Reflection

A professor of mine asked a question to start class yesterday: What would it mean if we could ground everything we say about God in our sense of standing in awe before God?

It would mean, I think, a renewed humility, a renewed sense that we are all like Paul, who admitted that he could only "see in a mirror, dimly." (1 Cor. 13:12) It would mean we were slower to judge, quicker to feel our own dependence, more cognizant of our limits. This is something all Christians interested in public dialogue should remember.

Later in class, the professor gave an interpretation of the Trinity as relationship. The Trinity, he said, showed that God could not be contained in Godself. His character is always to be outpouring, creating, and raising life from the dead. This outflow of creation, I think, defines what God's love is.

These two ideas -- the awe before God and creative love that characterizes God -- fit together. Paul's admission of his limited knowledge in 1 Cor. 13: 12 (cited above), comes in the middle of a passage on the centrality of love. Paul says is v. 2: "If I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing."

To me, the link is this: Standing in awe before God means experiencing God's creative love and reflecting that out into the world. Loving, then, trumps all our efforts at theology, knowledge, political accomplisment, etc. Without love, believing in God and knowing about God count for little. God calls us to loving acts, not just to pious shows of personal faith or intellectual reflection. It's a call I, and we, need to hear as individuals and has a society.

Reclaiming Scripture (from the literalists) - Part I

Christian conservatives often claim that the Bible should be understood literally. Interestingly, so do some people who loathe Christianity as an exploitive, backwards, morally bankrupt religion. For an excellent example, please examine this decidedly un-evangelical website's take on "literal" accounts of slavery in the Bible: http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm

As this website correctly points out, Exodus and Leviticus regulate things like selling one's daughter into slavery, as well as the conditions under which a slave owner may keep a freed slave's wife and children. The New Testament also contains some uncomfortable statements about slavery, such as Ephesians 6:5, which orders slaves to obey their masters.

But nobody has ever taken THESE passages literally, right? Well, uh, actually ....

In pre-civil war theological journals, Southern theologians and slavery apologists cited just these passages as proof that God did, in fact, sanction slavery. Those who opposed slavery were simply placing their own opinions before the inspired word of God. But not these Southerner Biblical scholars! They believed in the literal Bible, written just as God intended it, and would defend it to the death.

I will assume that most people agree that these slavery apologists misinterpreted the Bible. I would also point out, however, that they did an excellent job of taking it literally. My just-beginning study of Paul's letters has turned up some other things that we don't tend to understand literally:

• Paul makes constant reference to his belief that the end of the age would come within his lifetime. For just a few relevant examples, see I Corinth. 10:11 and I Corinthians 15:51. Generally, Paul believed that Jesus would return within his lifetime. If the Bible must be take literally, we should reject it as false. After all, the Left Behind books are still fiction, not history.
• Do you think men disgrace themselves by praying with hats on, or that women should only pray if they are wearing a veil? If you don't, you do not believe in the literal word of God -- at least not in I Corinth. 11: 4-5
• A few verses later, I Corinth. 11: 14 points out that men disgrace themselves by wearing their hair long. If you are a literalist, please hurry to condemn any long-haired members of Christian rock bands. Also, please find and destroy all those paintings of Jesus with long, flowing locks. They make him look like a sinner.
• Guys, did you happen to get circumcised when you were born? Time to worry! -- at least if you take literally, and out of context, Galatians 5:2: "Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you."

Look for more such examples as the semester goes on.

Additionally, some groups that mainline evangelicals consider cults base their beliefs around a literal reading of one scripture or another. Snake handlers, for example take literally Mark 16:17-20, which says that the followers of Jesus will be able to handle snakes without being harmed.

My point is this: No one -- at least no one except short-haired, uncircumcised, snake-handling, slavery-supporting men with veiled wives -- takes all of scripture literally. Faced with a scripture whose literal meaning they do not accept, the "literalists" I know tend to say that such passages must be interpreted in light of the entire body of scripture.

In that case, though, they're NOT TAKING THE WHOLE BIBLE LITERALLY. Instead, these "literalists" are privileging one verse to make clear that another is not literal. The real debate, then, is about what parts of the Bible are the keys to to interpreting the rest of it.

Since most Christians view Jesus as divine, I'll stick with his words: Care for the poor, love your neighbors, love your enemies, refrain from judging, and love God with all your hearts.

That's the stuff I take literally.

Reclaiming Scripture

As a pastor friend of mine recently pointed out, a major problem of politically liberal Christians is that we tend not to know our scripture. When confronted by conservatives, we often speak from social science and the language of rights. They speak from scripture -- or at least what others have told them about scripture. In the end, liberals wind up ceding the crucial ground of the Bible.

This is a denial of Christian identity. We do not need to go outside of scripture for calls to justice. The Bible -- the literal, word-for-word Bible -- is packed with calls to help the poor and to build just societies. As I read through Paul's letters this semester, I will include some passages that strike me. So let's get started:

In Galatians 2, Paul is explaining the understanding he reached with the Jerusalem apostles, who followed Jesus throughout his ministry. In Gal. 2:9-10, Paul explains:

...and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas (Peter), and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Genties and they to the circumcised; only they would have us remember the poor, which very thing I was eager to do."

The verse is remarkable for several reasons. What does it mean that Jesus's original apostles reminded Paul to remember the poor in his ministry? Certainly, it suggests that they viewed concern for the poor as central to Christian faith. Preaching the gospel to the Gentiles is important, but they suggest to Paul that proclaiming the gospel is not the whole Christian mission. Part of that mission -- an essential, indispensable part -- is caring for the poor. Without that, the gospel is incomplete.

Also, the admonitions of the Jerusalem apostles undoubtedly reflect the emphases of Jesus himself. If the original apostles view concern for the poor as central to Christianity, Jesus must have preached it as central. The gospels, of course, seem to confirm that claim.

Finally, Paul says that he is "already eager" to remember the poor. Paul's attitudes are also significant. More than anyone else, Paul is responsible for core evangelical, Protestant doctrines like justification by faith (not by works, or the law). But Paul readily acknowledges that his gospel of faith must include concern for the poor.

The upshot is this: the apostles who founded the Christian church considered concern for the poor essential to the gospel. It is not something that is nice, yet subordinate to winning souls. No, the apostles and Paul proclaim that concern for the poor is inseparable from Christian faith. If you accept Christ by faith, you must accept the command to care for the poor.

Have affluent, American Christians forgotten that as we seek our own, private "blessings?"

Former Deputy Director of Faith-Based Initiatives: Bush Disappoints

The former deputy director of President Bush's faith-based initiative program says that an old combination of Republican indifference to the poor and Democratic fear of religion has made Bush's faith-based program little more than a piece of propaganda. Check out the article at: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/160/story_16092_1.html.

I never knew exactly what to think of the faith-based initiative plans, although some people seemed to fear it would violate the 1st amendment church/state restrictions. Nonethless, I remember a time -- long, long ago -- when I was moderately hopeful that "compassionate conservative" really implied genuine concern for the poor.

David Kuo, Bush's former Deputy Director for faith based initiatives, writes that it has meant nothing of the sort. To cite a few numeric examples:

• Six billion dollars of promised tax incentives for charitable giving were cut to pay for the repeal of the estate tax. As Kuo says, that tax cut overwhelmingly benefitted the wealthy.
• Bush promised $6.8 billion for programs "including those for children of prisoners, at-risk youth, and prisoners reentering society." Thos programs received $500 million in the last four years -- only 7 percent of what was originally promised.
• Bush created the "Compassion Capital Fund" to "assist, expand, and replicate" successful local programs. It was supposed to receive $200 million just to get started. To date, it's received $100 million in four years.
• Even "new" programs are deceptive, Kuo says. When Bush announced that he was providing $50 million to fund a new "gang prevention initiative," it sounded like a new priority. In fact, he just took the money from the aforementioned Compassion Capital Fund, which actually will receive $5 million less than it did last year.

Quo also asks why the faith based program fell flat. He points out that it wasn't 9/11 -- Bush failed to fund social programs before the attacks, and his budgets since have been anything but frugal. Instead, he notes two factors -- Democrats' seeming hostility to all things religious and Republicans' general lack of concern for the poor.

"Congressional Republicans," he writes, "met Democratic hostility with snoring inndifference."

But he also faults the White House, saying "it never really wanted the 'poor people stuff.'" For one thing, no one would hold it accountable for its promises. "Drug addicts, alcoholics, poor moms, struggling urban social service organizations, and pastors aren't quite the NRA," Quo says. Additionally, conservative Christian leaders like James Dobson, most of them not anti-poverty activists, took the initiative as proof of Bush's faith, regardless of how little money was actually spent.

Finally -- and ironically -- Quo says that liberal attacks on the plan made it appear more effective than it was. "Had these liberal groups or an alliance of charities held the White House accountable for how little was being done -- especially compared to what was promised -- there is no telling what might have happened ... or what might still happen."

Maybe he's right. David Quo is the sort of conservative Christian who represents hope -- so serious about Christ's call to help the poor that he is willing to break with a president who other conservatives seem ready to canonize. Quo still likes Bush, but he hoped for so much more. Fair enough.

I wonder if there's not more moderate conservatives out there who think like him, as well as pragmatic Christian liberals willing to come to the table to fight for a truly compassionate society.

Thou Shalt Vote Republican?

With all the talk about evangelicals swinging last year's election for Bush, you'd think that the Bible somewhere contained a new commandment: "Thou shalt vote Republican."

I checked my concordance. It's not in there.

But do evangelical beliefs entail Republican politics? Certainly not according to voting statistics, argues Mark Noll, an evangelical historian of American religion at Wheaton University, an evangelical institution.

In American Evangelical Christianity: An Introduction, Noll finds four characteristics of evangelical belief:

1) Conversionism (being born-again)
2) Biblicism (the Bible as the highest authority)
3) Activism (evangelism, sharing the faith)
4) "Crucicentrism" (a primary focus on redemption via Christ's sacrifice on the cross, as opposed to, say, the ethical teachings of Jesus)

In the 1996 election (the only one Noll examines) 48 percent of people holding all four of these beliefs voted for Clinton, according to a survey. Forty-six percent of people holding all four beliefs voted for Dole. More evangelicals favored Clinton than Dole.

Surprising, right? The differences we might expect showed up only when church backgrounds were taken into account. Of people belonging to conservative, largely white, Protestant denominations (Southern Baptists, for example), 57 percent favored Dole, and 37 percent favored Clinton.

In contrast, 95 percent of members of black Protestant denominations voted for Clinton. Since African American Protestants (members of A.M.E. churches, for example) hold evangelical beliefs in even higher percentages than members of mostly white evangelical churches (Noll's analysis), this is striking.

Doctrinally, African American Protestants and white evangelicals are nearly the same. Politically, they are worlds apart.

The reason why is obvious: context. African Americans live out their beliefs in a context that remembers the history of slavery and Jim Crow, as well as the racism that continues with us today. White evangelicals are often middle class, suburban, and, well, white. Such backgrounds give radically different understandings of what the Bible means -- and what it means for politics. Like Martin Luther King, Jr., many African Americans hear Amos's call to "let justice roll down like waters," as a divine call to fight the injustice of racism. If this is so, taking the Bible seriously may mean supporting traditionally Democratic policies, like affirmative action.

For now, the key is this: Don't let anyone tell you that evangelical beliefs require you to vote Republican (or Democrat, for that matter). Chances are good that they're hiding ideology and self-interest in the shadow of the cross.

From "red-state" Oklahoma, words from a very "blue" pastor

I was recently forwarded the text of a speech by a pastor in Oklahoma, a very conservative state where I have more than a few relatives. Here are a few excerpts. You can find the rest at http://www.suquamishucc.org/Meyers.htm. I agree with almost everything he has to say:

As some of you know, I am minister of Mayflower Congregational Church in Oklahoma City, an Open and Affirming, Peace and Justice church in northwest Oklahoma City, and professor of Rhetoric at Oklahoma City University. ...

Tonight, I join ranks of those who are angry, because I have watched as the faith I love has been taken over by fundamentalists who claim to speak for Jesus, but whose actions are anything but Christian.

We've heard a lot lately about so-called "moral values" as having swung the election to President Bush. Well, I'm a great believer in moral values, but we need to have a discussion, all over this country, about exactly what constitutes a moral value -- I mean what are we talking about?

Because we don't get to make them up as we go along, especially not if we are people of faith. We have an inherited tradition of what is right and wrong, and moral is as moral does.

Let me give you just a few of the reasons why I take issue with those in power who claim moral values are on their side:

• When you start a war on false pretenses, and then act as if your deceptions are justified because you are doing God's will, and that your critics are either unpatriotic or lacking in faith, there are some of us who have given our lives to teaching and preaching the faith who believe that this is not only not moral, but immoral.

• When you live in a country that has established international rules for waging a just war, build the Unite d Nations on your own soil to enforce them, and then arrogantly break the very rules you set down for the rest of the world, you are doing something immoral. \

• When you ignore the fundamental teachings of the gospel, which says that the way the strong treat the weak is the ultimate ethical test, by giving tax breaks to the wealthiest among us so the strong will get stronger and the weak will get weaker, you are doing something immoral.

• When you favor the death penalty, and yet claim to be a follower of Jesus, who said an eye for an eye was the old way, not the way of the kingdom, you are doing something immoral.

Should Government care for the Poor?

Few Christians I know dispute that the Bible contains calls to help the poor. Even -- indeed, especially -- the most strict Biblical literalists must see this. My conservative Christian friends, however, tend to say that this is best done privately, not by the government. The government is wasteful; churches and private organizations are more efficient. Do they have a point?

First, I think there is a distinction between two Christian calls: mercy and justice. What justice means is a subject of debate, but certainly government must be involved in some ways. Crime is an obvious example, but justice involves action in the economy as well. Without government regulation, Enron insiders would still be pocketing millions while private investors lost their shirts. Without government loans and programs, only the relatively privileged (like yours truly) could go to college. Other programs related to justice, like affirmative action, are more controversial.

But where we all seem to agree is that Christians are called to show mercy to the "poor, the orphans, the widows," and others incapable of helping themselves, for whatever reason. Here is where conservatives say that private citizens and private individuals should take the government's place.

Maybe they're right -- maybe mercy is most "efficiently" shown by the church, not the government. But socially involved conservatives that I've talked to agree that the church is falling down on the job. If social welfare programs disappeared, is there really enough church commitment to take care of all the poor, disabled, and even addicted that would be forced onto the streets? If not, do we just let them fend for themselves? WWJD, anyone?

If you think churches should take over the business of mercy from the federal government, then my challenge to you is to do it. Advocate for ministries of mercy in your churches. Get involved. I need to do more of this, too, so this is also a challenge to me.

And if you want examples of conservatives doing just that, check out these guys: http://www.safehouse-outreach.org/home.htm. They're putting their money -- and their lives -- where their mouths are.

Anyone else?

I'm not biased! You're biased!

Maybe you’ve heard this argument: If liberals are so upset about using the military to save Iraqis from Saddam, why did they support Clinton in Kosovo? And then there’s the converse: If conservatives are such grand humanitarians, why didn’t they want to save the Kosovars?
Yes, yes, the situations are quite different. But I think there’s something to both arguments. And I suspect that Drew Westen, a psychologist here at Emory University in Atlanta, does, too.

You see, Westen has studied how people choose their positions on various hot-button political topics. And if you think that they judiciously weigh the positions, consider them in light of their values, and then calmly choose a side, regardless of their party affiliations ... well, you know better people than I do.

As it turns out, 80 percent of the subjects in Westen’s study took political positions based on their biases, political affiliations, and preconceptions – not the facts. Specifically, the study asked subjects to consider the case of a fictional soldier accused of abuse at Abu Ghraib. The soldier claimed to be acting on orders, and he wanted to subpoena President Bush and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld to prove it. Subjects were asked whether the soldier should be granted the subpoena. But they were also offered variations on the scenario – sometimes the soldier had compelling evidence to support his claims; other times he didn’t.

In the end, it didn’t matter. In 80 percent of cases, people’s feelings about the Bush administration, etc., guided their decision regardless of the facts.

The study doesn’t make a compelling case for the value of dialogue. It does point to our culture’s postmodern character, a state of affairs in which "facts" depend on your context.

But it should also be a reminder to Christians that certainty about one’s own beliefs is always dangerous.

Think I’m wrong? Are you certain of your faith? Certain of your values? So was the German church under Nazism, with notable exceptions like Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. So were the judges in the Salem witch trials. So were the pre-civil war Southern Christians who argued that the Old Testament the letters of Paul "proved" that slavery was Biblically sanctioned. (The Southern Baptist Convention split off over the issue) So were the leaders of the Inquisition.

Oh, come on! We’re not the Third Reich, right? We abhor slavery, right? We have nothing in common with those people.

Actually, we do. We are all sinful people capable of misreading God’s word in ways that simply reconfirm what we want to believe or already believe. The history of Christianity demonstrates this well. The early church, for example, followed Jesus’s teachings to "love your enemy" by becoming pacifist. But they wouldn’t have "turned the other cheek" if they were attacked by terrorists, right?

Well, an awful lot of them did become martyrs.

My point is this: Christians must engage the Bible with open minds and open hearts. Just because James Dobson says it doesn’t mean it’s right. And just because you hear James Dobson say it doesn’t mean its wrong. We should all be careful about certainty, fear our own sinfulness, and be open to the possibility that we need to repent of things we don't even recognize.

We can always debate "Crossfire"-style, getting across talking points but never listening to each other. Listening is hard. It's also risky, since it might mean changing your mind, swallowing your pride, and admitting that you are wrong. It requires humility.

Let's all pray for more of that.

Searching for a Glimmer of Hope in the State of the Union

As noted above, a recent study by a psychologist here at Emory University has shown that 80 percent of people judge hot political issues not by the facts, but by their own biases, preconceptions, and party affiliations.

Let me attempt to avoid that pitfall by saying what was good about Bush’s State of the Union address (which I watched while drinking beer and eating deer burgers). I will criticize Bush again soon enough. But a few things I liked:

1) Immigration reform. While I think there should be an amnesty for undocumented workers, that’s not politically likely. An expanded guest worker program is a step in the right direction. More importantly, it’s important for the nation to hear the president – a man conservatives listen to – say that our current laws "punish hardworking people who want only to provide for their families." Conservatives point out that undocumented immigrants break the law. Think of it this way: If your choice is to watch your family starve or illegally cross a border to support them, what is the morally responsible decision? I guess it depends on what your "family values" are. Bush’s stance, limited though it may be, may help change perceptions. Still, I’ll take a wait and see attitude with Bush’s specific immigration reforms. Like his "Clear Skies Initiative," it could be a smokescreen.

2) Increased use of DNA evidence and training for defense counsel in death penalty cases. I have friends who have worked in death row defense non-profits, and they say the number of wrongful convictions is staggering. Defense attorneys are often non-criminal lawyers who are forced to take death penalty cases only because the courts appoint them. Some spend little or no time on the defense. Others have actually dozed off during cases. Again, this proposal may be smoke and mirrors to divert attention from other problems, like racism in the judicial system. Also, poor people defended by lawyers with government workshops under their belts are still not given the same shot at justice as rich folks defended by a high-priced criminal specialists. Still, it could be a step in the right direction.

3) OK, I still think the Iraq war was, on balance, a horrible idea. We’re still in a horrible morass, and terrorists have a recruiting video on TV every night. But if you really think that it was bad for that Iraqi woman to have a chance to vote – or if your primary reaction to the surprisingly large Iraqi voter turnout was fear that Bush might look good politically – you need to accept the fact that your political allegiances have totally consumed your other values.

Bush said a number of other things that sound good, but that are simply contrary to reality. If you listened to him talk about the environment, you’d think he consulted with Ralph Nader on energy policy. In fact, he talked with Enron. His administration has rolled back, or attempted to roll back, virtually every environmental regulation on the books. After all, this is a man who doesn’t think global warming is happening. How are those ice caps looking again?

Iraq, social security, marriage amendments? God help us. And I mean that as a prayer.