The
Congregational
Church of
Manhasset (UCC)
We are a proud
part of the
United
Church
of Christ.
The Congregational
Church of Manhasset
1845 Northern Blvd.
Manhasset, NY 11030
Phone: 516-627-4911
FAX: 516-627-4963
Copyright © 2002-6
The Congregational
Church of Manhasset
Questions
or |
Page last updated
12-27-06
CONGOblog A weblog of The Congregational Church of Manhasset (UCC) No, this is not a weblog about the African nation The Democratic Republic of the Congo. It is a blog of the Congregational Church of Manhasset, a church which somewhere along the line picked up the nickname (for better or worse) of the Congo.
12.27.06 Chase's New Blog Well, time is ticking away for me in my last days at The Congregational Church of Manhasset-=-and at the CONGOblog. If you're interested in keeping up with my thoughts and ramblings. You can do so at my new blog address:
I had some really clever names picked out for my blog, but they were all taken already, so I just settled on "Rev Peep". Not to exciting but it fits the bill.
My hope is that I'll be posting more often, because the process for uploading posts is quite a bit easier than the way I've been doing it as a part of the church site. We'll see. In any case, I doubt I"ll be posting too much in the next few weeks since I'm getting ready to move out to the Show Me State. Check back in with the blog around mid-January.
It's been a lot of fun posting here at the CONGOblog. I'd like to thank all four of you dedicated readers--okay, okay, five--if you count my mom.
Peace,
Chase
12.23.06 Happy Christmas (War is Over)..."The War on Christmas" That Is... Christmas is coming and things continue to be crazy for me (hence the lack of posts at the old CONGOblog). In addition to moving to the Show Me State, I will also be moving to a new blog site, since I'll be at a new church. I'll post the address here before I move. Never fear.
There's much going on in the world worth commenting about. I let the whole Michael Richards thing pass me by for example. I had to post today because it is the time of year for all of the blowhards and demagogues to spout off about the war on Christmas and I read a really great op-ed in today's NY Times. It's a really nice antidote to conservatives on the one hand who believe (gasp) Christmas has become secular and politically correct. (Do you ever wonder why none of these talk show hosts ever complain about Christmas being too materialistic?) Similarly, the op-ed is also a nice response to extreme secularists who want to remove Christmas from the public sphere no matter what form it takes.
The op-ed is by Orlando Patterson, a sociology professor at Harvard who I'm not familiar with but based on this essay alone I like so far. Patterson begins by pointing out that the fourth century decision by church fathers to celebrate Christ's birth on December 25 was made in order to proselytize and to replace the winter solstice celebrations of pagan religions. Similarly in the Middle Ages such pagan rites as mistletoe and holly were synthesized into the Christian festivities. Santa Claus, who was shaped more from Father Christmas than St. Nicholas, has roots with the pagan "Lord of Misrule."
He notes that our Puritan ancestors abolished Christmas celebrations for just this reason, and interestingly, Christmas was not a work holiday in Massachusetts until the 1860's.
According to Patterson, the commercialization of Christmas began in the 1820's. As the holiday became more commercial, it also became more Christian. It's celebration in a religious sense was never as big as it became after the merchandising arrived on the scene!
His point is that the modern celebration of Christmas has both secular and sacred roots. It's elements come from both Christian and pagan cultures. Given the way cultures mix with one another and how boundaries never remain fixed between them, then there should be little for Americans in general to fear from say the placement of a menorah or Kwanzaa kinara next to a Christmas tree. In a poly-religious and ply-cultural nation like ours why should anyone feel threatened?
Last week during confirmation class, this subject came up. I told the confirmands, "How does someone saying 'happy holidays' affect my celebration of Christmas as a Christian?" It doesn't. My worship of Christ--God coming into our human reality as a human--has little to do with Madison Avenue anyway--or for that matter it is not diminished by any other religious or cultural event this time of year.
Peace,
Chase
12.7.06 Oh, So NOW You're Tired of the War... I've been asked a number of times if I will keep blogging after I leave. The answer is "yes, just not on this site." Rest assured that I'll get the link out to the clamoring hordes who read the CONGOblog before I go..
Here are some things I've been thinking about lately...
On Tuesday Robert Gates was ushered in as the new Secretary of Defense, along the way he actually admitted that we are "not winning" in Iraq, of course he hedged a bit and said that we are also not quite losing either. Yesterday, all the buzz was about the report of the Iraq study group's conclusions about what should change in America's Iraq strategy. I guess this continues the trend since the November elections towards some kind of change in our country's policies towards Iraq. Will it be a good change? Who knows? Can it really get much worse? Probably.
There's something that's been nagging at me since the November elections in regards to Iraq and I have been unable to articulate it. I'm not sure if I can now, but here goes...
American public opinion about the Iraq war has moved from being overwhelmingly in support of the war at its start to a solid majority who feel the war has been at the least poorly managed if not downright bungled. The change is of course due to the steady escalation of violence in Iraq and the steady increase of deaths and serious injuries suffered by American troops. This seems like a very shallow and self-interested response to me.
Certainly, things were managed about as badly as can be after the Americans conquered Sadaam's army, however let's imagine for a moment that everything was done right. Suppose the Iraqi army was not disbanded, the de-Baathification process had not been so extreme, enough troops had been deployed to stop the early looting and crime, etc. etc. If it had all worked out and Iraq was not in a state of civil war, would the war still have been justifiable?
I know the arguments that the world's intelligence agencies believed that Sadaam Hussein had WMD's and that post-9-11 such a reality was not something America can afford, but the fact remains that all peaceful options were not explored, diplomatic pressure was not truly or appropriately exercised, no waiting game such as is going on with Iran and North Korea ensued, and in the end the United States engaged in preemptive war.
The fact that the stated reasons for the war (to remove Sadaam's WMD's) proved to be unfounded reveals how even the best minds in the world can be wrong. For me, that raises the question of whether preemptive war can then ever be justified, because the risk of killing thousands of innocents is simply not worth eliminating a possibility that may or may not exist.
Several years ago, I had a heated conversation with some friends of mine who are Christian and dedicated Republicans. They not only supported the war but when the WMD's turned out to be nonexistent still felt the war was not only justified but morally right. I argued with them that they failed to take into consideration just how bad war is. Although we glorify war in movies and TV shows and we salute our veterans, rarely do we really take account of what we are asking soldiers to do when we tell them to kill for their country. We are asking them to dehumanize another to the point where taking a life becomes the right thing to do. I'm less talking here about self defense and/or taking out an Osama bin Laden and more talking about the killing that must occur in the normal course of combat.
NPR has been running a series of stories on the cost of the war and had a segment on soldiers with PTSD and emotional trauma. It's worth a listen to consider the kind of trauma we ask our troops to endure.
When war is thought of not as a policy or strategy but as actions of violence that result in individual lives being snuffed out, I believe it becomes harder to justify except in the most extreme circumstances. In my mind, the justifications for the war in Iraq never rose to that extreme level.
Consider the loss of civilian life in Iraq--not just in the post-war period, but even in the combat operations in 2003--and take a moment to consider if, given the loss of those lives, at the very least more consideration should have been given to other options besides a flat out war.
In regards to American public opinion, I see little if any concern for the deaths of ordinary Iraqis--people who just want to care for their families like we do. I also see little concern for the thousands of soldiers who return to America with painful disabilities. I only hear the concern of the American death toll--don't get me wrong, that's bad. Yet, I see so little evidence that the average American feels any more visceral emotion about the war than they do for the latest celebrity breakup or the college bowl games. Do Americans really consider the awful cost of war or is it just that we don't like losing?
After 9-11, President Bush responded to the great up swell of American passion and desire to do something as a nation to heal a world and fight violent extremists. His response was for Americans to go about their lives and to go shopping. As a nation, we have never really sacrificed in regards to this war. We have allowed our soldiers and their families along with ordinary Iraqis and their families make the sacrifices for us--sacrifices made with their own blood. I believe that if we really had to bear the emotional, physical and spiritual weight of this war we would have done more to prevent it in the first place.
The change in American attitude, I believe, comes less from any real understanding of the horrors of war or the limited power of violence to solve complex cultural and economic problems than from a sense that this war might begin to inconvenience us. In our consumerist culture that worships convenience, an inconvenience is something to be done away with. Perhaps if we recognized that war--violence that tears apart real bodies and leaves real grieving loved ones--really is a painful sacrifice, we might devote our efforts as a nation to doing all we can to make it a true last resort.
Peace,
Chase
12.1.06 You Were Serious About That Love Your Enemies Stuff? So, there I am nursing a grudge against someone, thinking about all the things they've done to me and said about me behind my back. I was even thinking about the way I'd like to just tell this person off or maybe even get back at them somehow. The bitterness was really just churning like bile down in my gut.
Then I read an e-mail that I subscribe to. It comes every day containing a scripture verse and a quotation from some spiritual thinker/writer/professor/activist. This one was by Dorothy Day:
You've got to hate it when God reminds you that Jesus really meant it when he spoke about loving others, even enemies. Thanks a lot God. I was very content with my bitterness before you showed up reminding me to see Christ in the one I'm bitter towards. That's what I get for reading e-mail.
Peace,
Chase
11.22.06 Putting the FUN in Fundamentalism You may be wondering what the heck is going on with religion in America? How the heck did we get to the point where somebody like James Dobson could actually have political and cultural influence while at the same time books on atheism could rule the New York Times Bestseller List? What is up with religion in America?
Relax. Eminent Church HIstorian and University of Chicago professor, Martin E. Marty is here to clear up your confusion. In addition to his many works on religion in America, he led an unparalleled research project on fundamentalism throughout the world that has helped me through more than one research paper put together at 3 AM the night before they were due.
His interview on the excellent public radio show Speaking of Faith is worth listening to, if nothing else for his throwaway line that every Christian denomination in America is torn up over issues of sex and authority.
Peace,
Chase
11.22.06 Entrepreneurial Philanthropy
So you think your generous, because you write a check to the Human Fund every year? Why not take the next step and start your own business and give the profit away to the needy cause of your choice?
Peace,
Chase
11.21.06 A Priest, a Rabbi and an Imam Walk onto an Airplane... Last Friday night, a group of youth and adults visited the Long Island Islamic Center. As with my previous visits there, we were greeted graciously and shown wonderful hospitality. We had a great time learning about Islam and observing Friday night prayers. What made it such a good time was that we were normal people who just happened to be Muslim, people who live in the same communities we do and who love America just like we do. The real differences between us had to do with the fact that our group represented the majority religion, along with its cultural and political trappings, and they were a part of a minority religion without political power or cultural influence (in our country at least).
I mentioned Friday night that I believe it is an inherent part of the Christian faith to learn from people different from us, because loving our neighbor has to begin with understanding them and respecting them. That's why I organized this visit.
I also believe that the duty of every Christian is to use whatever power and/or influence they have in the service to others who do not have the same. In America today, that means Christians have to be concerned with how Muslims are treated--even though they are of a different religion--maybe because they are of a different religion.
With this in mind, I was disturbed by an article I read about the treatment of six imams on a US Airways flight on Monday night. The clerics were removed from the flight at the Minneapolis before it took off, apparently just because they looked Arab and several of them performed their evening prayers in the airport. Passengers expressed their fears to the flight crew which had them taken off the plane. The clerics claim they are victims of discrimination and I just don't see how it can be otherwise.
If six Catholic priests, six evangelical ministers, or six rabbis were taken off a plane under similar circumstances, I dare say there would be an uproar. If Christians were taken off a plane in a majority Muslim nation, we would call that persecution.
For the sake of the minority's safety and the majority's soul, we have to do better. Christians have to be a part of doing better rather than making discrimination worse.
Peace,
Chase
11.16.06 Genocide is Unfortunately Not a Campaign Issue
I'm catching up on my reading and took a look at Nicholas Kristof's column last Sunday on Darfur. In it, he tells the story of Abdullah Idris, a 27 year-old father of two. He lives in Chad near the border of the Darfur region of Sudan and he was attacked by men in Sudanese military uniforms. They gouged his eyes out with bayonets and left him to die. They also killed several others nearby and kidnapped a young woman. It's one microcosm of a greater genocide that the world seems content to ignore.
No matter what the election may have changed last week, it did not change the fact that the world, including the United States, does not care that a genocide is occurring. Worse yet, the genocide is not content to remain in Sudan but is spreading to neighboring Chad and other nearby countries. Pretty soon if things don't change, Arab Africans will kill or drive out all Black Africans in the region.
Kristof lists several things the United States can do right now, including:
- pressuring China to stop the financial support of the Sudanese government--essentially the funding of the genocide
- sending a high-profile official like Condi Rice to Chad and nearby countries to show support against genocide
- targeted sanctions against the Sudanese government
- a no-fly zone to stop Sudanese military aircraft from supporting the genocide
- getting a real peace agreement between rebel groups and the Sudanese government in Sudan--(The Washington Post notes that the Bush administration must put more pressure upon the rebel groups and their backers to negotiate, because these rebel groups care nothing about the deaths of their countrymen.)
(Although you can't read Kristof's column unless you are a Times Select subscriber, you can hear him speak for free in an interview on NPR's All Things Considered)
Unfortunately, stopping genocide was not a campaign issue. Visit www.savedarfur.org.
Peace,
Chase
11.15.06 Secular Toys for Tots, Only, Please
Well, I was hoping that this Christmas season would be free of the kind of vitriolic grandstanding that took place last year with the whole "War on Christmas" nonsense. It looks like we all won't be that lucky.
I present to you the controversy that will fire up the megalomania of Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson and all the other demagogues of both the Religious Right and the airwaves.
It appears that the Marine Reserve's Toys for Tots Foundation has refused the gift of 4000 talking Jesus dolls. According to the story, a religious toy company wanted to donate the dolls that are about a foot tall and recite Bible verses, but the charity which donates thousands of toys every year to needy children refused on the grounds that the toys were sectarian in nature.
Here me, O Proliferators of Ignorance and Divisiveness, here is your opening line for your next broadcast...
"It appears the Toys for Tots can provide a violent demonic pornographic action figure to little Timmy but not JESUS!!!!!!!!!! I wonder if they would have turned down a donation of DARWIN action figures? I'm sure some atheist secularist God-hating liberal would love to make that kind of gift!!!!! Little Suzie can have a gay marriage Barbie doll, but can she have JESUS? Not in this so-called Christian nation"
Maybe I should get my own conservative talk show. (If you've never read this blog before, please note the above rant was facetious.)
Put the word out now, Toys for Tots may not want a talking Jesus doll for Christmas, but Rev. Chase Peeples absolutely does!!! I will proudly display the doll next to my Jesus bobblehead and my Jesus action figure and my Buddy Jesus as seen in the film Dogma and my First Church of Springfield--all of which are on a shelf in my office.
Anybody looking for a good Christmas present for their minister is welcome to send one to me.
Peace,
Chase
11.8.06 Don't Forget About Ted Haggard A lot has been going on over the last few weeks in my life: new child, new job etc. I've let the CONGOblog slide, so I'll try to get back in the swing of things over the coming weeks. There certainly has been a lot worth commenting upon.
I'll share some thoughts on the election soon, but I want to touch on a story that's already receding in the public consciousness: the scandal involving megachurch minister and president of the National Association of Evangelicals, Ted Haggard.
Haggard isn't as well known as other leaders of the Religious Right such as Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, etc. Haggard did not have the media empire of those guys, but he was equally as important. The NAE claims some 30 million members, and although the group contains some diversity of belief concerning social issues and theology, in general it is a conservative powerhouse. Last year there was a cover story about Haggard in Harper's magazine detailing his influence. I posted about the article here on the blog. You can read the text of it at the great blog on religion and the press, The Revealer. It was pretty clear that most members of the media had little idea who Haggard was or the extent of his influence.
Although Haggard and other leaders of his church have never officially stated that Haggard had sex with a gay prostitute, I think it's fair to say that he had more than the massage he admits to. His denial sounds suspiciously like Bill Clinton's "I smoked pot but never inhaled."
It would be easy to dismiss Haggard's shame as just one more sex scandal, but to do so, overlooks the sad fact that Haggard and his organization and his church condemned gays and lesbians and opposed gay marriage. Who knows how much pain his words have caused countless lives? The hypocrisy and his downfall does nothing to take away the harm he has caused the many gay and lesbian people who deserve basic rights, not to mention grace and love from Christ's church.
I recall my mother telling me when I was younger, no doubt after we heard some evangelist railing about sex, that she suspected these preachers who condemned homosexuals and preached against sex were all obsessed with sex themselves. The reason they preached about sex all the time is because that's all that was on their mind. I've come to believe my mother is right about such things.
As members of Haggard's church were interviewed, a common refrain offered was that Haggard's downfall was due to demonic attack. Satan went after Haggard because he was such a strong Christian leader. It seems much more likely to me that Haggard has probably been struggling with his sexuality for a very long time until the pain of denying his own biology drove him past the point of caring about his family or career. I believe there would be far fewer Ted Haggards in the world if Christians could simply be accepting of gays and lesbians rather than asking them to go against the way God made them.
Peace,
Chase
11.8.06 Moving On I announced on October 29 that I am taking a the position of pastor at First Christian Church, St. Joseph, Missouri and that my last day of work here at the church would by December 31 of this year. I've announced this in worship, by e-mail and in the newsletter, and in each case I have encouraged people to read the sermon I gave on the 29th, Beginnings and Endings. In it, I explain my reasons for making the difficult decision to move on. Take a look at the sermon if you haven't already done so.
Peace,
Chase
10.20.06 Religious Hypocrisy for Political Gain Last Sunday, Frank Rich wrote a column in the NY Times regarding the hypocrisy in the Republican Party over homosexuality. On the one hand, Republicans in Washington condemn gays and lesbians and call for constitutional amendments to outlaw same-sex marriages. On the other hand, gays and lesbians hold leadership positions on the staffs of many of the most outspoken anti-gay politicians. Apparently, the Republican apparatus in Washington is riddled with gay staff people, while all the time the "radical gay agenda" is demonized in order to score points with the Religious Right.
Rich also mentions some notable examples of Republican staffers who are openly gay. The Bush administrations new global AIDS coordinator for the State Department, Mark Dybul, was sworn in recently, with Condi Rice and Laura Bush in attendance. Dybul is openly gay and his partner held the bible used to swear him in. Secretary Rice even referred to the mother of Dybul's partner as his mother-in-law! In addition to this case, one of Rumsfeld's senior aides is openly gay, and so was Karl Rove's adoptive father!
The hypocrisy is staggering.
The Washington Post apparently took Rich's column and decided to make a news story out of it. Today they have an article containing interviews with closeted gay staffers of conservative Republican senators and congressmen. It also notes, as does Rich, that closeted gay Republican lawmakers are apparently an open secret in Washington.
At the same time this hypocrisy is being examined in the press after the Mark Foley scandal, there is a new book coming out that exposes the Republican Party's manipulation of the Religious Right for its own political ends. The book is called Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction, and it is by David Kuo, the #2 official in the Bush Administration's office on Faith-Based Initiatives. MSNBC reported that
...the book includes charges that high-ranking White House officials referred to prominent conservative Christian leaders as “nuts” behind their backs, used the faith-based office to organize ostensibly non-political events that in reality were designed to boost Republican candidates in tough elections, and favored religious charities friendly to the administration when doling out grant money. “National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as ‘ridiculous,’ ‘out of control,’ and just plain ‘goofy,’” Kuo wrote. Top political officials in the office of White House aide Karl Rove referred to the leaders as “the nuts,” he added.
By no means is the Democratic Party innocent of its own manipulation of religion for its own ends--Republicans just do it better and at a much louder volume. It would be easy to dismiss this kind of political manipulation and hypocrisy as just the sort of thing that happens in Washington, however doing so fails to take into consideration the way religion, especially Christianity, is cheapened. Such hypocrisy also oppresses gay and lesbian people and even denies them basic rights.
Is it any wonder that the view of Christianity as hypocritical and judgmental is so prevalent in our culture? The hypocrisy of politicians who use religion to scapegoat and dehumanize others for their own political gain hurts us all, especially those of us who believe Christianity is supposed to be a religion of grace and welcome.
Peace,
Chase
10.20.06 What Should We Learn from the Amish Community in PA?
Back on Oct. 9, I mentioned in my sermon the amazing example of the Amish community in PA and its response to the horrible school shooting that took place there. Instead of seeking revenge and looking for someone to blame, they have worked to forgive the murderer who attacked the community's young girls and to care for the shooter's family. See the 10.4.06 post as well.Since I'm still in ATL, I've been reading the Atlanta paper and remembered one of my problems with GA--Bob Barr lives here. You may remember Barr as the former congressman who champions "family values" and lead the impeachment effort against Bill Clinton for lying about his tryst with Monica Lewinsky. Of course, at the same time Barr was ending his second marriage by means of a sexual affair. Later his second ex-wife took him to court for failure to pay child support and she disclosed that she had an abortion while with Barr. Gotta love the hypocrisy!!!!
Barr wrote this week about the response of the Amish community and basically took the view that the lesson we all can learn from them is how not to mope around and erect memorials and seek crisis counseling when tragedy strikes. In his op-ed (whish is unfortunately no longer available for free on-line), Barr criticizes how other communities have responded, including New York after 9-11.
I was grateful to read a letter to the AJC today in response to Barr's column by Lanny Peters, pastor of Oakhurst Baptist Church here in Atlanta. Oakhurst is a part of the Alliance of Baptists who are in a covenantal relationship with our denomination, The United Church of Christ. Here's what he wrote:
Amish shootings
Bob Barr's column "Amish exhibit model to follow," @issue, Oct. 18
Barr picked only one part of modelBob Barr shows that he entirely misunderstood the model that the Amish offer us. How dare Barr use the Amish to harshly judge expressions of grief by other families and communities in similar situations after the senseless death of their family and friends. The Amish would never pass judgment as Barr does.
Barr commends the Amish for "continuing to live in what they view as God's vision and image," while showing he does not have a clue what their vision and image really mean. Their radical forgiveness is possible only because the Amish embody their deep belief that the Christ they follow really meant it when he said, "You have heard it said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say unto you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." (Matthew 5: 43-44)
If the Amish are our models, we will not be judging others. If the Amish are our models, we will not own guns, even to protect ourselves. We will not serve in the military. And we will most certainly not attack other countries.
Jesus did not say, "If you think your enemy might hit you on the cheek, pre-emptively hit him first."
The Rev. LANNY PETERS
Peters, who lives in Decatur, is pastor of Oakhurst Baptist Church in Decatur
I like the lessons Lanny points out better.
Peace,
Chase
10.20.06 My New Favorite Bumper Sticker While driving around Atlanta, I spotted the following bumper sticker:
The Rapture is not an exit strategy
(If you're a member of a northern mainline church and don't know what the Rapture is, click here.)
Peace,
Chase
10.16.06 Our Misogynistic Culture As many of you probably heard yesterday in church, my family and I are in Atlanta working on adopting our second child. All things are going smoothly so far and we hope to come back to NY soon with our new little boy. Thanks for your prayers and keep them coming.
*****
While hanging out in ATL, I've had time to read the papers, and I feel Bob Herbert's column in the NY Times today is truly prophetic. He notes the recent school shootings in an Amish school in PA and a public school in CO, and he asks why no one was particularly shocked at the killers' targeting of girls? In both cases, girls were separated from their male counterparts, girls were killed and the CO shooter apparently molested some of the victims while the PA shooter seems to have planned to do the same.
Herbert writes in bold language about the misogyny that is rampant in our culture, a misogyny that reduces women and girls to sexualized objects rather than equals to men. From video games, to music, to Abercrombie & Fitch t-shirts, to the thriving on-line porn industry, women are portrayed as things to be controlled--often through violent means--rather than people to be respected.
Here's a bit of Herbert's column:
We have a problem. Staggering amounts of violence are unleashed on women every day, and there is no escaping the fact that in the most sensational stories, large segments of the population are titillated by that violence. We’ve been watching the sexualized image of the murdered 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey for 10 years. JonBenet is dead. Her mother is dead. And we’re still watching the video of this poor child prancing in lipstick and high heels. What have we learned since then? That there’s big money to be made from thongs, spandex tops and sexy makeovers for little girls. In a misogynistic culture, it’s never too early to drill into the minds of girls that what really matters is their appearance and their ability to please men sexually.
A girl or woman is sexually assaulted every couple of minutes or so in the U.S. The number of seriously battered wives and girlfriends is far beyond the ability of any agency to count. We’re all implicated in this carnage because the relentless violence against women and girls is linked at its core to the wider society’s casual willingness to dehumanize women and girls, to see them first and foremost as sexual vessels — objects — and never, ever as the equals of men.
Every time there a crime against women makes the news, I'm sure that most folks are like me--I shake my head and wonder what is wrong in the world. Yet, Herbert raises an excellent question about the systematic and pervasive nature of the problem. We all play a part in this society that makes such a large profit on dehumanizing women, and each of us must in our own part of the world to work towards protecting, honoring and empowering our daughters, sisters, wives, mothers and friends.
As a minister, I am acutely aware of the role that the Church plays in reinforcing the idea that women are inferior to men. A few weeks ago, a number of folks passed along articles to me about the woman who was fired as a Sunday School teacher just because she was a woman. She has taught Sunday School for 54 years in the First Baptist Church of Watertown, NY. It is unfortunately not a unique example, despite the amount of press coverage it received. In evangelical churches, it is common for women to receive such treatment, despite the fact that pretty much all of them would close without the grunt work performed freely by their female members. Add to this the prohibition against female clergy in many Catholic and Protestant churches (and discrimination against female clergy in the denominations that do allow them in) and the teachings on sexuality and procreation by many churches, and you have a recipe for reinforcing and even legitimizing the idea that women are not the equals of men. From there, it is a quick and easy slide towards complete objectification and dehumanization.
Despite the passages from the Apostle Paul's letters that are used to justify sexism against women, I find plenty of examples in his writings that speak against such views. I tend to view Paul as a person who failed at times to live up to his own ideals--I can identify with him in that regard! Galations 3:23\7-28 reads:
As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.
What a radical statement of equality in his utterly stratified world. It is no wonder that Christianity spread quickly among women--along with other powerless people like slaves, the poor, etc. The church offered them a place where their gifts could be used, their potential could be actualized and where they were treated as full human beings.
Wouldn't it be nice if churches today could offer the same to women and girls in our misogynistic and sexist culture?
Peace,
Chase
10.4.06 Forgiveness in Lancaster, PA I was struck by a brief comment I heard today made by a mental health counselor working in the aftermath of the school shooting in Lancaster, PA. In a story about how the Amish community is dealing with this grisly school shooting that left five girls dead, he mentioned that members of the Amish community were asking the counselors how they could express their concern for the shooter's wife, children and other family members.
I was shocked by this demonstration of grace and forgiveness. The last people I would be concerned about if I were in their shoes would be the shooter's family.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised. The Amish, along with their Anabaptist brothers and sisters in the Mennonites, etc. are pacifists who seek restorative justice--i.e. justice that seeks to do more than punish the guilty but rather seeks to restore the community to wholeness--including the perpetrator of a crime.
It truly is amazing to me that anyone could think beyond anger and vengeance at a time like this, but it sure sounds a lot like the grace God shows to us all the time.
Peace,
Chase
10.4.06 Google Earth Reveals the Darfur Genocide Thanks to Link E. who passed along the following link (no pun intended) to photographs put out by Google's amazing service Google Earth that provides high-resolution satellite imagery for everyone to use via the web. The picture shows proof of the genocide and ethnic cleansing carried out by the Sudanese government in Khartoum, which continues to deny such events are taking place. The real question is will pictures like this one spur world leaders to actually do something about it?
Peace,
Chase
10.4.06 Pete King's Contact Information I got a nice e-mail from Connie K. re: my letter to Newsday re: Peter King's attack on the Islamic Center of Long Island. She writes:
If someone doesn't speak out against loud prejudice it carries the day by default! Do you have a website for Peter King so we can amen your statements?
Connie
I shared the following information with her and share it here with you in case you'd like to pass along your rejection of religious prejudice as espoused by Pete King.
Rep. King's e-mail is: pete.king@mail.house.gov
His web site is: http://peteking.house.gov/
Peace,
Chase
9.29.06 The Extreme and Offensive Views of Rep. Peter King Today, I received an e-mail from Faroque Khan, one of the founders and current leaders of the Islamic Center of Long Island that I think deserves attention.
Church members may remember Dr. Khan when he spoke to our church last November. He spoke in our Sunday morning worship service and participated in a Q&A time afterwards. During that Q&A time, a person from outside the church came and made accusations about Islam being a violent and oppressive faith. Dr. Khan handled that awkward situation with grace and patience.
I was privileged to take part in an interfaith Ramadan hosted by the ICLI last fall, and I have remained in touch with Dr. Khan since that time. In all of my dealings with Dr. Khan and the members of the ICLI, I have found each of them to be anything but extreme and dangerous. To the contrary, I have been welcomed in friendship and shown great hospitality.
In his e-mail today that he sent out to area clergy, he shared about the recent attacks made by Rep. Peter King of the 3rd Congressional District here on Long Island against the ICLI in general and Dr. Khan in particular.
Among King's outrageous remarks were:
- that 85% of all mosques in America were controlled by Islamic extremists, the ICLI included (a charge he bases upon the statement by one Islamic extremist in 2000)
- that the leadership of the ICLI are extremists who believe that Israel was behind the 9-11 terrorist attacks (a charge he bases upon the opinion of one mosque member expressed in 2001)
You can read more about his charges by taking a look at a recent Newsday editorial which criticizes King for his remarks, and by reading King's own words from his appearance on last night's Paula Zahn show on CNN.
The Islamic Center of Long Island has taken firm stands against terrorism and in support of freedom of religion for all. Also, they have participated widely in interfaith relationships, especially with Temple Beth-El in Great Neck. Earlier this year, youth from the ICLI along with Jewish and Christian youth toured the Holy Land together. These are hardly the actions of extremists.
King's remarks stereotype all Muslims as terrorists and fundamentalists. They are absurd and offensive. It's frightening to consider that a person holding these opinions serves in Congress.
As a Christian, I do my best to follow Jesus' teachings about loving my neighbor and to follow Jesus' example of defending people attacked by the religious and political establishment. Yes, I am sure there are extremists in the American Muslim community, but I am just as sure there are extremists in the American Christian community. I would not want to be judged by the extreme opinions of Christian fundamentalists, so I do not judge the majority of Muslims by what those of the radical fringe profess.
Given my experience with the people of the Islamic Center of Long Island, I remain profoundly offended by Peter King's remarks and would encourage the members of the ICLI to respond to them in the same way they have endeavored to overcome the prejudices of others in the past--with dignity and grace.
Here's my letter to the editor of Newsday:
Dear Editor,
I am writing in response to the offensive remarks regarding Muslims in general and the Islamic Center of Long Island in particular made by Rep. Peter King, 3rd Congressional District, on the October 28th episode of CNN’s Paula Zahn Now and in his campaign materials.
King states that 85% of American mosques are controlled by extremists. This remark is offensive and inaccurate. With these words, King contributes to the negative stereotypes and prejudice that peace-loving Muslims must deal with every day. As a Christian who works for peace and understanding, I consider it unfair when I am lumped together with Christian fundamentalists and extremists. Therefore, I resent it when the same is done to Muslims. It is frightening to consider that a member of Congress can hold such ignorant and dangerous views.
King’s remarks about the Islamic Center of Long Island and one of its leaders, Dr. Faroque Khan, are just as outlandish and demeaning. Dr. Khan has spoken at my church and I have had the privilege of taking part in interfaith events sponsored by the ICLI. In each case, I have found Dr. Khan and the people of the ICLI welcoming, gracious and determined to build bridges of understanding. Their excellent track record of interfaith dialogue and public stands against terrorism and violence speak for themselves. The ICLI stands as an example of positive interfaith work that people of all faiths can learn from.
Rev. Chase Peeples
The Congregational Church of Manhasset, United Church of Christ
Peace,
Chase
9.27.06 Faith, Reason, Islam and Pope Benedict XVI
It's been a while since my last post, and there's been a lot going on out there in terms of religion. One of the major events was the September 12 address given by Pope Benedict XVI at the University of Regensburg where he once taught theology. I think the pope's words--both good and bad--bring up a number of things worth consideration.
The Islamic world has been outraged over the address, because of Benedict's inclusion of a statement on Islam by the 14th century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus.
Ever heard of Paleologus? Yeah, me neither.
Here's the statement by that formerly obscure emperor:
Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.
Clearly the emperor made a gross generalization of Islam and treats the religion in an utterly derogatory fashion--but this is just a quotation, right? Does this mean that Benedict actually feels this way about Islam? I was immediately interested in reading the full speech--it just took me about two weeks to get around to it.
I read the full text at the Catholic World News web site, and I've come away with two main reactions.
1. Benedict's use of this quotation is puzzling, because the point behind it--whether or not God is consistent and operates according to human understandings of reason--could have easily been made without it. In fact, the entire speech is about the relationship between faith and reason in the Western world and not about the relationship between Christianity and Islam or even about Islam and violence.
2. From the written version of the text, at least, Benedict does not distance himself from the statement at all. He merely notes that it is "brusque." Given the flippant way Benedict inserts this quote--it appears almost like a digression by an old professor rather than the face of Roman Catholicism--it was either a grossly insensitive swipe at another major world religion that was unintentional (and therefore a pretty huge mistake) or Benedict has fallen into the trap of every critic of religion: judging a religion by its most extreme elements.
I have to say that after reading it, I do believe Benedict owes an apology to the many millions of peaceful Muslims around the world. He could have easily made the same point without this quotation. He could have also easily questioned the differences concerning the transcendence of God in Christianity and Islam without using a statement like this one.
Granted, the violence that accompanied protests of Benedict's words did little to help the case of the many legitimate and peaceful Islamic critics of the statement.
It's worth noting that Benedict writes his own speeches, unlike John Paul II who's speeches were vetted and sometimes written by a committee of cardinals. Many have noted that if he had bothered to let any of those folks read it, this whole controversy could have been avoided. John J. Allen, Jr. of the National Catholic Reporter writes:
: "Any PR consultant would have told the pope that if he wanted to make a point about the relationship between faith and reason, he shouldn't open up with a comparison between Islam and Christianity that would be widely understood as a criticism of Islam, suggesting that it's irrational and prone to violence."
Much more disturbing than the pope's lack of political tact, within the pope's words, I found two great ironies:
1. The statement by the Byzantine emperor questions the role of violence in Islam. Yet, didn't that same emperor and church leader also have an army and an empire controlled by military might? What about the Crusades? Church history is filled with militarism and violence supposedly on behalf of God. Islam is not unique in its use of religion to justify violence, militarism and war. Does that mean that Christianity's understanding of God is distorted along with Islam? Or could it meant that any religion can be manipulated to justify political ends?
2. Benedict's major point in the address is that in Western culture, faith and religion have been moved to the margins of rational inquiry, where it is viewed as merely subjective experience. Rather than being the underpinning of scientific study, faith is of an entirely separate category of thought than science. He argues that there is an inherent reasonableness to Christianity--the same reason that is at the heart of science. Therefore God remains consistent in every age, unlike, say, in Islam where Allah says religious belief cannot be forced in one passage in the Qur'an and commands holy war in another. Yet, cannot the Christian understanding of God also be criticized on the same grounds? In the Hebrew Bible, Yahweh commands ethnic cleansing, perhaps even genocide, but Jesus teaches nonviolence. Was God's mind changed or is God a hypocrite? Would it not be better to view scripture--whether Christian or Islamic--as human documents (albeit inspired by God if one is a believer) that at times reflect their author's own biases and views rather than God's?
I make these two points, because I believe they illustrate Benedict's failure to apply towards his own religion the same standards that he apparently applies to Islam.
Similarly, It is so very common for American Christians to criticize Islam as a religion of violence, as opposed to Christianity, the religion of peace. Yet, very few American Christians seem to remember Christianity's own blood-soaked history, not to mention the many American Christians who have used religion to justify the Iraq War and the material support of Israel's war with Hezbollah.
Beth Newman, Theology and Ethics professor at my seminary alma mater, Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond, has an insghtful column about the speech. She notes that viewing religion as inferior to post-Enlightenment understandings of reason--as many in the West do leads to viewing the Islamic world as irrational and violent. This in turn can easily lead to the "enlightened" West justifying its own violence against "irrational" Muslims.
Since faith has to do with all of reality, it cannot be sidelined by a scientific and technological rationality which ultimately reduces faith to the irrational. Our worry in the West has to do with the implications of this statement. If religion enters the public realm, so we imagine, the result will be conflict, if not violence. The outburst that followed Benedict's lecture seems a case in point. Such rage not only horrifies us, but strikes us as deeply irrational. We cannot make sense of it. And we pride ourselves that we have chosen more wisely than the Islamic world. We are free to have or not have our own religion, the reasoning goes, as long as we keep it to ourselves. In the public realm, so this line goes, we must not impose our religion on anyone.
Thus we end up with the very thing the Pope is speaking against: religion as a set of personal beliefs or an inner awareness separate from our cultural, political and public lives. The world’s “profoundly religious cultures,” the Pope states, “see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions.”
Even more, we can add, it becomes easy to condemn irrational sectarian violence while imagining our violence is rational -- and unfortunately necessary to stop their violence.
If I understand Benedict's point correctly, I agree with what I think he was generally trying to say--when religion is reduced to purely subjective personal perspectives, a culture suffers. Yet, I think the other extreme is just as bad--a culture controlled by a particular religious point of view--a view that makes universal claims and therefore sees no need for self-criticism. Benedict and I share the criticism of the first point of view, but based upon this speech, I'm not sure we share the latter one.
Peace,
Chase
9.17.06 A New Great Awakening? This week President Bush had a special sit-down discussion with reporters in the Oval Office. During his remarks, President Bush explained his belief that "Third Great Awakening" was sweeping the nation during the great struggle "between good and evil" that is the "War on Terror."
The First Great Awakening took place in the mid 1700's among Dutch Reformed Congregational and Presbyterian churches in the Northeast. Led by the preaching of Jonathan Edwards and George Whitfield, it stressed certain outward behaviors as signs of regenerated souls and churches increased in number and frequency. The Second Great Awakening took place at the start of the 1800's beginning among Congregationalists in New England and spreading among other denominations out to the western frontier. Again, increases occurred in church membership and stress was put upon individual conversion demonstrated through benevolent acts. Some scholars argue a Third Great Awakening has already occurred at the end of the 19th century.
Personally, from what I read and experience, I see little evidence of a religious revival sweeping the nation. Mainline denominations like ours continue to decline in membership and even more established evangelical denominations are showing at best zero growth--holding stable at past membership levels. Evangelical mega-churches continue to grow in the size of their buildings and in their attendance, but few of their members are converts and most are people having left other denominations.
The only evidence I see of Christianity shaping our culture is in a negative political sense--i.e. associating being a true Christian with voting for a particular conservative political ideology. If co-opting religion for political gain counts as a Great Awakening, then maybe the President is correct.
If a true Christian revival was sweeping across the nation, then I believe many things would be different:
1. Christians would seek to follow the humility of Christ and be wary of describing their military and political actions as a war of "good vs. evil." As many religious commentators have noted, when the "War on Terror" is presented in these terms, then many things we might normally consider morally reprehensible become allowable, because we are after all not fighting against human beings who are also made in God's image but rather against evil which deserves the fires of hell.
2. Christians would recognize that the one they claim as Lord was himself tortured and executed. I find it astounding that so many political leaders who claim the name Christian could ever support the use of torture or whatever vague euphemism that lawyers use for torture. At best, I hear politicians say that we don't want our troops treated that way, so let's not do it. I have yet to hear a politician actually say that torturing another human being is in itself immoral and unworthy of our national character.
3. Jesus' clear teachings about caring for the poor and the oppressed would be shouted from every church steeple and mega-church auditorium. More than doctrinal correctness, Jesus taught us to share what we have with those in need and to work towards helping those who are sick, hungry and homeless. Despite calls be certain religious leaders of the right and left to consider the plight of the millions of desperately poor people in Africa in danger from AIDS, starvation and government
