Speaking of Religion ...

Monday, August 28, 2006

Politics does not the Christian make

First off, my apologies to my faithful readers for not posting in so long. Frankly, there weren't any religion subjects in the news this past week that got me fired up enough to write a post: you know I just don't want to post nonsense just to post, as I don't think you're enlightened by it or prodded to think about your own positions on certain issues. Anyway, I wasn't holding out much hope for this week either until I caught this interesting little doozy. Check this out:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/25/AR2006082501640.html

While I appreciate Katherine Harris' passion for God, I'm just a tiny bit (well more than a tiny bit) concerned about some of the statements she was quoted as saying in the name of the God of Christianity.

One of those statements is something to the effect of: if you're not electing Christians then you're legislating sin. So I suppose my question is this: Does Katherine Harris contend that Christians are above sin? While Christians may have the guidance of the Holy Spirit into a holier life, Christians are far from perfect and sinless. Believe me, I'm a Christian and I can vouch personally for that statement. And I personally know many others would say the same about themselves. Yeah, yeah, I understand Harris is talking in the context of legislating abortion and gay marriage. But, it seems like the implication is the same and can be taken by a seeker or skeptic that Christians think they're perfect. I'll go back to my same 'ol song and dance that I think you've already gathered from my other posts: A Christian, as you'll remember, will be known by her fruit - patience, kindness, longsuffering, love and so on - not whether or not you "vote Christian." Politics does not the Christian make.

So, the other concern I have regarding some of Katherine Harris' remarks concerns her thought that God did not intend the U.S. to be a "nation of secular laws." Well, seriously, I'm not sure he intended any nation to be one of secular laws. Maybe he originally intended for there to be a theocracy among all of the people he created. But through our own free will, we chose to govern ourselves instead. And so I have to wonder why we should be surprised that our country, or any country around the world, is not "legislating sin," as this legislator puts it. Every last one of us on this particular rock are fallen (Christians too) - why should we be surprised about our own depravity, about our want for what's best for our own interests, to do what makes us happy instead of putting ourselves last.

And, in a fallen world where God - forever the gentleman who never, ever forces himself on anyone - created people with free will, I wonder why we should not think that our fallen selves would push for separation of church and state? This may seem foreign to some of you out there, but to me the democracy is one of the few outward expressions in this world of God's gentlemanly ways. The democracy - done correctly - never forces people to say what it wants, never forces people to believe what it wants. Separation of church and state? You betcha! I'm all for it - why? Because this nation is quickly becoming one that is a mixed pot of all religions. And if we Christians try to force our own agendas into the government by mixing church and state, that means that some other majority religious group in the future could follow our lead and our example, forcing their own beliefs on us Christians. What scares me about that is most other religious traditions in the world don't have a gentlemany attitude in terms of how God acts toward his people. Instead, many other religious traditions want to force you into their way of thinking. When and if that happens, we Christians won't be screaming, "No separation of church and state!" anymore. We'll likely be screaming, louder than anyone: "Separation of church and state!"

Saturday, August 19, 2006

So you like to read?

Once in awhile on this travail through the world of religion in the news, I would like to recommend some books to read.
Building Belief: Constructing Faith from the Gound Up by Dr. Chad V. Meister, associate professor of philosophy at Bethel College is one such book.
Meister is very good a bringing difficult concepts down to the rest of us who don't live in ivory towers.
On top of that, I love the way Meister asks his readers to "use" his book rather than just "read" his book. And he gives both sides of the story regarding religion - which, to me, is paramount when trying to discover what in this life we're going to believe. (And just in case there is any confusion, we should believe what's true.) He prods readers to not just look at evidences for the validity of Christianity, he also encourages readers to check out other worldviews and concepts contrary to Christianity. He invites further study of Theism, Pantheism and Atheism - the three worldviews he says every religion can fall into. He even recommends further reading of the best that he's read in each area. And, in the end, given all the evidence he allows you to make your own decision.
While I enjoy Lee Strobel's books - The Case for Faith, The Case for Christ, The Case for a Creator - the one criticism I have of them is that he interviews only Christians. Of course, the people he interviews are no doubt learned, top-of-their-game scholars who give a very compelling case for the validity of Christianity.
But Meister challenges readers to explore every thing and land where the evidence seems most reasonable regarding religion and where to find truth in religion. He contends there is truth, religious beliefs are not merely subjective and based on our own personal preferences. The book is valuable for Christians and non Christians alike.

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Get your ticket to ride ...

An interesting way to purchase salvation ...

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/MediaNews/2006/08/12/1751316-sun.html

Monday, August 07, 2006

The forgiver is hated

That Michael Berg - father of Nicholas Berg, a 26-year-old American contractor whose be-heading by terrorists in Iraq and the subsequent broadcast of it over the Internet and television - is derided by some for forgiving groups he believes had a hand in his son's murder is ... well, incomprehensible to me.

While some can't seem to forgive Michael Berg for being an anti-war protestor extending from present day to the Vietnam-war era, some pro-war protestors seemed to want to torture him by waving on a street corner in Washington a four-foot high placard photograph of his son after Nicholas Berg been removed of his head. Michael Berg says that image has been burned into him, and it's one that he, rightly, never wanted to see.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/06/BAG7FKC3E21.DTL&hw=michael+berg&sn=001&sc=1000

I saw the video of Nicholas Berg's murder. I have a strong stomach for such things, but after I watched the life ( I couldn't even watch the whole broadcast) leave his body ... well, let's just say it was nothing like I had ever seen before. I don't even have the words to describe how horrible it was.

So, I have to ask myself, as ugly as his be-heading was, I found it equally ugly that people - no matter what their politics - would intentionally try to show Michael Berg his dead son's photograph. Do we in this country, which is supposed to be a civilized nation - though I question that more and more all the time - really believe that sort of thing is what is going to get our point across? Do we so take for granted our freedoms of speech and are we so convinced of the righteousness of our causes that we simply cannot understand what decency is and have empathy, or at least sympathy, for a father whose son was murdered so brutally?
I'm not saying that these pro-war protestors did not have the right to disagree with Michael Berg's pacivist position. They have just as much a right to their position as Berg. But to show him a photograph of his dead son? Now there's a dose of some home-grown terrorism for you.

Thursday, August 03, 2006

All you need is love ... and maybe something to eat too

As I read this article (http://www.religionnewsblog.com/15472/India--s---Hugging-Saint---Embraced-by-America), I was hammered once again by our calling to love God and love our neighbors as ourselves.
While I cannot buy into Amma's ultimate conclusions (http://www.amma.org/teachings/index.html) about paths of devotion (which she would undoubtedly smile at knowingly) because it involves working (which she also denies, wrongly I think) toward the ultimate goal of "self-realization" through devotion and selfless service (which she believes to be the "safest and most conducive path"), I love that she loves. I can't say that her desire is selfless, as Christ's act of dying on the cross was selfless, because it is clear that she practices devotion and selfless service (Bhakti) out of a desire for this self-realization that she describes. And in the end, that is work; whereas my self-realization through Jesus Christ is that I'm a sinner, there's no amount of work I can do to pay for my sins, so I must freely accept God's freely given grace. This notion of freely given grace is often the sticking point for us, I think. We're not used to the notion of getting something for free. It kind of gives me the willies personally - I feel like I should do something to pay it back or forward or something.

Anyway, to me, Amma's teachings break down logically, but ...

It's difficult to discount such a peacefully and lovingly given love that she seems to hold for people. And it's something people in our disconnected, non-communicative, non-community oriented society long for and want to physically and tangibly touch quite possibly to simply remember that we're human. And Amma, a Hindu, is tangibly giving it out for free.

I think it's also important to point out that different religious systems, though we may not agree with them, have kernels of truth and those kernels of truth need to be embraced rather than rejected, like Amma's want to give selfless love. We Christians should do more of that - Amen? - maybe not by giving out free hugs, but in even more tangible ways like feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, sheltering the homeless or even listening to those who hurt. Christ did mention that it's quite useless to bless someone and tell them to be well without tending to their basic needs like food, clothing and shelter. So while we can see kernels of truth in other religions like Hinduism, we must remember (quite tolerantly, remembering those kernels like Amma's love) that it is a religion in which many venerate numerous gods, tolerate a caste system that dehumanizes the lowest class (called the untouchables) and believe in reincarnation, in which your station in the next life is determined by what you do in this life.