Speaking of Religion ...

Presto, blinko .... i'm an ape

2007-12-14T15:27:00.000-05:00

The evolution debate is one of my faves because people on both sides of it (whether creationists or evolutionists) have such blind spots. Any how, this is an interesting article worth reading:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/12/13/evolution.speedup/index.html

What I find fascinating about evolutionist's blind spots is that NO ONE denies (or should deny at least) the idea of micro evolution - species evolve in specific ways to adapt to their environments. The big question is whether a species can completely evolve into different one = macro evolution. And, too, when exactly does that point come? When is a homo sapien, not a homo sapien any longer, I wonder?

At any rate, the above article is an interestings one, if an incompled one, because it fails to report what changes have actually occured over the last 1,000 to 2,000 years that qualify as evolution. It quotes a scientist telling us there have been changes, but we just don't seem to get at what they are. I wonder if my brothers and sisters 2,000 years ago were homo sapiens 1.0, and I'm more of a homo sapien 5.0. And when my great, great, great great, great, great...................great granddaughter has evolved into a homo sapien 10.0, will she really still be a homo sapien or a completely different species. hmmm ....

So far away ...

2007-12-14T15:22:00.000-05:00

If there are any faithful readers left still perusing my blog, I apologize for being away for far too long. Life happens, unfortunately, and my time has become quite precious. I was reminded by a friend recently that I have not posted in quite some time, and I began feeling a bit guilty for not posting. So, even though my future blog posts may not be as long as they have been in the past, I'm going to make a concerted effort to post more often - for those of you who are still paying attention, anyway!

Does seeking justice really mean unforgiveness? I

2007-02-27T18:41:00.000-05:00

See woman raped in college. Watch man who raped woman contact her 20 years later. Man confesses. Woman probes. Woman finds that man has not really accepted responsibility. Man is charged in court of law. Man pleads innocent. Woman receives letter from Christians criticizing her for pressing charges against man. Christians say woman should forgive.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/02/25/forgive.ap/index.html

I have one question in regard to that: What does forgiveness have to do with justice?

Man breaks law. Man should go the prison. If man wishes to act in a Christ-like manner, man accepts responsibility as well as punishment.

Why criticize Liz Seccuro for working with prosecutors who want to bring to justice a man who commits rape? There is not one place in the Bible, that I can find at least, that God says people who break men's laws on this Earth should not be held accountable for those wrongs by the society that make the laws.

The case of the returned diamonds

2007-02-08T12:31:00.000-05:00

Is it just me, or is it troubling to others also that a cab driver who returned diamonds left in his cab by a fare is considered unusual.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070208/ap_on_fe_st/honest_cabbie
Of course, we likely would not have heard this story had the cabbie never returned the diamonds, not just because the fare who lost them would likely not have remembered where she left them, but also because it would not have been considered newsworthy that someone had not acted in such an honorable way. It's sad to me that we're so used to be people behaving badly, but find it amazing when people behave the way they should - as "enlightened" as we are supposed to be, it seems it should be the other way around.
But, I have to admit it's nice to hear about such people, though I really don't think people should be rewarded for doing what they ought to be doing anyway. And his response, too, was refreshing. It appeared, from the way the article was written anyway, that he really was just doing what came seemed naturaly for him. If only a tendency toward the good were really the natural response in all of our daily lives.

Walking a fine line

2006-11-15T12:29:00.000-05:00

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bishops15nov15,1,6913815.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true

Catholic Bishops want churches to support gays and lesbians, but would prefer they abstain from acting on homosexual tendencies.

Church denominations - Catholic, Mainline and Protestant - are having to walk a thin line these days in regard to homosexuality, and it's a line that's easy to step away from especially given that we're fallable. It's a line that says, "we cannot condone homosexual acts, but we accept and welcome you as a person."

While at first blush it may not seem like a problem. For instance, if you consider homosexual acts a sin like, say, gossiping or getting drunk, then Christians clearly are called to love the drunkard, gossip, homosexual, etc.

But if you don't consider homosexual acts a sin - like most homosexuals, certainly - that's where the rub comes in: If you don't think what you're doing is a sin, but others think you're commiting a sin every time you sleep with someone of the same sex and then try to tell you they love you even though they think you're sinning, you're not likely to take too kindly to their want to love you. It feels kind of like a back-handed sort of love. That's because you feel as if that someone, who, in one breath, can tell you they love you and, in the same breath, tell you you're sinning if you engage in homosexuality even though you don't think it's wrong, is talking out of two sides of his/her mouth. Make sense?

On the other hand, if you're a person who recognizes what you're doing is wrong - like being a drunkard or being a gossip - and others tell you it's wrong but continue to truly love you like a brother anyway, then it doesn't seem so bad that they're telling you you're sinning. That's because they seem more genuine and willing to look at the sins they've committed without being condemning toward you - it's kind of like the whole 'plank in your neighbor's eye' story that Christ tells.

So how do Christ followers walk this thin line? I submit that from the perspective of homosexuals who don't believe sleeping with others of the same sex is wrong, it's nearly an impossible line to walk. Many will always accuse you of hatred and bigotry because you view something as wrong that they don't consider wrong.

So what's a good Christ follower to do? I say, love them more. Love them like you would yourself, since you yourself were or may still be a gossiper, a drunkard, adulterer or what have you. Extend grace, like you would want others to extend you grace. Be like Christ, the one who ate and associated with everyone and anyone and excluded no one. There's no doubt he was honest - he called a spade a spade and a sinner a sinner, including you - but he also hung out with everyone, loved them, gave himself to them. And that, I think, is all Christ expects his followers to do. How hard can it be?

Ban religion?

2006-11-13T15:44:00.001-05:00

It's a good thing Elton John is not in charge of the world. Our British friend would ban religion, according to this article: http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Music/11/13/britain.eltonjohn.ap/index.html
Or, could it be, that banning "religion" might be a good thing?

Now, I don't want to bash Elton. I like Elton - well, at least, I like his music, and I don't know him personally so I can't say I don't like him as a person. He seems like a good guy. Given that, I feel compelled to make some observations regarding his comments to ban religion.

I agree with him that "religion," in and of itself, seems pretty horrible. Religion is basically a set of "don't" rules that simply tell us what not to do. Religion has no regard, it seems, for how we are behave toward one another. I think a perfect example of religion would be those folks who picket gay rallies with signs that say stuff like "Turn or Burn," or "God hates fags." Take, for instance, that horrible group the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas. (If you are unfamiliar with this group, look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church)
Take, for another instance, the fact that Christ himself was most harsh on the "religious" of his day, the Pharisees - those who were sparkley clean on the outside, but on the inside were reeking tombs. It seems even today we can see the "religious" all around us.
So, in essence, I agree with our friend Elton: BAN RELIGION!

But before we get too carried away, let's consider less the religious aspects of Christianity since I contend 'Christianity done right' is not religious. Rather, it is a way of life, a heart change, directions to live like Christ. Aren't Christians, after all, supposed to be Christ followers? And what are we Christians to do? What is the greatest commandment? Love God, love others, right? Right. So why is it that one of our blackest marks seems to be those from the outside looking in saying, "I don't want to go in there. I don't want to be like them." Maybe it has more to do with most of us acting religious instead of being actual disciples of Christ.

That said, while I do think there is an element of truth in what our friend Elton is trying to say, we must be careful that we don't condone particular behaviors simply by saying that we love others. I think gay people pretty much get sick of hearing Christians, many of whom still have their own brands of sin running rampant in their lives, tell them "you're sinning, but we love you anyway so quit being gay." Now, I firmly don't believe it's wrong to say that homosexuality is wrong. But the hypocrisy that exudes from many Christians when they're saying it just begs criticism from non Christians. The point is that many of us don't really show others we love them, we just say we do and that doesn't set well.

Given that, I also think it's clear that some people, homosexual and others, willingly run in the opposite direction from Christianity because it calls wrong what wrong is: wrong. And they run in the opposite direction because they want to continue to live the way they want to live, not the way God called all of us to live.

But still ... there's an element of truth to what our friend Elton says. "Religion" does promote hatred and spite against gay people because "religion" is simply a set of rules to be followed and doesn't involve any kind of heart change. So, in that sense, I say, "Right on, Elton. Ban religion."
But if you're running away from becoming a Christ follower because you simply don't want to live Christ's way and you want to live your way, then we should all keep praying for Elton and millions like Elton. I don't expect those who first become Christ followers to immediately change their habits - changing us is God's work and often has very little to do with those of us who say others should change.

So, I say, let's welcome Elton and other gay people into the ranks of Christ followers and ban religion. It's for God to change them, not for us to change them.

Another one bites the dust?

2006-11-03T09:18:00.000-05:00

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/03/haggard.allegations/index.html
It's sad. It seems we want people to fail. I think we, as a society, get a certain joy out of watching people crash and burn. Especially, we media types and those who eat up what the media has to say. It's absolutely scintillating to watch someone fall from lofty heights into defeat, it seems. Maybe that's because it's about watching someone, other than ourselves, fail - while in many of our cases, our failures are not broadcast among the millions. So we can sit back, watch and say with a certain order of relief, "Look at that fool," or "How horrible," or "What a disgace." See the link to the above article about Ted Haggard.

But even more so, I think we as a society like to watch the pious fall, as if we "knew" all along that someone who seems to be a follower of Christ, like Ted Haggard, head of the National Association of Evangelicals and pastor of a 14,000-member church, accused of gay sex, could not stay on his pedestal for long. We don't like people on pedestals unless they're sports heros or actors or talk show hosts who seem to give away their millions to the poor for no reason at all - like our coveted Oprah. But rest assured, if we could find a scandal in the armpits of even Oprah's wings, we would just as soon knock her off and break her legs in the process than help and wonder what in the world happened.
We just like watching people fall, I think, even more than we like to be the recipients of their money and good fortune. It's more fun to say, "I told you so," than to look at ourselves and say, "But by the grace of God, I go."

Even still, Haggard's alleged indiscretions, if true, are nothing to simply shake off. These types of scandals mangle the average Christ followers chances of reaching someone for the "kingdom now" philosophy. But, I imagine if those like Haggard were living true "kingdom now" lives, these types of scandals would be avoided.
"Kingdom now" living, if you're not familiar with it, is NOT looking at Christianity as if it's some sort of fire insurance or a way of telling others "I'm going to heaven to live with God someday, and you're not."
Living "kingdom now," means that we, as emissaries of Christ, bring heaven to Earth now by living as Christ would have lived. If we Christ followers always lived with the idea of living "kingdom now" a lot less hell would be evident on Earth, it seems to me.

Actions like Haggard's, if they are true, crush a little more the idea of heaven on Earth. Less people want to be Christ followers, with suspected Christ followers doing the types of things Haggard is accused of. Who wants to be a hypocrit - Christ, himself, said these are the worst kind.

That said, true Christ followers must continue on in the sometimes quiet and sometimes unnoticeable ways they always have, to bring heaven to Earth - taking care of the sick, taking care of the poor, hungry, naked and homeless. And in their own little pockets of the world bringing the kingdom now, bringing peace now, bringing hope now, bringing love, patience, longsuffering, joy, etc., etc. now. And when the lofty fall, "kingdom now" living shakes it's head, says a little prayer and continues on in it's quiet and mostly unnoticeable tasks and in ways that continue to bring a little bit of heaven to the here and now.

"But by the grace of God, go I."

Ah, hell

2006-11-01T15:14:00.000-05:00

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/16427/web-domain-hellcom-has-no-takers
I guess nobody wanted hell ...

oops

2006-10-05T15:18:00.000-04:00

For all of you out there who have been trying to publish a comment on my blog and been frustrated because it hasn't shown up - it's my fault. I had the "moderate comments" on without realizing it and your comments wouldn't show up until I approved them. At any rate, I've changed it back so anyone who wants to comment can comment again! Sorry about that! Blog and comment to your heart's content now!
Peace and Christ's Love,
-J

Don't tread on my spirituality

2006-10-05T10:57:00.000-04:00

We really are becoming a country that is seemingly unwilling to make a stand, declare what we believe to be true and (God forbid) tell someone else we think he or she is wrong! EEK! Don't want to hurt any delicate sensibilities out there, for sure!
This article (http://www.religionnewsblog.com/16165/spiritual-group-sheds-church-label)
about a church that is shedding its former label in order to be "spiritual" is just another prime example of how we've become even more mamby-pamby - Amen?
I say if you're a Christian, for pete's sake be a Christian and stand up for the beliefs that Christ taught. And for Muhammed's sake, if you're a Muslim, stand up for the beliefs that Allah's prophet taught. And for the sake of 3 million gods, if you're a Hindu, stand up for the beliefs you've learned along the way! I've said it before and I'll say it again: they CANNOT all be right.
All paths do not lead to the same end. In the end, you alone have to decide which one is right, which one is true. You alone have to commit, if you're the sort that needs something to believe in. And even if you're not someone who needs something to believe in, isn't it paramount simply to believe what is true? Why spend your life living what is untrue - it seems like an irrelevant life is the one that lives by what is false.

And so what exactly is being "spiritual" that the above article refers to? I wish someone could explain it to me because in my mind it simply means 'I'm being the best person I can be.' And isn't that what most of us try to be on a daily basis without calling ourselves "spiritual?" So what, if I throw in a few readings from the Koran or the Bible for good measure - is supposed to make me "spiritual?" Sheesh. What ever happened to picking a religion - the one that makes the most sense - and sticking to it - giving it everything you have, with all you soul, heart, body and mind. Now that, to me, is something to believe in. This term "spiritual," which is becoming a psuedo-religion all to itself, seems like drinking luke warm water that does little to satisfy that longing for either ice cold water, or piping hot chocolate. Anything in the middle is just down right unsatisfying.

Being "spiritual" is kinda like not committing in marriage to the boyfriend or girlfriend you've been dating for eight years. You tell him or her, "I love you, but I just can't commit the rest of my life to you, heart and soul, because something better might come along. But, for now, I'm comfortable where I'm at." Would the other really buy that? My bet is that the non committal one would end up alone.

Now imagine one God really did exist - the Christian God, Allah, the three million gods of Hinduism or any of the other myriad of Gods out there - and you had to answer for your life to that God? When he or she asked you why you never committed what would you say? Why can't we see that all of these religions and gods are exclusivistic, that they're all jealous and demand all of their followers' attention? The point is: commit to ONE. Don't be afraid to stand up for your God, to seek out what is truth and right and good. One way will make itself clear to you. But no matter which one you choose just pick one. When will we as a culture realize that believing in something is not like going to a buffet?

Like all other good things, we Americans have once again Americanized our religions. We want the best of all of them, leaving out the things we don't like for the parts of the religions we want. What it leaves us with is a cobbled up mess of psuedo spirituality that simply builds an even more spoiled people who believe that the gods are there to serve our whims - little ATM machines in the sky doling out wealth, happiness, well-being and health. By that definition we would be gods - little gods of our own universes dictating our own wants at our own pleasures. And since our Americanized "spirituality" has turned us all into gods, what use do we even have for readings from the Koran, the Bible, the Torah or other religious texts designed to teach us or for spiritual disciplines designed to help build the character most of us tend to lack. Why pretend to follow anything at all since we ourselves dictate what's good for us? We might as well be meditating atheists, meditating on our own greatness.

Ecumenism at it's finest?

2006-09-19T13:59:00.000-04:00

As I was driving around to various freelance writing duties this morning, I was listening NPR on the radio and in particular The Diane Rehm Show, which I mostly enjoy listening to.
Her guests the first hour were a Muslim scholar - can't recall his name - and a Catholic Cardinal or Bishop - can't remember his name.
Anyway, as I was listening to some explanations by the Muslim scholar as to why Muslims around the world were offended by the Pope quoting from Byzantine emporer Paleologus, I was struck by a line of reasoning the Muslim scholar shared that I was surprised to find no one questioned him about - even the Catholic priest.

While I can understand why Muslims the world over would be upset by what they saw as the trashing of the Prophet Muhammed by a Byzantine emporer and the quotation by Benedict - this was one of the explanations as to why Muslims have taken to the streets in violence - I'm amused and somewhat bewildered by some other statements the scholar talked about in terms of ecumenism, "paths" to God and "exclusivism."

Muslim scholar said because of Pope Benedict XVI's speech, in which he quoted Paleologus who apparently likened aspects of Islam to being evil, Benedict is really against ecumenism. And Muslim scholar condemns the Pope's position that there is no salvation for people outside of Jesus Christ. In that vein and with that thinking by the Pope, according to Muslim Scholar, the Pope is not promoting ecumenism.

My bewilderment here comes in where Muslim Scholar accuses the Pope of promoting the idea that there can be no salvation for those outside of Jesus Christ, which is simply not being tolerant of other religions. Now, this teaching is not a specific teaching of the Pope or of Christian peoples, in general, in order to tell others who's "in" and who's "out" in terms of salvation. This is a teaching of Jesus Christ himself. This isn't something made up by Christian people or the Pope to exclude others outside the faith. Take these words from Christ, for example: "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except by me." Christ, by the way, wasn't being exclusive here. He invited all people to come into faith and become followers of his and in that way come to know the Father. He allowed everyone to make their choice of their own free will, but he was still clear on the point that he is the Way. And there are many other references that can be pointed to in which Christ claims he's the only Way. The point here is that if you're going to be a follower or disciple of Christ, you have to take all of his teachings, not just some of them. So to say that the Benedict is being exclusivistic is not valid because he is simply being a good Christian and going by what the Origin (Jesus Christ) taught. The Pope wasn't being exclusivistic in the terms that Muslim Scholar was accusing. Muslim Scholar would have to accuse Jesus Christ of being exclusivistic.

And in the same vein, all religions - not just Christianity - are exclusivistic with radically different teachings about how to reach "salvation." This is not simply a Christian invention.
If you understand any limited laws of logic, one in particular makes this point. This law of logic is knows as the Law of Non Contradiction, which is as follows: A cannot equal -A. It's a logical impossibility for the two to equal each other. And you can plug anything in there: Chair cannot equal Table; four cannot equal two; Hinduism cannot equal Islam; Judaism cannot equal Mormonism; etc.

So back to the point - all religions are exclusivistic and do not hold to the same tennets. All paths do not end in reaching God. If you follow the teachings of Muhammed, you cannot also follow the teachings of Christ because they are not the same and contradict each other. For example, a teaching of Islam indicates that the only way for someone to be wholly secured of salvation is to martyr him or herself for the faith. But you can't hold to that view and at the same time hold to the Christian view that a confession of faith in Jesus Christ is the only way to secure salvation. They're mutually exclusive teachings. I'm guessing that Muslim scholar - at least Muslims in general - would even deny that Christians have salvation as most Christians deny that Muslims have salvation. What it comes down to, then, is which religion seems most reasonable to you - the Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hinduist, etc. systems.

In any case, ecumenism, then, is the idea that two religious groups with opposing views can come together for a common goal like for instance the common goal of peace. While different religions can hold to different beliefs, they can work together for a common goal or end by trying to understand each other better without compromising their own beliefs. And toleration is really the idea that one person with a particular belief can tolerate - with loving, humble kindness - the opinion of someone else even though it may be wrong and vice versa. Tolerance does not mean that I cannot voice my opinions about a particular subject or view and say that, in my opinion, a particular view is wrong. Unfortunately, though, that is how the word "tolerance" has been wrongly cast as of late.

So, for the Muslim Scholar to accuse the Pope of being exclusivistic and against ecumenism for holding to Catholic/Christian doctrine is absurd, just like it would be absurd for the Pope to say that a Muslim holding to Islamic teachings is being exclusivistic.

Greasing the squeaky Islamic wheel

2006-09-18T08:09:00.000-04:00

Call me intolerant, call me insensitive, call me what you will, but I'm a little perplexed as to why the Muslim world starts yelling "jihad" and calling for Muslims around the world to slit the throats of "cross worshippers" every time someone says something they don't like. And you can't fall back on "We're oppressed! We're oppressed!" To me, that's a cop out. Hundreds of real Jesus-following Christians are persecuted or killed daily for their beliefs, and while they may believe they're oppressed you don't see them out burning effigies of their so-called oppressors and calling on radicals to slit people's throats. You don't see real Jesus-following Christians taking to the streets en mass calling for apologies and threatening violence when radical Muslims say :"We shall break the cross and spill the wine. ... "(Allah) will (help) Muslims to conquer Rome. ... (Allah) will enable us to slit their throats, and make their money and descendants the bounty of the mujahideen," said the statement" by an Al Qaeda-linked militant group.

www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/17/pope.islam/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/18/pope.islam.ap/index.html

This, to me, is like telling the rest of the world 'I'm going to kill you if you keep telling me I'm violent.' It's all quite suspect since we're constantly told that Islam is not a violent religion and yet violence seems to pour from real Allah-following Muslims like .... well, I have a pretty graphic example that I'm going to censor myself from using.
The point is: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ....
The Islamic religion scares me, and it seems more and more to me that might quite possibly be the point.

The Gospel of Processed Cheesy Meat

2006-09-12T11:52:00.000-04:00

Oh, dear, where to begin. There are few topics that get me so fired up as the so-called Name it & Claim it, Prosperity, Pie-in-the-Sky, My-Big-Heaven-Daddy's-gonna-buy-me-a- candy-apple-red-1965-mint-Mustang-someday-because-I'm-the-perfect-Christian-brat-and-you're-not Syndrome.
I was pleased that Time Magazine tackled an article about the Prosperity Gospel with what I think is a great deal of seriousness and candor: (It's a long article, so prepare to have a few moments to take it all in)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1533448,00.html

What you haven't seen as you read this is that I've been sitting in front of my computer for quite awhile now trying to figure out a nice way to write what I want to say about this "gospel." Frankly, it's not working. The not-so-good-news health and wealth gospel simply infuriates me. If you could see me right now, you could tell as much. When I get overly angry about something my jaw sets such that I will likely have to have some serious dental work done someday.

First off, I must say that I'm not surprised at the development of such a gospel here in the Land of Good and Plenty. It's typical for us overindulged Americans, who would rather camp out in front of our television sets and be spoon-fed theology from the Great Talking Idiot Box of the Living Room, to buy into a sort of Christianity that compares God to the Great ATM Machine in the sky, who, according to this non gospel, would rather we drive nice shiny cars and live in plush dream homes than develop any sort of character and Christ-likeness.

I wonder why any of us would be surprised by such a theology that would crop up in Good and Plenty Land where the Great and Wonderful Idiot Box reigns on a throne of expensive furniture, despite the fact that something like seventy percent of the world's population goes hungry on a daily basis? Is it just we Western "sort-of" Christians that the ATM god wishes to bless with health and wealth? Is it just we Western "sort-of" Christians that the ATM god has seen fit convey money, good eats, safe homes, retirement savings plans and bank accounts and assets that quite possibly put the governments of small countries to shame? Why, of course, say the prophets of ATM god! Why, this is after all a Christian nation, founded on Christian principles, why shouldn't we taste the greenie delights of this psuedo god? We're basically good, hard-working people just trying to make a decent living! Besides, it's much easier and fits in much more nicely with our materialistic, consume-everything-in-sight-before-anyone-else-can get-a-crack-at-it mentality in Good and Plenty Land. Why deny ourselves - what value is there in it?

But, I say, spit it out, worshipers of the Good and Plenty! Spit this theology out like a bad piece of processed cheesy meat fed to you by god Idiot Box! I know processed cheesy meats appeal more to our tastebuds that are themselves beginning to take on the qualities of these fun fake foods, but in the end it will clog your brain and spiritually kill you just like the fat and preservatives in edible processed cheesy meat will eventually fill up your arteries and kill your body. If you continue to look at God like some kind of materialistic cosmic gift-giver, you will never understand what it is to be fulfilled spiritually. "Things," jobs, relationships, nice furniture, cushy homes and well-stocked cars don't fill us spiritually. Yeah, OK, these things are fun for awhile - I'm certainly the first to admit it. I bought a Jeep Liberty a couple years ago simply because I talked myself into a little lie that suggested that a Jeep Liberty has much more "personality" than the bottom-of-the-line Saturn I had been driving. But when their newness has long worn off and we're stuck with the payment, we find that it's just another thing that has been replaced with a better model.

God fills us spiritually, satisfies our longings for that "there's-got-to-be-something-more-out-there" feeling that the majority of us children of the land of Good and Plenty are searching for. And can I let you in on a little secret? This spiritual satisfaction doesn't always instantly feel good the way a new car instantly makes us feel worthy of higher class, the way new clothes instantly make us feel somewhat better about the wear and tear on our bodies, the way a new home instantly makes us feel rich. But that's just it - don't you see? Things that are good for us don't always carry with them the most pleasant experiences. Think about your last trip to the doctors office, the time you had your wisdom teeth pulled or when your mom had to peroxide the heck out of the road-rash you collected when you took a spill off your bike.

All this isn't to say that God isn't the giver of good gifts. On the contrary, he certainly is! He's the only one who can make that horrible "there's-got-to-be-something-else" feeling finally abate. He's the giver of patience, love, kindness, longsuffering, selflessness, forgiveness, rest, peace and all the rest that goes along with these inner characteristics that help us to grow more Christ-like, help us to put others above ourselves, help us to forgive others not because they need our forgiveness but because, ultimately, that forgiveness allows us to accept God's forgiveness. You see, these are the real benefits - realizing that we, ourselves, matter very little compared to the one sitting next to us, our brothers and sisters around the world who are hungry, naked and homeless. But this self sacrifice bit is a difficult lesson to learn - it's not as easy as processed cheesy meat. It's rather like preparing a seven-course meal from scratch instead of opening a can of cream of mushroom soup and announcing that dinner's ready.

All of this is also not to say that money in and of itself is bad. Rather, it's the LOVE of money that leads to all sorts of evil behavior. I grew up poor. Now that I'm older and I'm not so poor anymore, I had awful pangs of guilt for having more. But I read some Dallas Willard, who rightly said in Spirit of the Disciplines (a book I would highly recommend every Christian read), that we want there to be Christians out there who have money. It's a good thing! Why would we want all of the world's money to be controlled by evil people who would use it for evil deeds? Instead, it's good that there are good people who have lots of money to spread around to the have nots and good causes. And, Willard also points out that those without money are probably more likely to spend the majority of their time of finding ways to get more money. Whereas, those with money will likely spend much less time focusing on the money. So having money, making money, having nice things is not a bad thing. It's what you do with the money, it's what you expect God to do for you regarding money and it's your attitude about the money that really causes the problem.

And one more thing while I'm on my soap box: Those processed cheesy meat gospel prophets out there like Joel Osteen and Creflo Dollar (and, really, doesn't the name just say it all?) are selling false hopes and dreams. Everyone can't be rich. It's impossible for every single person to be monetarily rich. And what happens to the poor slob who buys into processed cheesy meat gospel and only gets a stomach ache for his trouble? What do you tell this person, Processed Cheesy Meat Pastor? Do you tell him he lost his job and can't provide enough food for his family because he didn't give enough money to your ministry or because he didn't buy your book? Do you tell the mother who's child has died of SIDS in her crib that if only she'd contributed more money to your ministry the Good Lord would've blessed her with a living child? And what about the wife who lost her husband of 30 years - why is it that she spent so long taking care of him but loses him anyway? Was it because she just didn't have enough faith in God's good gifts? What happens to their souls, Processed Cheesy Meat Pastor, when God doesn't deliver on the promises you say he'll give, they blame God and reject him? Do you really believe it's the sheep's fault, Processed Cheesy Meat Pastor? Is it God's fault? Or is it a false and unpredictable gospel that will certainly one day clog your arteries as well?

Welcome to the 'It's All About Me' show

2006-09-07T13:12:00.000-04:00

So, this isn't directly about religion, but since my worldview colors how I see things, I can't help but ask myself: Why we can't seem to keep our hands to ourselves in terms of attacking and hitting others and if it is any reflection on how we see the world? Afterall, the idea of keeping our hands to ourselves is one of the things we were supposed to take away from pre school and kindergarten. And, really, don't we already know objectively, that it's wrong to let our fists fly on others?

Take this story about the reporter being attacked:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/07/reporter.attacked.ap/index.html.

Of course, this is particularly bothersome to me because, well, I'm a reporter. And the threat of bodily harm, especially when working on sensitive topics, is always a concern. While I've never been physically attacked, I've been screamed at, hung up on, had doors slammed in my face and sworn at. And, of course, I've always kept my cool in return!

Anyway, take, too, the recent incident of the coach tackling the kid playing football on an opposing team. The kid was called for a late hit for the tackling the opposing coach's son, the quarterback. Now, instead of adults merely attacking each other at sporting events, we've got them going after the kids too! What the heck?!?

How is it that we can't control ourselves? Could it be that since we, as a society, tend to think that morals are subjective rather than objective, I can ultimately decide for myself how to conduct myself instead of measuring myself against an ultimate objective good? Subjective morality basically lets us all decide what's good for us, even if it entails tackling a 14-year-old kid and beating the crap out of him. And, really, the culture at large cannot even tell us that its set of standards are the objective because who in the culture gets to decide what the standard is? Is it the majority? But why is your standard any more valid than my standard of morals and conduct? And if the majority decides that sacrificing all first-born 2-year-old males to the God Whatsamajigger, is that really alright? Um .... hmmm .... NO! How do I know that? Morality is objective. If I want to punch you in the face, why exactly is that wrong if our internal system of morality is based on the subjective? It seems to me that when you move from an objective moral standard to a subjective moral standard, then you get people acting the way they've been taught to act: basing their actions on how they feel rather than on what is truly right and wrong. You get people maliciously tackling kids, attacking reporters, "road rage" and a myriad of other scary offenses toward each other.

I don't know about any one else out there, but when someone tells me to just 'do what feels right,' I bristle. If I based all of my actions on what felt "right" during a fleeting moment, my life would be a complete wreck! I'd definitely be overweight, I would be sexually promiscuous, I would likely have killed several people who've ticked me off for various reasons and I'd be so far in debt you'd have to dig to China to get me out of the hole. Subjectivity just doesn't play out in real life. We just don't 'do what feels right' all the time because we're thinking, rational humans who understand the consequences of our actions. And how do we understand the consequences? Not only through trial and error or by example, I contend, but through objective standards outside of ourselves and outside of society.

I say we start a new advertising campaign: 'Before you do what feels right, think about it.' But I guess that's just not as pithy as 'It's all about me.'

Politics does not the Christian make

2006-08-28T15:01:00.000-04:00

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!"

So you like to read?

2006-08-19T09:01:00.000-04:00

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.

Get your ticket to ride ...

2006-08-15T13:12:00.000-04:00

An interesting way to purchase salvation ...

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

The forgiver is hated

2006-08-07T12:29:00.000-04:00

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.

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

2006-08-03T12:56:00.000-04:00

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.

Do what I say or be killed

2006-07-26T16:58:00.000-04:00

I find this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/24/AR2006072400992.html) an interesting example of what happens when the religious force their ideologies on the non religious - they rebel. But the converse is also true. When the non-religious force their ideologies on the religious, religion grows - If you think that's a load, then just check out the growth of the church in China.
Anyway, maybe this is why Christ taught his followers to "turn the other cheek," and other such peace making skills like love your enemies.

science AND religion. How novel

2006-07-26T15:38:00.000-04:00

A friend of mine sent this article in the NY Times(http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/science/25books.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5070&amp;en=46a4047f0ae196fc&ex=1154491200&emc=eta1)
along to me about three scientists who've authored books, saying that faith and reason, science and belief in God can co-exist.
I have to say I get all warm and fuzzy inside when I see and hear that there are scientists, professors and other intellectual elite who advocate this sort of cooperation and that science and religion don't have to negate each other. And when I say warm and fuzzy I'm seriously not trying to be sarcastic. I really do get a warm glow. While I haven't read these books, I've added them to my ever-growing list of books I need to get to.

But the article gives us a bit of a picture of why these scientists believe the two can co-exist as well as some interesting tid-bits from two opponents to the idea of science/religion cooperating (Daniel Dennet and Richard Dawkins - two staunch evolutionists and believers that becoming an atheist is akin to bravery. I wished the author would have added comments from some religious folk who also don't buy the idea that science and religion can mix, just to make it more balanced and to show that there is this type of mentality on both sides of the science v. religion debate.)
While I'm not so sure bravery is involved in atheism, Dennett and Dawkins are atheists themselves and have seemed pretty adamant on challenging religion, even calling it a disease.
For the record, Drs. Dennett and Dawkins, I'm not quite sure that insulting people is the way to sway the religious masses away from their beliefs.

At the same time, I get pretty disgusted with religious folks who use science when it suits them and dismiss it when it doesn't. It's also rather irritating when the religious dismiss science, reason and even thinking out of hand for the old stand by excuse of "I just have my faith. You just gotta believe."
In my estimation, that is pure laziness and really doesn't win any converts - at least potential converts who have more analytical minds.
One of the scientists admit she would love to talk about science in church and with the faithful, but most of the religious aren't intellectually prepared for such conversations. That is just sad, not to mention embarrassing.

And while I do tend to agree with the author's last paragraph:
"This is where the scientific method comes in. If scientists are prepared to state their hypotheses, describe how they tested them, lay out their data, explain how they analyze their data and the conclusions they draw from their analyses — then it should not matter if they pray to Zeus, Jehovah, the Tooth Fairy, or nobody.
Their work will speak for itself."

I would also mention, though, in conjunction that depending on your worldview, whether theistic, pantheistic or atheistic, you're going to look at the results and interpret those results through those lenses. I would say very, very few of us are so completely objective that we can look at evidences without the hue of the glasses we wear coloring what we see. So, I think it's a bit optimistic to say, "can't we just all get along," but I do think there must be more dialogue and less name-calling from both sides if for no other reason than getting down to the truth. Because, really, if Christ is who he said he is then why is science so taboo in some religious circles? If God is truth, then isn't all that is true from God? Besides, don't we all want to follow the truth no matter where it leads? Who wants to follow a lie or delusion - scientific or religious?

American ingenuity to get rich or die tryin'

2006-07-20T22:04:00.000-04:00

OK. I suppose we knew it was coming, from an American no less. The heir to the throne of the Jesus/Mary Magdalene union has arrived. *sigh*
http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2006-07-17-magdalene-book_x.htm

Let's see who can yell the loudest

2006-07-17T16:26:00.000-04:00

In a bid to close the last abortion clinic in Mississippi, abortion advocates and opponents have called in the troops, reserves and standbys. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-07-16-abortion-protest_x.htm
One side has 200 supporters, the other 300 supporters and both are promising more for a yelling match that may simply just scare away the women seeking the services of this particular abortion clinic.
While I must say I find the practice of abortion repugnant, there is a larger and deeper issue here that we Christians forget I think. Now I know this is going to burn some Christians out there because of their strong moral core, but it really has to be said ... again.
Please explain to me what good protesting at the doors of abortion clinics serve? Please explain to me why women who feel driven by the desperation of their situations to have their children aborted must receive additional abuse as they show up to likely take one of the most difficult steps of their lives? Why is it that these women feel they must even take the steps toward abortion clinics? Could it be a colossal failing of the church that they feel as if an abortion is an option? Why, I wonder, are we blaming these women - many of whom may not even be Christians and therefore do not have the spirit of God to impel them away from such a decision or impel men and women to not have sex without a marriage commitment - when it is the church's fault (our fault) that many of them believe it is their only option?
I know of a woman who made a mistake (as we all are prone to do), had sex, got pregnant and had no means to bring up a child. The woman went to the people of her church to confess, and she was turned out. Rejected. She believed she had no other choice. She had an abortion. She, in turn, rejected the fellowship of Christian believers because of their treatment of her. I wonder what would have happened if the church would have come behind her, supported a decision of life for her child while not condoning her actions to have sex but understanding that, yes, we all do make mistakes. But each of us try to go and sin no more.
I often wonder what Christ would say passing by a woman on her way for an abortion, feeling the desperation and hopelessness of her situation burying her beneath a pile of emotion, sorrow and regret. While I despise the whole flippant "What would Jesus Do" marketing drivel that sells plenty of doo-dads, I think of the woman at the well and Christ's reaction to her or the adulterous woman (though I know there is manuscript evidence to suggest this story is not original to the Bible). But the same point applies, I think.
Instead of stones, I see at least some religious people outside abortion clinics as the pious holding the stones ready to stone the adulterous woman standing before Jesus. But instead of stones, they're holding placards and pictures and hurling words of condemnation instead of words of charity that admit, "I'm a sinner too, but there's got to be a better way."
In my estimation, Christians should not even grace the sidwalks of abortion clinics in protest. Instead, we should work behind the scenes with women who feel like they have no other options, embracing them with love and understanding as sinners ourselves without words of condemnation. In this way, we show the love of Christ using less words and more action.

Please take the pledge before your lawmaker is deemed unpatriotic

2006-07-12T15:13:00.000-04:00

We live in an oddly schizophrenic country - Amen? There isn't one extreme from which we will jump to the polar opposite it seems. Now, I realize these two incidences are in two not only geographically distanced areas but also areas that may view "religion" in general in fundamentally different ways, but, seriously ...
Here (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,56310,00.html) we have a federal appeals court ruling in 2002 that the infamous Pledge of Allegiance with it's "under God" phrase (which was added in 1954) cannot be recited in the classroom. Of course, the Supreme Court over ruled the decision in 2004 on a technicality: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40279-2004Jun14.html.
Not to harp on old news from two and four years ago - so today we have a North Carolina legislature passing laws requiring school children to recite the pledge (mostly it seems they voted this way to keep people from thinking they're "unpatriotic").
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/459757.html

As offensive as it may sound, it goes against my grain to recite the pledge since becoming a Christian (even with the "under God" bit) because I just don't feel comfortable pledging my "allegiance" to a government or flag or anything else for that matter besides God. Given that, I'm not opposed to, offended by, angered by or intimidated by the recitation of the pledge by others. But neither am I incensed when someone else (like above mentioned atheist who brought the suit claiming that reciting the pledge is unconstitutional and that his daughter shouldn't have to be subjected to such a phrase as "under God") finds reciting the pledge repulsive.

But either outlawing it or requiring it (even if for two entirely different reasons) seems to go against the principles on which this country was founded - basic human freedoms. If I don't agree with your measley pledge, I shouldn't have to recite it. BUT if I find the pledge to be one of the most heartfelt of allegiances to this great nation then by all means I should be able to recite it. Besides that, you can't legislate - especially in a country built on the ideals of freedom - the recitation of a few phrases, which champion these freedoms.

Besides, if the kids in North Carolina classrooms don't recite the pledge, are the pledge police going to break down the door and come arrest them? So, I have to wonder: what really is the point of a pledge law (either requiring it or outlawing it - "under God" phrases and all) in North Carolina or anywhere else for that matter?

Consistency or bust

2006-07-10T16:54:00.000-04:00

I had to agree with Charlotte Allen's Op-Ed piece in the L.A. Times: shttp://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-allen9jul09,0,2668973.story?coll=la-home-commentary

If, for a moment, we can take the hierarchical politics out of religion - specifically Christianity - we have to admit that the thinking pew sitter just wants something that's real. Can you blame them? People need consistency. Really, you can't claim to be Christian and then dismiss it's basic tenets (Well, you can do that if you really want to, but then why call yourself Christian? Why not just say, I'm a member of the Episcopalian religion, or I'm a member of the Presbyterian religion). If you claim to be Christian and then start dismantling the religion, then you have an inconsistent worldview - because, let's face it, one's worldview (whether seen through the lens of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Atheism) must either be consistent or fail. And who wants to claim to be a part of something that completely dismisses it's own basic tenets. You end up looking silly in the end, don't you think? To me, it's sort of like saying, "I'm an U.S. citizen, but I'm not an American," or "I'm a vegetarian, but I eat meat." How does that work? So, when you say you're a Christian, but deny the divinity of Jesus or move toward beliefs that don't seem to line up with Christian teaching, can you really say, "I'm a Christian?"
And this could be why people are leaving what they perceive to be "liberal" churches - people are finding that they're part of something that's inconsistent and so are moving on to places where their religion follows it's own basic tenets.

Givitaway, givitaway, givitaway now

2006-07-05T15:42:00.000-04:00

I'm torn, as I often am when it comes to Christianity and what it means to be a Christian.
As I was reading this Washington Post article today http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/30/AR2006063001525.html, I found myself once again split between what it means to be an authentic believer and a believer taking on an air of religiosity, rejecting bona fide acts of charity in the name of Christ simply because they're not done in the way I think they should be.

As I was reading the article, I had the distinct feeling that there is something vaguely wrong with the brand of Christianity it was selling, while at the same time I was sort of chastising myself for ranking on people who just seem to want to do something good in their community.

I couldn't quite put my finger on why I found the article somewhat unappetizing until I got to the last paragraph, in which a woman who had just gotten $10 of free gas in the name of God said that she would be visiting the church that was offering the incentive.
And that's when it hit me that it seemed like a cheap (though not in monetary terms since the "Soul Factory" handed out four grand in free gas) advertising ploy to bring people to church. It seems to me that if you have to give stuff away to get people to come to church and to get them acquainted with God then you're not letting God speak for himself. It almost seems like you're saying that God's love and mercy and forgiveness aren't enough. How about three gallons of free gas to go with that mercy? Even Christ didn't just give it away, though it was free to anyone who wanted it. He told followers to count the cost before they decided to commit to him. You don't just quit your job to buy a yacht and cruise around the world for a year. You count the cost - how will this effect my family, my finances, the rest of my life? And at the same time you don't go buy a yacht and then decide half way through your trip that sailing the globe just isn't for you. You decide before you buy the boat if sailing is really what you love.

I also couldn't help but wonder while reading the article how giving away three gallons of gas to anyone who wants it is an act of authentic charity? Would it not be more of an act of charity to identify families in the community who have to choose between groceries or putting gas in the car to get to work to buy the groceries and the gas? How much more would that $4,000 in gas have helped them?
And what about doing our acts of kindness in public for all to see? But maybe the accolades of others are reward enough - I know I often get caught in that vice.

But then come thoughts that I'm simply being pharisaical. I thought to myself, "You don't know how that little bit of gas in the name of Jesus may have truly touched someone's heart so that they will come to know Christ in that authentic way."

But I still have to wonder if God really needs all the free advertising.

Let the woo-ing begin

2006-06-30T16:32:00.000-04:00

http://www.barackobama.com/2006/06/28/call_to_renewal.php

A speech recently given by U.S. Sen. Barack Obama.
What say you?

Politics and Christians - now there's a can of worms

2006-06-30T14:09:00.000-04:00

Right. Left. Evangelical. Liberal. Religious. Non-religions. The polarization that has occured in this country due to religion fascinates me. - Amen?

Like Superman and Lex Luthor, Christ and Satan, "right" and "left" have been cast as mortal enemies in a saga that has played out like a good vs. evil B movie. This apparent divide has become excruciatingly obvious since G.W. figured out how to speak evangelical Christianese and started pulling the "religion card" to get elected. And it wasn't long after that the press finally discovered that, yes, there are people in the U.S. who really do believe that a God-man was raised from the dead 2,000 years ago. And, psst: these same people also believe this same God-man is still alive, and they worship him too. YIPES!
It was almost like the press corp finally became aware that Martians exist. And while that was shocking enough, they also found out that instead of being green, Martians are really pink.
I think I've seen more documentaries and news shows dedicated to "finding the 'real' Jesus" and "what does a captured evangelical really look like in its own habitat?" than I care to reflect on.

And so the Republicans have learned to speak Christian, the press has learned to disect Christian, secular society has learned to demonize Christian (as many Christians have unfortunately learned to do to unbelievers) and the Democrats have learned to ignore Christian.

Despite the liberal, or (let's use the new in vogue term) progressive, evangelical Christian intention to clean up their less politically correct evangelical kin and make them look presentable in public, this group of affluent middle-American Bible-thumpers doesn't quite seem to fit anywhere in the public arena, and I'm not sure they should. They don't identify with the fundamentalist right-wingers like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who always seem to be able to offer the press an abominable quote about the latest world happening and how it is directly tied to the "end times." But these evangelicals don't quite seem to fit in with those Christians who are OK with abortions and such either. Some come across as hateful because of those stances, but they're the same people who take several weeks off work to travel to the Gulf coast to help with clean up efforts after hurricanes or send hundreds of dollars out of their household budgets to foreign countries devastated by natural disasters. Average middle-American evangelicals are admittedly tough to figure out if your not an average middle-American evangelical.
And now they're not only being courted by the Republicans, it seems as if the Dems are trying to get in on the action: http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/living/religion/14926802.htm

While evangelicals seem tough to define, I think that both Republicans and Democrats have made a fatal error. They have turned the average evangelical into a swing political vote that will sway left or right depending on how well you convince us you have morals or if you talk nicely to us in that sweet Christianese.
But Christianity is not a political party. It's a way of life. As a politician, you can't tell us that religion doesn't fit into the public arena and then try to convince us you're moral and you'll vote those morals just so you can get a political seat. You can't tell us that religion is a private matter between an individual and his or her God and then tell us that we need to create more faith-based groups to help with the ills of society. It's like telling a preacher to lead a church but he's not allowed to preach.

And these inconsistencies that religious and non-religious alike have been told to simply accept have placed such a divide between the non-religious and the evangelical that I'm not sure the gulf will be traversed any time soon. And over what? Two political parties that are more interested in getting their own side into power than they are about making sure that disasters like Katrina don't isolate an entire region of our nation or making sure that old folks don't have to decide between eating and taking their medicine or simply making sure the national budget is balanced.

Immigration reform and the Christian

2006-06-26T21:56:00.000-04:00

I've written several profile articles lately about Catholics who have been moved by the issue of immigration reform and have put their actions where their words are. Some are lay people, others priests and academics. They separately traveled to the U.S./Mexico border, witnessed first hand the struggles of those trying to cross over in order to make a better lives for themselves and their families. At the same time they encountered those whose legitimate concerns about such a porous border have forced them to take up arms in order to "defend" that same border.
I have been told there are no easy answers and, of course, we need guidelines to govern the border. But one thing that has drawn me toward these people is their unfettered belief in the value of every life. And it's not like these Catholics just know intellectually that the lives of these immigrants are as valuable as any of ours. They know it to be true in their hearts - a feeling that would do many of us well to internalize, I think.

Get this: One upper middle class man I interviewed was visiting his summer home in Michigan when he began a conversation with a local priest who likes to take parishioners on field trips to the border to see "what it's really like." The man decided he wanted to go. He'd never been anywhere before that wasn't a tourist attraction, and he seemed as surprised as anyone that he would spend a week getting to know the people trying to steal their way into his country. After what he saw - children and families living in homes made of pallets and digging through garbage just to eat - he expected there to be a bitterness against God to rival that of anyone who's suffered beyond the bounds of human endurance. Instead, he found people who thanked God that they were simply alive. He found people hospitable enough to welcome this rich American - the epitome of those seemingly trying to keep them out of the U.S. - into their humble pallet homes and offer the best of what they had to eat while they went hungry. He was stunned. And as this white, 50-ish, graying man told me about his experiences, he had tears in his eyes as if it were the first time in his life he had come face to face with the reality that people around the world really do live that way. It probably was the first time. And while this man isn't quite sure what to do now to help - he simply knows he must. He's been telling anyone who'll listen about his trip to the U.S./Mexico border. He seems to figure it's better to tell people than to do nothing.

I talked to a priest who is also an academic and works on a Catholic Charities board. He visits Latin American countries regularly. He says he wants those coming to the U.S. to be as welcome in the U.S. as he is welcome in their countries - with in reason. He knows that the answers don't come easily and he's certainly not saying there shouldn't be guidelines. There do need to be laws governing the border - no doubt about it. But he does know that the answer doesn't come from being heavy handed, building higher walls and sending in the troops. To him, it's a matter of humanity, it's a matter of treating other human beings with respect, it's a matter of feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and sheltering the homeless. In his experience, people trying to get into the U.S. don't want to leave their spouses, children and other family members. Rather, they must. He asks, would you want to leave your spouse and children for another country? Of course not. But more than that, they want their families to eat. Who could blame them for wanting to try? At the same time he has no sympathy for criminals trying to cross, but he admits they seem to be a very small portion.

So why do I specifically mention the Catholics here? Because in my experience it seems that Catholics are more open to immigration reform than other Christians. Despite my experiences, get a load of this Pew Research Center article http://pewresearch.org/obdeck/?ObDeckID=20. While I'm somewhat surprised at the Catholic responses in this article, I have to say I'm not surprised at the evangelical response to immigrants. Why is it that evangelicals, and to a lesser degree other mainline groups, seem more concerned about our own economic stability than the needs of the hungry, naked and homeless. Isn't that exactly the opposite of what Christ taught?