If I Were God for a Day …” I had fun with it. The gist of the speech was this: Even at my best, I cannot say I would make the right decisions about who to punish and who to reward — so it’s a really good thing I am NOT God, for a day, a minute, or even a fraction of a second.

Now if we can just remind Christian leaders at all levels of the truth of that …

And that, good readers, will be my last “sermonizing” for the holiday season! (Maybe. Maybe not. Who can say?)

Evangelical acquaintance of mine loses job for leaning toward ‘liberal’

I just found out one of the finest Christians and all-around finest, nicest people I’ve had the privilege of meeting in my checkered past is out of a job for expressing somewhat “liberal” views regarding homosexuality and regarding his support for Barack Obama.

This good man’s name is Richard Cizik, and resigned Thursday as VP for governmental affairs with an organization called the National Association of Evangelicals. The NAE, as I’ve always known it, represents more than 40,000 conservative/fundamentalist/evangelical churches throughout America. It was formed back in the 1940s as a reaction to the more liberal (or perhaps “mainline,” depending on the religious circles you hang out in) National Council of Churches.

From what I’ve read, Rich had been with the NAE since 1980, and has served as their primary Washington lobbyist for evangelical religious concerns. He also worked as an editor of their various publications, I think.

He has been in and out of hot water with some of the more prominent NAE members and influential figures in recent years because he has publicly challenged individuals and member churches to more actively live out their role of stewardship in relation to the creation, among other things. That is, he has become somewhat active with environmental causes — and more vocal than some leaders within the NAE wanted him to be. The final blow, however, was when Rich was being interviewed by NPR a few days ago and said this to a question regarding gay rights issues such as civil unions and gay marriage:

“I’m shifting, I have to admit. In other words, I would willingly say I believe in civil unions. I don’t officially support redefining marriage from its traditional definition, I don’t think.”

Later, on the NAE website, the organization’s president, Leith Anderson, said of Cizik, “Although he has subsequently expressed regret, apologized and affirmed our values there is a loss of trust in his credibility as a spokesperson among leaders and constituents.” Anderson added in the website statement that he and Cizik had met following the NPR interview and the two had “mutually concluded that his resignation is a difficult but appropriate decision.”

I had occasion to meet Rich and work with him on two or three occasions in my past life as a news editor for a major evangelical denomination’s weekly magazine. The group sent me to three or four of NAE’s annual conventions over a seven year period. Rich is a great guy, and a delight to know. I wish him well and my prayers are with him as he deals with this sudden “career change,” caused by his honest answer to an honest question.

I won’t get any further into the religion and “religious politics” involved in all this stuff. Been there. Done that.

Somewhere between religious extremes lies the real Candidate Palin

I’ve been a “religious” person all my life, and that ranges from the fundamentalist evangelicalism and Pentecostalism of my teen and early adult years all the way over to the more “mainstream” and even “liberal” beliefs of my current Episcopalian/ECLA Lutheran spiritual journey.

I’ve mumbled and grumbled about religion off and on in this website, so I was thinking of such matters when I heard Sen. John McCain’s pick for his presidential nominee, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin — who comes from an extremely conservative political and evangelical religious background. Having said all that, I’ll try to convey my honest opinion of her as a candidate. I can’t speak of her as a person because all I know about her is what I’ve read in the media and on the Internet.

I can tell you this: In the conservative evangelical spectrum there are varying viewpoints about women. On the far right, proper or “righteous” women are seen almost as some sort of pure, surreal human equivalents of “Votive candle holders,” i.e., they exist primarily to carry prayers and blessings between God and their husbands/families. Sort of like human equivalents of angels. On the far left (okay, so “far left” is too extreme for ANY range of the fundamentalist/evangelical/Pentecostal spectrum) side of evangelicalism, righteous women are treated with dignity and equality with men, i.e., they are able to be ordained to ministry, teach in churches and/or Bible schools and seminaries, etc.

Somewhere in the middle between human equivalents of angels and humans on an equal par with men is where the vast majority of evangelicals place women. Those who treat women as “second class citizens” or restrict them from ordained ministry really do represent a dying faction.

And I suspect that Gov. Palin, religiously speaking, is closer to the mid-range of that spectrum than the toward the far right. Admittedly, this is based only on my experience with the broad spectrum of Christianity I’ve personally been involved with. And when I tried to find a “denomination” or church label that fit Palin, the best I could find is that she has belonged to some “charismatic,” i.e., Pentecostal churches and sort of identifies her self as “undenominational” or “nondenominational” Protestant. She’s a conservative Bible believer of one stripe or another, for sure.

Enough about religion. I can accept and respect her religious leanings. No problem there. If I can collect even a few of my thoughts on her experience or qualifications for president of the United States, I’ll have something far different to say about that in my next post.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Easter Sunday — musings on a special day and what it meant to me and my family

I’m not trying to get preachy or sermonize here, but this is a special day for my family, Easter Sunday, and this particular Easter has been very “up and down” for me.

On the upside, church was really encouraging for me this morning. We’ve never been among people who get up before sunrise to attend special church services on Easter. And, no, we didn’t do that today. But I did make it to church this morning for the first time in a couple of weeks, and it was encouraging to hear the timeless truths of Jesus’ death, burial, and RESURRECTION all over again.

On the downside, I started the day by accidentally ripping a towel holder off the bathroom wall. Not as disastrous as it could have been — I didn’t damage any shower faucets or anything spectacular or plumbing related. Just extremely irritating.

On the upside, we live in a country where we can find quick, easy access to so many consumer goods that it’s almost ridiculous, even on Easter Sunday. We stopped at a nearby W*l-M*rt Big Box Store and found a very cheap, durable, hook-over-the-door towel holder that’s more useful than the one I broke.

On the downside, I discovered our wise (?) friends (??) at Google shot down the PR rating on one of my blogs for very unfair, unreasonable, uh, reasons. I won’t go into the details, but that move is going to eliminate a large chunk of my monthly income. Nevertheless, I won’t give up all hope.

On the upside, my son came by for a visit just a while ago and he and my wonderful wife, Shirley, managed to lift my spirits after the Google slap. Life will indeed go on.

And, finally, also on the upside, we had a few minutes after church to visit with our wonderful daughter who doesn’t get by as often as we’d like. Her life’s going well, she’s looking good and feeling good, and she’s doing some mighty important work with her life — far more important than my lamo efforts at blogging.

So, tally for the day: 4 upsides and 1 small downside, 1 BIG downside = Overall, a pretty upbeat, good day.

How about your day? Tell us about it.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Archbishop of Canterbury raises tempers in Britain over Islamic law

Let’s see, as close as I can figure, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams was giving a lecture and got into the subject of “sharia law,” or Islamic law based on the Koran, and British civil law or secular law. Something he said in the course of the lecture suggested finding ways to accommodate matters of “religious conscience” for Muslims by including or at least recognizing elements of sharia law in Britain.

I’m pretty vague on the details of all this, because at this point the issue has gone way beyond the archbishop’s comments and taken on the tone of a serious “witch hunt,” with many good Anglicans and Anglican leaders calling for Williams to resign — in tones which indicate they’d prefer to just have his head displayed publicly somewhere on a pike pole.

Apparently the anger is directed at Williams for proposing some sort of “parallel” legal system in Britain — and many anti-Muslim forces were outraged at that idea.

But according to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s website, Williams had no such proposal in mind:

Instead, in the interview, rather than proposing a parallel system of law, he observed that “as a matter of fact certain provisions of sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law” . When the question was put to him that: “the application of sharia in certain circumstances – if we want to achieve this cohesion and take seriously peoples’ religion – seems unavoidable?”, he indicated his assent.

That article on the archbishop’s website ends with this explanation of the context of the lecture:

He concludes his lecture with the comment:

“if we are to think intelligently about the relations between Islam and British law, we need a fair amount of ‘deconstruction’ of crude oppositions and mythologies, whether of the nature of sharia or the nature of the Enlightenment”

The lecture, which was given before an audience of about 1000 people and which was chaired by the Lord Chief Justice, was the first in a series of six lectures and discussions which are being given by senior Muslim and other lawyers and theologians at the Temple Church on the general theme of ‘Islam in English Law’.

For those of you who don’t know: the Archbishop of Canterbury is the head of the Church of England under the queen, and the titular head of the worldwide Anglican Communion — which includes the Episcopal Church of the U.S.A. here in America.

How bizarre. It’s somewhat comforting, in a way, to realize that not all the religious ignorance and fanaticism is confined to various conservative fundamentalist Christian groups here in America, I suppose. Hope the archbishop gets through this all right. From what little I’ve seen, read, and heard of him, he seems to be an intelligent and good man to lead the Church of England.

Ah, well, what do I know? I’m just a guy who reads the papers and tries to leave most of the heavy-duty religious and theological debates up to God. I figure he can handle it.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Ah-HAH — here’s proof (?) that America is forsaking God, just look at the new dollar coins

Oh, my Lord, will the good religious folks out there never cease in their passion for persecution? A column in our local newspaper decries the way the newest U.S. dollar coins will have “In God We Trust” on the edge — exactly where it will wear off the fastest, and in a position that indicated the way America is trying to forsake the Christian God Who founded her. More or less.

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: America is not nor ever was a “Christian nation.” It won’t do any good to say that, because all the sincere folks who believe it will simply deny that. Those who want to score political or religious points with the issue will just scream more loudly.

I suspect the column I’ve referenced above is from a good Christian brother who simply wants America to be “Christian,” and isn’t fighting any battle. My PERSONAL opinion is that “true” Christians living out “true” Christianity would be perfectly good leaders.

Of course, the fellow who wrote the column, as well as any other of you reading this, would find room to disagree with me on the definition of “true” — which is exactly why the Constitution rejects the idea of any religious “litmus” tests for those who govern our nation. I call your attention to Article VI of the Constitution:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

At any rate, back to the new coin and “In God We Trust.” At first I thought this might be simply an “urban legend” started by fundamentalist alarmists. I was wrong. The new coin is indeed being minted with “In God We Trust” on the edge of the coin. But what, really, is the issue there? The column writer — and I might add a number of conservative blogs, too — assumes this is somehow disrespectful to God and will somehow deteriorate or wear off the coin early in its use.

How bizarre is that, really? Actually, the edge-incised “In God We Trust” may just as well draw more attention to the phrase because it’s so new and unique.

Ah, well, what do I know? I’m just a guy who reads the papers

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Nice place, good people — I visited church to tell pastor who wrote column thanks

I visited a local church yesterday to tell the pastor thank you. Awhile ago, I made reference to a column the pastor, the Rev. Phil Snider of Brentwood Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in Springfield, Missouri, wrote in the local newspaper. (You can read that earlier post here.)

Pastor Snider seems to be a sharp guy. The good people at his church were wonderfully friendly. I commend them for “calling” him as their pastor — and I commend them for their warm, welcoming attitude.

Stay tuned on all this. I told the Rev. Snider about our little Internet community here and (he doesn’t know this yet), should the situation work out, I would love to have him do a “guest post” or two for us. But that’s getting way ahead of the process.

It was a good experience and made a good (though early) start to my Sunday. (Now if the Colts and the Cowboys just hadn’t tanked in their NFL playoffs …)

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Kudos to these parents who raised this young man of faith who knows how to think

Our local newspaper today ran an opinion column written by a 14-year-old who lives in a small town near here. The writer, Dylan Wyatt, did such a great job of presenting an extremely mature, well thought out expression of his Christian faith that I had to share it with you.

Young Wyatt was speaking about the hysteria among so many American conservative Christians concerning the so-called “satanic” or “demonic” influences of some recent books and films, specifically the “Harry Potter” books and films and the film “The Golden Compass” and the book series related to it. In Wyatt’s opinion, the whole approach is wrong. In his words:

I was 10 years old when I first read “The Golden Compass.” It is filled with child abductions, violence and plots to kill others, but also scenes of great compassion and selflessness. “Satanism” was not apparent to me. Truthfully, the first time I even thought about Satanism and “The Golden Compass” was very recently when I read an article that suggested how satanic the movie was. While the author’s anti-spiritualism is very real, I do not believe that Satanism is present in “The Golden Compass.” Was “The Lord of the Rings” filled with Satan? “Harry Potter?” “The Chronicles of Narnia?” All were tales of good vs. evil. But Satan?

Elsewhere, Wyatt expresses his concern that many who accuse these and other books and films of satanic or demonic influence have never read the books or seen the films, but are forming their opinions on what others have told them.

But the beauty of Wyatt’s opinion, I think, is his view of the whole issue:

I have heard from my pastors time and time again that, “God puts obstacles in your way to strengthen your faith.” If this book is truly satanic, we should be able to read it, think about it and deepen our faith as a result through discussion and debate. But to criticize without reading the book and watching the movie (which was a poor adaptation of the book, in my opinion) is intellectually lazy and dishonest.

If you want to debate, you need to know your facts. Do your research. Read the book! See the movie! Then take a closer step toward God.

I congratulate Dylan Wyatt’s parents. I applaud his pastors, his teachers, and his friends. They appear to have raised a young man of faith who has a quality mind and isn’t afraid to think with it. Hooray for them and hooray for us all. Teenagers like him renew my confidence in the future of our nation (and our Christian faith).

Ah, well, what do I know? I’m just a guy who reads the papers.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

« Previous Entries