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 mismanagement, our nations gives a paltry amount in aid or attention failing to deliver on the little it has already promised. In our own country, the plight of people living in desperate poverty, such as those revealed to us in the wake of hurricane Katrina last year, remains off the radar of most Americans. Government policy continues to be beholden to those with the most money and to disregard those with the greatest need. Furthermore, churches of all stripes seem concerned with middle class material comforts than following a humble and suffering Christ.
I see no Great Awakening, merely a lot of sleepy Christians roused to action only as pieces in the political game.
Peace,
Chase
9.12.06 Why Genocide Matters Once again I'm thankful for Nicholas Kristof who continues to lay in front of the leaders of the world the shame that is the genocide in Darfur.
Things continue to worsen in Darfur as the few African Union peacekeepers present are about to leave and the Sudanese government begins a new offensive against the people of Darfur.
In Sunday's NY Times, Kristof has a column where he tackles the question of why he "harps" on Darfur all of the time. He admits that many more people die each year from diseases like malaria and AIDS, and that many more have died in the war in the Congo than have died so far in Darfur. Yet, he makes the point--one that I agree with--that although all deaths by violence and disease are tragic, genocide should provoke a particularly powerful response in us because it arises out of a particular kind of evil. He writes:
You can make an argument that Darfur is simply one of many tragedies and that it would be more cost-effective to save lives by tackling diarrhea, measles and malaria. But I don’t buy that argument at all. We have a moral compass within us, and its needle is moved not only by human suffering but also by human evil. That’s what makes genocide special — not just the number of deaths but the government policy behind them. And that in turn is why stopping genocide should be an even higher priority than saving lives from AIDS or malaria.
Even the Holocaust amounted to only 10 percent of World War II casualties and cost far fewer lives than the AIDS epidemic. But the Holocaust evokes special revulsion because it wasn’t just tragic but also monstrous, and that’s why we read Anne Frank and Elie Wiesel. Teenage girls still die all the time, and little boys still starve and lose their parents — but when this arises from genocide, the horror resonates with all humans.
Any thoughts out there about Kristof's point?
Although I believe that Christians should be at the forefront of the battles against extreme poverty, disease and war itself, I especially believe that Christians should be screaming in protest about genocide. Wherever people are murdered en masse because of their ethnicity, we should do all we can to stop the slaughter, because our religion declares that every life is sacred because that person was created by God, no matter their skin color or ethnic heritage.
Kristof also mentions in his column a web site worth checking out that grades each member of Congress according to their resonse to the genocide in Darfur. It's called www.darfurscores.org. I'm glad to report that both New York Senators (Schumer and Clinton) receive the grade of A+ and Gary Ackerman receives the grade of A based upon their support for legislation to prevent the genocide and speaking out against it.
Peace,
Chase
9.11.06 September 11 Blues Today started out like any other day, even though I knew it was September 11th. It didn't take long to read and hear and see the words "five years since 9-11" pouring out of every media outlet. I'm not sure why it took me so long to finally turn it all off and turn on some music.
Maybe it was the same reason it was so hard to turn off the TV in the days following 9-11. Then I kept thinking the pictures would reveal something new and that the talking heads would think of something to say that would offer some kind of meaningful perspective and that our political leaders might have something to say that would inspire hope rather than fear. I finally realized none of that would happen and I turned it all off.
Five years later I think I'm looking for the same thing. Surely after so long, somebody has something to say that is worth listening to. No such luck. I've turned it all off.
Everyone keeps asking, "What have we learned since September 11, 2001?" and there seem to be no meaningful answers. The folks in the media seem only to be able to offer contrasting assessments of our military policy and national security. Is that all there is to ask about?
In the same way that no memorial has yet to materialize in lower Manhattan, I feel there is a big empty space where our spiritual core should be. Why is no one asking if we Americans are better people five years later? Have we learned anything about ourselves? Have we learned anything about the futility of violence as a solution to violence? Have we learned anything about overcoming ideological differences through people of different religious and national backgrounds simply recognizing and nurturing their common humanity? What have we learned?
I'd love to hear somebody talking about these questions today, and I think the fact that nobody is doing so is the reason I feel so blue today. As a nation we are asking the wrong questions, and it is no wonder that we have such inadequate answers.
"We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools."
—Martin Luther King, Jr.
Peace,
Chase
9.11.06 Taking Care of Yourself Five Years Out The following is an e-mail I sent out on the church mailing list earlier today. The content arrived in my inbox via a newsletter sent out by www.faithandvalues.com. I thought it was worth passing on:
Dear Congregational Church folks,
It’s been five years since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Few communities felt the pain of that day more intensely than our own. Because time has passed, there is a temptation to dismiss or invalidate the feelings that today’s anniversary may evoke. Trust me when I write to you that you have the right to feel however you feel today, whether it is sadness, grief, fatigue or even numbness. I received the following words in an e-mail and I felt they were worth passing on. They are from one of the ministers at St. Paul’s in the city. He shared them with his congregation, and I share it with you.
Take care of yourself today.
Chase
Coping on September 11
Anniversaries are moments of heightened consciousness: they trigger important memories; they stimulate strong emotions.... Suggestions for recognizing and working through the emotional toll of 9/11:
Talk it out. Tell your story of September 11 until the proverbial cows come home. No matter how many times you've shared it, connecting voice to memory can be a saving grace.
Don't just do something; sit there. This is not the kind of thing your supervisor would recommend on a work day, but you can quote me. With temptations to distract ourselves in busy schedules, I vote for spending part of the day sitting down in a quiet space with no agenda whatsoever.
Practice random acts of kindness and senseless acts of beauty. When we recall acts of terrorism at their worst and the violence that ensued, why not buck the trend of fighting violence with more violence. The words of a contemporary hymn are instructive: "Let there be peace on earth, and let it begin with me."
Finally, pray. I'll be saying: "Lift us to your presence where we may be still and know that you are God; that you are closer to us than the breath we breathe; that you are doing for us far more than we can ever ask or imagine ...."—The Rev. Dr. Stuart H. Hoke
staff chaplain, Trinity Church, New York
missioner of St. Paul’s ChapelPeace,
Chase
8.30.06 See you in September! Getting ready for VBS and then doing VBS this week has kept me busy and I've only just begun to catch up on what's going on in the world. I hope to do more of that while on vacation over Labor Day weekend. So stay tuned for more CONGOblog in September!
In the meantime, I've begun making my Christmas list up. I know it's early, but when I saw this great Christian product, I knew I had to have a set. Keep it in mind when you're looking for that perfect gift for your minister.
Grace and Peace,
Chase
8.22.06 The Crucifixion of a Female Pop Star I heard a few weeks ago about Madonna's latest stage antics on her current concert tour, and at that time I didn't even bother to stifle my yawn. Ooh, Madonna is seeking out controversy by tweaking our sexual and religious mores!! She's never done that before. (Note the sarcasm in my typing.) Her stuff was fresh and shocking twenty years ago. I didn't even know she had a new album to promote. The last time I even paid attention to her was when she was still the "Material Girl."
The latest uproar--if you can even call it that--is over a stage number where Madonna sings "Live to Tell" while hanging on a big mirrored cross and wearing a crown of thorns. The Church of England and Catholic groups have denounced it, as have a variety of critics.
My thoughts--I have far too many things that actually matter to be up in arms about and Madonna doesn't even show up on my religious outrage radar--Darfur, Hurricane Katrina, the dead children of Lebanon, Israel, Gaza and Iraq, terrorist threats, the price of gasoline, who's going to get kicked off of the next episode of Project Runway, etc.
I changed my tune, however, when I heard a segment on NPR's All Things Considered last week by Donna Freitas, a professor of religion at St. Michael's College in VT. In her classes, she attempts to get her students to visualize Christ in feminine terms. The responses of her students include laughter to charges of blasphemy. She has a great line where she says that as a Christian I believe I should see Christ in everyone I meet, whether they are male and female and I want my students to think of Christ as more than just masculine. For her, Madonna is at least helping us to thinking about what it would be like, what it might mean if there was a woman up on that cross.
Now, I've got to say that I don't really think Madonna is the best spokesperson for this kind of theological debate, more because of her shtick being passé than because of her sexual exploits. I do think, however that Freitas has an excellent point. If we humans are created in the image of God rather than the other way around, then there must be both masculine and feminine aspects to who God is. Following that reasoning, if we are truly Trinitarian and view Jesus Christ as God then Christ must also possess masculine and feminine qualities even if Christ came as the man Jesus. After centuries of a masculine-only God that served to reinforce the power of men over women, it seems to me to be perfectly appropriate and especially faithful to look beyond gender in thinking about God--including thinking about Jesus.
So, thanks Madonna, I guess, for prompting the discussion.
Grace and Peace,
Chase
8.18.06 The 9-11 Anniversary Approaches--It Feels Different This Year It began last week when the British government announced that they had uncovered a terrorist plot to blow up airliners flying to the U.S. It was a natural time to think back upon September 11, 2001. That night I had a conversation with a parishioner who had watched the second plane hit the WTC from his high-rise office in midtown. Given that there had apparently been another plot involving airliners headed towards NYC, his account was chilling and overwhelming to contemplate.
A few days earlier ads for the new Oliver Stone movie, World Trade Center, began airing with the corresponding media blitz of stars and the real-life people whose stories the movie was based upon. With the new terrorist plot and the new conversations about 9-11, September 11 began to return from the Hollywood sur-reality it had gone to and to emerge once again as a painful reality for me and our church and our community.
This week another round of tapes were released. It was de ja vu all over again. More voices of heroic rescue workers stymied by poor communication and organization in an insane situation. More victims frantically calling for help that would never come. With little or no warning, excerpts were played on NPR on Wednesday and I found myself listening to one young woman trapped in one of the towers praying to God for help as the flames came to consumer her. I did not want to hear it, but I couldn't turn it off. I guess I should have turned the news off at the first mention of the tapes.
I arrived here in NY about two and a half weeks after September 11, 2001. I was someone outside of the tragedy trying to help people affected directly by it. Over time, as I've heard people's stories of that day and gotten to know family members of people killed on that day, the tragedy has become mine as well--at least as much as is even possible given my geographic distance from the events of that day. Whatever my proximity or distance from that day, I find myself feeling the weight of September 11 in a very different way this year.
I don't have any words of wisdom or great insight, just an observation that this anniversary feels different.
I went to a lot of seminars and training sessions after September 11 about the after effects of a disaster like this one. Oklahoma City was the prime example for comparison. In those sessions, they spoke about the emotional toll of the disaster really mounting at three years out and fiver years out and so on. I have not seen any sociological studies of the NYC region, so I don't know if the same is true for us or not.
From my own observation, I've felt a real insistence upon moving on and not speaking about it in any personal sense from the people I know. I don't really know why that is or what it signifies.
This year feels different to me. Anybody else feel that way?
Grace and Peace,
Chase
8.14.06 No Doubt, Chase is in Newsday I made my debut in Newsday in the Saturday "Ask the Clergy" column. The question was "Have you ever struggled with your faith?" I answered an emphatic "yes."
Interestingly, they printed my full response, except for my last sentence. It said, "The people I am most afraid of are religious people who have no questions only answers." I guess that was a little negative, not to mention the fact that one of the respondents seemed to indicate that he had no doubts about anything whatsoever in regards to his faith.
Anyway, I'm glad for the opportunity nonetheless.
Grace and Peace,
Chase
8.14.06 Politics as Idolatry, Part II In my 7.31.06 post, I mentioned a NY Times article about Gregory Boyd, an evangelical mega-church minister who has called out other evangelicals for placing political power above following Christ I just listened to an interview with Boyd on the NPR show On Point No doubt Boyd and I would disagree on a lot of theological and social issues, but I think he's absolutely right in his reading of Christ's approach to earthly politics. The interview is worth a listen.
Grace and Peace,
Chase
8.11.06 Help the Hungry on Long Island
You may have seen the article in last weekend’s Newsday about the special need during the summer months for donations of non-perishable food to Long Island’s food pantries.
Supply is lower, because regular donors travel or are out of their regular routines, while demand is higher due to children being out of school where they get free lunches. High gas prices are also cutting into the pockets of low-income people—as it is with higher income folks. The difference is of course that low-income folks may have to make a choice between buying groceries and putting gas in the car to get to work. Food pantries report that more seniors are seeking help as well.
For the next week, we will be collecting non-perishable food for the North Shore INN in Glen Cove. They especially request items in cans or plastic containers rather than cardboard boxes, due to storage concerns. Their clients often do limited kitchen facilities, so food that can be heated in a microwave or fixed by adding water are appreciated. Here is a list of items they have especially requested:
--tuna fish
--peanut butter
--jelly or jam
--canned fruit
--fruit juice
--hearty soups or stews
--ravioli or spaghetti.Items can be brought on Sunday or dropped off at the church between 9 AM and 2 PM next week.
Thanks for your generosity.
Grace and Peace,
Chase
8.7.06 There's a Little Mad Max in Each of Us
I know I'm at risk of jumping on the Mel Gibson criticism bandwagon, but I have been trying over the last week to think about what spiritual significance there is in this ridiculous and shameful situation. I missed a few episodes of Entertainment Tonight last week, so it was several days before I heard about Mel's drunken tirade against Jews. When I did, I have to say I wasn't that surprised.
He's apologized and seeking to change, but the extreme anti-Semitism of his remarks makes it difficult for me to just write this one off as another Hollywood star with a drug or alcohol problem. Despite being a fan of many of Gibson's movies, I've had my doubts about him since I saw The Passion of the Christ (see my sermons on the subject). I found the film, if not blatantly anti-Jewish, at least grossly insensitive to the centuries of Christian portrayals of Jews as "Christ-killers." Add this movie to Gibson's fundamentalist religious beliefs and I think there's room to wonder if this guy has issues of superiority and bigotry.
Now, I'm well aware that the media portrayal of someone is a far cry from how that person may actually be in real life, and I'm aware that I don't really know Mel Gibson, and I'm aware that there's all sorts of bigotry in public life that doesn't get this sort of treatment, BUT...it seems to me, that if a person wishes to receive praise, money and fame for their virtues (in Gibson's case his self-portrayal as a victim of the secular establishment when marketing his film) then that same person has to be willing to pay the price when they fail to live up to their own image.
But enough about Mel, let's get back to that spiritual significance thing. I think the criticism of Gibson comes back around to the suspicion that even though the guy was drunk, the alcohol merely loosened his tongue enough to express what he really feels. I don't know if that's the case or not. I've known plenty of cases where drunkenness led to people acting completely opposite of what they would do in saner moments. This case does raise the question of what kinds of sinful and bigoted thoughts lurk inside of us in deep places that we believe we can hide from everyone else?
I think Jesus got it right in the Sermon on the Mount when he drew a straight connection between a person's speech and the content of their soul. The damaging words that sneak out of us in our unguarded moments can reveal a lot about our true characters. I'm not sure there is any such thing as a prejudice or bitterness towards another that doesn't somehow affect the way we speak, act and treat other people. Like the rotten core of a fruit, it eventually makes its way to the surface. The lesson to take away from Mel Gibson's troubles is how each of us may carry this rot around inside of us until a time when it rises to our lips. The only way to avoid it is to search our own hearts and to ask God to help us change them, cleansing us from all unrighteousness.
Grace and Peace,
Chase
7.31.06 Politics as Idolatry
Thanks to Doug S. who steered me towards the article in the NY Times yesterday about Gregory Boyd, pastor of Woodland Hills Church in St. Paul, Minnesota. I thought it was an interesting story about a conservative minister refusing to allow his faith and the faith of his church to be subsumed into the political agenda of the Republican party. As I said, Boyd is conservative on most political, theological and social issues, but he saw the danger of the church becoming little more than a political campaign tool.
He preached a sermon series before the last election where he asserted "the church should steer clear of politics, give up moralizing on sexual issues, stop claiming the United States as a 'Christian nation' and stop glorifying American military campaigns."
The article goes on to say, "He first became alarmed while visiting another megachurch’s worship service on a Fourth of July years ago. The service finished with the chorus singing 'God Bless America' and a video of fighter jets flying over a hill silhouetted with crosses. 'I thought to myself, ‘What just happened? Fighter jets mixed up with the cross?’ he said in an interview."
As a result of the stance he has taken, the church lost about 1000 of its 5000 members; it failed to reach its goal in a major capital campaign; and, 50 staff members were laid off due to declining funds.
I think Boyd's stance is admirable and courageous considering the opposition he must have faced. People like their idols, and politics of the left and right makes for great idolatry. Prophets that smash idols tend to pay a price. May his tribe increase.
Grace and Peace,
Chase
7.31.06 A Lebanese Christian Response to the Current War I've been more than a little disturbed by the fighting between Hezbollah and Israel, especially by the fact that the people paying the price on each side are civilians--often too poor to get away from the fighting--rather than the political leaders responsible for the crisis. I'm no supporter of the terrorists of Hezbollah who use civilians as shields for their violence and hatred, but I'm also bothered by the scale of Israel's violence in return, especially the mounting civilian death toll (the most recent attack on Qana, Lebanon where over 60 civilians, many women and children, is especially disturbing)--not to mention that our country is supplying the bombs that cause these casualties.
A perspective I've found little coverage of is that of the 1.5 million Christians in Lebanon. I was pleasantly surprised to find that of all publications Christianity Today has published a series of articles on the conflict, including some powerful columns by Martin Accad, the Academic Dean of the Arab Baptist Theological Seminary in Lebanon. Accad, who is Lebanese, launches some broadsides against Israel, Hezbollah and Christians who blindly support Israel.
What is so interesting to me, is that the greatest supporters of Israel in the U.S. are evangelical Christians, largely because they believe Israel will play a significant role in their understanding of the end of the world--all one has to do is read some of the writings on this subject to realize that this support of Israel does not come out of love for the Jewish people but rather their own bad interpretation of the book of Revelation. Christianity Today has long been the publication of just such evangelical groups, so I am glad they are offering a different perspective. Of course, if the victims of Israeli bombs were Muslim rather than Christian, I doubt CT would be so concerned. They're still a long way from being supporter's of peace for the sake of peace. (For a very sane evangelical perspective towards Israel published in CT see this response to Accad by David Gushee.)
I became aware of this after reading a column by Jim Wallis of Sojourners--a column that expresses my own perspective on the conflict better than I could myself.
If you're wondering what exactly does a dispute between evangelical Christians over Israel have to do with your life, just consider that the dominant evangelical Christian perspective on Israel is held by many in the Bush administration and by lobbying groups with lots of money they throw around Capital Hill. This pressure plays a large part in deciding where your tax money is spent and where are military support is given. In addition, every conflict in the Middle East provides the means to recruit even more terrorists that inevitably want to target Americans. Oh yeah, then there's the whole thing about God loving the people getting killed on all sides of this conflict.
Grace and Peace,
Chase
7.31.06 Pulling the Plug?
Thanks to David M. for sending me this op-ed from The Wall Street Journal that is not only interesting from a religious perspective but also has a local angle. The author, Pamela Winnick, writes about her experience at North Shore/LIJ Hospital when her father was near death and in the ICU. The piece reveals her own religious background as an Orthodox Jew and her feelings about end-of-life issues in a thoughtful manner.
Grace and Peace,
Chase
7.30.06 Global Warming Links
\Thanks to Ted H. for passing on to me a couple of links related to the global warming crisis. He and I spoke about Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth--I haven't seen it but he has and recommends it highly. Afterwards, he sent me a link to the site affiliated with the film: www.climatecrisis.org and a link to Environmental Defense, a group that promotes practical and economically feasible approaches to the crisis.
Ted wrote: "The facts Gore presents are quite striking. They ought to be understood by all of us, irrespective of political support any of us may have for Gore himself, while there's still a limited time to act. Let's hope the film has an impact!"
Amen to that!
Jesus used the image of a steward to describe our management of the blessings given to us by God--those blessings include the planet we live on.
Grace and Peace,
Chase
7.29.06 The Real Highest Court in New York I'd like to thank a church member who wishes to remain anonymous but who is affiliated with the New York legal system. He e-mailed me to kindly and graciously correct my recent post about the court decision against same-sex marriage, at least in terms of my statement that the decision was rendered by the New York Supreme Court. He wrote:
The New York Supreme Court is not the highest court in the state. In fact, it is one of the lower courts (but called Supreme because it is the highest-level trial court. Other states sometimes refer to it as the "superior court.") The court decision on gay marriage was rendered by the NY Court of Appeals, which in fact is the highest court in the state. (Not to be confused with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which is the intermediate-level Federal appeals court for New York.)
I appreciate the legal help!
Grace and Peace,
Chase
7.25.06 Darfur: The News is Still Bad The battle between Israel and Hezbollah has grabbed the headlines in recent days, but almost going unreported was President Bush's meeting last week with "Salva Kiir Mayardit, the leader of the southern Sudanese rebel group that fought the northern government for 21 years until a peace deal last year." Thanks to the Washington Post for at least mentioning it on its op-ed page. The Khartoum government continues to oppress minorities in southern Sudan and to back militias that continue the genocide in Darfur despite a peace deal negotiated last month.
A genocide continues and the world shakes its head and goes on.
Grace and Peace,
Chase
7.24.06 Kevin Smith on Faith and Slacking
He's not for everyone--especially those easily offended by frank discussion of sexual material--but I generally like him. Kevin Smith, that is, the writer and director of films like Clerks, Chasing Amy, Dogma and Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. He's got a sequel to his original low-budget independent cult-classic Clerks, aptly title Clerks II.
I've always been interested in Kevin Smith as a filmmaker, because 1. I generally like his brand of humor (although I need to put a big disclaimer in that states his humor is often explicit and I don't recommend it for kids and there are some things that i consider over the top and if any of my church members are offended by anything in one of Smith's films than I would out of a strong sense of self-preservation declare said thing as falling into what I consider "over the top.") 2. Smith happens to be a Christian.
This latter point (the one without the disclaimer) is one I find really fascinating. Smith was raised Catholic, but no longer considers himself one--he simply notes that he is of the "praying type." Smith took a swipe at theology in his film Dogma, but for me, I had to say that I found it to be his least interesting film (although having Alannis Morrisette playing God was a fun casting idea). I just think that it's pretty darn rare that someone who has struck a certain slacker-auteur chord in our mass media also happens to be a person of faith.
Smith was on NPR's Morning Edition last week promoting the new movie, and it was a good interview. In some contexts, Smith comes across as pompous, but my general sense is that beneath the occasional bravado beats the heart of a pretty nice guy. The nice guy really came through in this interview. In it he speaks about his faith and speaks about the slackers in his movies. I found it sort of moving when Smith spoke about the idea that not everybody finds their full identity in their career, and that for many people a job is just a job. He gave his own father as an example, who worked twenty years canceling stamps in the back of a post office, which Smith describes as "soul-crushing" work. Yet, his father's real passion was for his family and the job was the means to make that happen. It was refreshing in an age that seeks to understand people according to what they "do" for a living along with what they buy, etc.
Grace and Peace,
Chase
7.24.06 Our Spiritual Ancestor: Henry Ward Beecher
Who was the most famous man in 19th century America? Abraham Lincoln? U.S. Grant? Mark Twain? Wrong.
Try Henry Ward Beecher.
If that's an unfamiliar name to you, don't be concerned. Beecher's notoriety faded with his times. Now, he would be better known as the brother of Harriet Beecher Stowe, author of Uncle Tom's Cabin. Yet, in his day, he was known far and wide as pastor of one of the largest churches in America, ardent abolitionist and master orator. Beecher's name may become better known thanks to a new biography The Most Famous Man in America, by Debby Applegate.
Beecher was a Congregationalist minister, and a part of our denomination's spiritual heritage. He founded Plymouth Congregational Church (now called Plymouth Church of the Pilgrims) in Brooklyn. Plymouth chose not to join our denomination, United Church of Christ, when the new body was formed in the fifties, although warm ties remain. They are a part, however, of our local association of UCC churches in the metro NY area. They've got an interesting web site that tells of their rich history.
Apparently Beecher was not a perfect man. He was anti-Catholic and was accused of multiple adulterous affairs. Yet, his theology broke dramatically from the cold Calvinist doctrine that previously dominated American Christianity, and changed the focus of American religion to an emphasis upon God's love. Here's a good explanation from a recent review of Applegate's book:
Mainstream Christianity is so deeply infused with the rhetoric of Christ's love," Applegate writes, "that most Americans can imagine nothing else, and have no appreciation or memory of the revolution wrought by Beecher and his peers." Whenever you hear a sentimental sermon — whatever the preacher's denomination, race or political leanings — echoes from Beecher's Plymouth Church are actually ringing in your ears. (Listen to an interesting book review by Maureen Corrigan on NPR's Fresh Air).
Grace and Peace,
Chase
7.14.06 Save the Endangered Heterosexuals! Taking up where my last post left off, there's an op-ed by Yale Law School professor Kenji Yoshino in the NY Times today about the really lame reasoning offered by the NY Supreme Court for the abolition of gay marriages. I already mentioned the false argument about heterosexual parents being better than homosexual parents (the op-ed mentions the Arkansas Supreme Court's decision to overthrow the ban on gay foster parents because there is no scientific evidence to back up such a charge). I also mentioned the inadequate understanding of marriage as only being for the purpose of procreation.
Today's op-ed, however, takes on the additional flawed reasoning that homosexual marriages should be outlawed in order to shore up the crumbling institution of heterosexual marriage--an interesting refutation of the usual argument that homosexual marriages would somehow threaten heterosexual ones. Anti-gay rights judges--dare I say "activist" judges?--need to get their arguments straight. Do gay marriages help or hurt straight ones? (Here's a hint: none of the above.) Here's some of the op-ed:
But the New York court also put forth another argument, sometimes called the “reckless procreation” rationale. “Heterosexual intercourse,” the plurality opinion stated, “has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not.” Gays become parents, the opinion said, in a variety of ways, including adoption and artificial insemination, “but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse.” Consequently, “the Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples.”
To shore up those rickety heterosexual arrangements, “the Legislature could rationally offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples only.” Lest we miss the inversion of stereotypes about gay relationships here, the opinion lamented that straight relationships are “all too often casual or temporary.”
When an Indiana court introduced this seemingly heterophobic logic last year in upholding a state ban on same-sex marriage, I thought it was a cockeyed aberration. But after both New York City and New York State presented similar logic in oral arguments, and the court followed suit, I began to understand the argument’s appeal: it sounds nicer to gays.
As Yoshino points out, just because the language is "nicer" does not mean the prejudice and oppression is any less awful. Such "nice" language based upon demeaning stereotypes has been used throughout our nation's history to oppress every marginalized group (e.g. native Americans, African-Americans, women, etc.) Yoshino continues:
This is not the first time courts have restricted rights with a flourish of fond regards. In 1873, the United States Supreme Court upheld an Illinois statute prohibiting women from practicing law. Concurring in that judgment, Justice Joseph Bradley observed that the “natural and proper timidity and delicacy” of women better suited them to “the noble and benign offices of wife and mother.” Hostile rulings delivered in friendly tones can take longer to overturn, as evidenced by the century that passed before members of the Supreme Court reversed their thinking about women and, in a 1973 opinion in a sex discrimination case, recognized that confining women in the name of cherishing them put them “not on a pedestal, but in a cage.”
We should not need a century to unmask the “reckless procreation” argument as a new guise for an old prejudice. The “reckless procreation” argument sounds nicer — and may even be nicer — than the plainly derogatory “role model” argument. But equality would be nicer still.
As Christians, part of our calling is to stand up for those with the least power--the oppressed and marginalized--in the case of this recent NY Supreme Court ruling, gay and lesbian couples who wish to marry are clearly in that category. We cannot be on the fence, or worse yet using poor sociological arguments to oppose them or even worse using dangerous theological arguments to not only support bad politics but turn them away from the church.
If society--and the church--are really at the heart just uncomfortable with or frightened off same-gender sexuality, then let's talk about what the real concern happens to be rather than masking our fears and prejudices in flawed legalisms or theology.
Grace and Peace,
Chase
7.11.06 The New York Supreme Court has Justified Oppression See my correction to this post above.
The news last Friday in terms of justice and equality for all people was bad--a state supreme court had ruled that the state legislature could outlaw marriages between two people of the same gender. This did not happen in a state like Alabama or Georgia or Texas, but in New York--a state that has been a haven for gays and lesbians in search of tolerance and acceptance. Very quickly, anti-gay rights forces were declaring victory and groups working for gay rights were bemoaning the loss of what had been accomplished in recent decades.
It turns out that the ruling only says the legislature can outlaw gay marriage, but I guess folks were disappointed (or happy) because given that it was New York we were talking about, they were expecting the state supremes would follow Massachusetts and declare the state must allow same-sex marriages to occur.
The battle will turn to the legislature.
In the meantime, it's worth reading some of the reasoning for the court's majority opinion (you can read the full ruling at the supreme court site or excerpts at the NY Times).
From my reading of the majority opinion, the reasoning for saying the state can outlaw same-gender marriage seems to be based largely on the arguments that it is bad for children and that same-gender couples cannot procreate. In the first instance, there's no evidence beyond anecdotes, intuition and personal opinion to support such a stance. In the second instance, should we outlaw heterosexual couples from marrying who choose not to have children? Marriage is about a lot more than procreation or even the potential for procreation. Should my marriage with my wife be considered invalid because my wife and I adopted our son (an option also available to gay and lesbian couples)?
The majority opinion is flawed and at its heard it is based upon prejudice and oppression of good people who just want the right to have their loving and committed relationships recognized by the state in the same way the state recognizes both good and bad heterosexual relationships.
It wasn't that long ago that states used similar weak reasoning to support the abolition of marriages between people of different ethnicities. Those who reject such a comparison are simply wrong. Prejudice is prejudice, oppression is oppression. Some day we will look back at court decisions like this one and wonder how could the majority of good people in America simply go along with them.
We'll also look back and wonder why good Christian people stood by and were silent in the face of injustice.
Grace and Peace,
Chase
7.7.06 Fellow UCC Member Barack Obama Shares Truth and Light I'm back from the youth mission trip to Nashville (check out the pictures) and back in the saddle at the old CONGOblog.
I return back to normal life to find that one of my favorite senators has been busy Barack Obama has achieved the nearly impossible--a politician talking intelligently about religion and politics. He spoke at Pentecost 2006: Building a Covenant for a New America” gathering in Washington, D.C.
Obama is a part of our denomination, The United Church of Christ, and a member at Trinity UCC in Chicago. In an interview with UCC News, he stated:
"Just as my pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright from Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, welcomed me as a young man years ago, UCC churches across the country open their doors to millions of Americans each Sunday, and they accept, love and counsel all who enter. This spirit of inclusiveness has served as a model for me in my time in the Senate, and the love for one’s fellow man that the UCC stands for is the foundation of my work.”
In his address at the conference, he spoke with humility about his Senate race against conservative flamethrower Alan Keyes and used one instance in that campaign as an example of the poor quality of discourse in our country when it comes to religion in the public sphere:
I want to give you an example that I think illustrates this fact. As some of you know, during the 2004 U.S. Senate General Election I ran against a gentleman named Alan Keyes. Mr. Keyes is well-versed in the Jerry Falwell-Pat Robertson style of rhetoric that often labels progressives as both immoral and godless.
Indeed, Mr. Keyes announced towards the end of the campaign that, “Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama. Christ would not vote for Barack Obama because Barack Obama has behaved in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved.”
“Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama.”
Now, I was urged by some of my liberal supporters not to take this statement seriously, to essentially ignore it. To them, Mr. Keyes was an extremist, and his arguments not worth entertaining. And since at the time, I was up 40 points in the polls, it probably wasn’t a bad piece of strategic advice.
But what they didn’t understand, however, was that I had to take Mr. Keyes seriously, for he claimed to speak for my religion, and my God. He claimed knowledge of certain truths.
Mr. Obama says he’s a Christian, he was saying, and yet he supports a lifestyle that the Bible calls an abomination.
Mr. Obama says he’s a Christian, but supports the destruction of innocent and sacred life.
And so what would my supporters have me say? How should I respond? Should I say that a literalist reading of the Bible was folly? Should I say that Mr. Keyes, who is a Roman Catholic, should ignore the teachings of the Pope?
Unwilling to go there, I answered with what has come to be the typically liberal response in such debates – namely, I said that we live in a pluralistic society, that I can’t impose my own religious views on another, that I was running to be the U.S. Senator of Illinois and not the Minister of Illinois.
But Mr. Keyes’s implicit accusation that I was not a true Christian nagged at me, and I was also aware that my answer did not adequately address the role my faith has in guiding my own values and my own beliefs.
He also spoke about his own decision to become a Christian and to join Trinity UCC in Chicago:
For one thing, I believed and still believe in the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change, a power made real by some of the leaders here today. Because of its past, the black church understands in an intimate way the Biblical call to feed the hungry and cloth the naked and challenge powers and principalities. And in its historical struggles for freedom and the rights of man, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world. As a source of hope.
And perhaps it was out of this intimate knowledge of hardship -- the grounding of faith in struggle -- that the church offered me a second insight, one that I think is important to emphasize today.
Faith doesn’t mean that you don’t have doubts.
You need to come to church in the first place precisely because you are first of this world, not apart from it. You need to embrace Christ precisely because you have sins to wash away – because you are human and need an ally in this difficult journey.
It was because of these newfound understandings that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ on 95th Street in the Southside of Chicago one day and affirm my Christian faith. It came about as a choice, and not an epiphany. I didn’t fall out in church. The questions I had didn’t magically disappear. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt that I heard God’s spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.
He spoke in a very thoughtful way about the difference between particular and individual religious experience on the one hand and universal values and principles that enable a stable pluralistic society on the other hand:
Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what’s possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It’s the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing. And if you doubt that, let me give you an example.
We all know the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham is ordered by God to offer up his only son, and without argument, he takes Isaac to the mountaintop, binds him to an altar, and raises his knife, prepared to act as God has commanded.
Of course, in the end God sends down an angel to intercede at the very last minute, and Abraham passes God’s test of devotion.
But it’s fair to say that if any of us leaving this church saw Abraham on a roof of a building raising his knife, we would, at the very least, call the police and expect the Department of Children and Family Services to take Isaac away from Abraham. We would do so because we do not hear what Abraham hears, do not see what Abraham sees, true as those experiences may be. So the best we can do is act in accordance with those things that we all see, and that we all hear, be it common laws or basic reason.
He concluded his address with another anecdote from his campaign. He had received a letter from a conservative Christian doctor who opposed abortion. The doctor wrote in fair and thoughtful language about the reasons he was attracted to Obama as a person and a candidate, but he also shared the he was considering voting against Obama not just because of his pro-choice stance but also because of the language used to express that stance. On his web site, Obama's staff had used typical Democratic Party platform language demonizing opponents of abortion legalization. The doctor noted that he was not a fanatic who wanted to impose suffering upon women, and if that is what Obama thought about everyone who disagreed with him on the issue, then he was less worthy of respect than the man had originally thought. Obama changed the language of his campaign to more fully reflect his particular views and also he realized the way he had failed to reach out to people on the other side of issues like this one. He noted:
Re-reading the doctor’s letter, though, I felt a pang of shame. It is people like him who are looking for a deeper, fuller conversation about religion in this country. They may not change their positions, but they are willing to listen and learn from those who are willing to speak in fair-minded words. Those who know of the central and awesome place that God holds in the lives of so many, and who refuse to treat faith as simply another political issue with which to score points.
So I wrote back to the doctor, and I thanked him for his advice. The next day, I circulated the email to my staff and changed the language on my website to state in clear but simple terms my pro-choice position. And that night, before I went to bed, I said a prayer of my own – a prayer that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me.
And that night, before I went to bed I said a prayer of my own. It’s a prayer I think I share with a lot of Americans. A hope that we can live with one another in a way that reconciles the beliefs of each with the good of all. It’s a prayer worth praying, and a conversation worth having in this country in the months and years to come.I encourage you to read all of Obama's address. It is truly a rare example of thoughtfulness and common sense--things totally lacking in the political and religious discourse in this country. You can also listen to it and watch it on video via links on Sojourners' web site.
Grace and Peace,
Chase
6.22.06 June Roundup: Guantanamo, Moyers, Gay Rights & More Posts have been scarce this week and will be scarcer next week, because I'll be on the youth mission trip. (your prayers are appreciated) However, to make up for this week and next week let me spew out a whole bunch of stuff I've been thinking about and meaning to throw up here on the ol' CONGOblog. Hopefully, this will tide you over until July.
Guantanamo--I've always felt conflicted over the detainment center at Guantanamo Bay. On the one hand, I work in a church that had members killed by terrorists on September 11, so I am well aware of the dangers terrorism poses. On the other hand, I don't believe anyone should be held without due process and legal representation--not to mention tortured--and I think there are many reasons to mistrust the Bush administration when it comes to the "War on Terror." As time has gone by, it has become apparent that any truly dangerous terrorists in U.S. custody have been kept in secret camps in Europe and elsewhere and that many of the people held in Guantanamo got there from being in the wrong place at the wrong time, sold to U.S. forces by opportunists or personal enemies or there because of confessions made under torture in countries like Egypt. I don't like mistrusting my government and I certainly don't like the idea of a terrorist going free, but I have come to believe that as a Christian, there are good reasons to object to what is going on at Guantanamo. With the release of the new film The Road to Guantanamo and President Bush's recent remarks, there has been a lot of recent publicity about the issue. Here's a sampling:
- 6.22 Leonard Lopate Show interview with the director of The Road to Guantanamo and one of the subjects of the film, a former Guantanamo detainee
- 6-22 Fresh Air interview with Civil rights lawyer Joseph Margulies who defended Guantanamo detainees
- A series of editorials by the editors of The Washington Post about the difficult issues of what to do with detainees at Guantanamo and elsewhere
- To hear some of the released detainees own words about their time at Guantanamo and an actual explanation of what habeus corpus means check out the March 10, 2006 episode of This American Life. Ever since I heard it broadcast, this program has been troubling me.
Bill Moyers on Faith and Reason--A hero of mine, Bill Moyers, has a new series on PBS starting tomorrow night about the intersection of religion and science--it looks wonderful. Check out the official site and for a sampling this Sojourners interview with Moyers.
Blogging the Bible--When I was a child, my father and I tried to read the Bible together cover to cover. I remember thinking so much of what we were reading was really out there. We made it to the end of Exodus and then gave up, because cultic laws can get pretty dull. I remembered my childhood efforts when I came across a blog by David Plotz at Slate.com. He's a not-very-religious Jew who started reading the Torah. His observations about the first five books of the Bible are so far entertaining and sometimes illuminating.
Joel Stein does the Da Vinci Code with an evangelical minister--When Joel Stein wrote for Time, he was wickedly funny. Somewhere on the road to making snarky comments on VH1, he grew less so. I came across this article and was pleased to discover that he's back in his old form again. I know, I know The Da Vinci Code movie is old news, but Stein's take on it as a non-observant Jew and his encounters with an evangelical minister is a fun read.
Gay Rights = Civil Rights--On the conservative end of things, there's been strong resistance to any comparison between the struggle of homosexuals for civil rights and the struggle of African-Americans for civil rights. Here's the best articulation that I've come across yet for why such a comparison is valid--it comes from Mark Anthony Neal, a professor of African-American studies at Duke.
See you in July!
Grace and Peace,
Chase
6.15.06 Amens and al-Zarqawi I heard reports yesterday about Secretary of State Rice speaking at the southern Baptist Convention--the denomination of my upbringing. It was disturbing to say the least. Republican politicians have routinely paraded themselves before this annual meeting of fundamentalists, although having a Secretary of State do so is new. The result was the same, however, as in previous cases--a mixture of religion and partisan politics that glorifies American power and offers no room for a prophetic response to our government--except in the case of prayer in schools, homosexuality and abortion.
It was disturbing to hear Rice's statement, "When possible, we are bringing terrorists to justice, and when necessary, we are bringing justice to the terrorists," (referring of course to the death of al-Zarqawi last week) and the resulting "Amens" shouted out by megachurch ministers. Any second thoughts, brothers, about applauding the death of a human being that Jesus died for--even if he was a brutal murderer?
It reminded me of an article I read last week--sent to me by faithful CONGOblog reader Link E.--that contained an interview with the father of Nicholas Berg, who was beheaded by al-Zarqawi. Although some of Berg's political statements are extreme, I was deeply moved by the senior Berg's rejection of revenge upon the murderer of his son and refusal to rejoice at zl-Zarqawi's death. I am sure that if someone killed my child, revenge would be the first think on my mind--and Jesus' words about forgiveness and the uselessness of violence would be the last thing I would want to consider.
Given the choice between the bloodthirsty Amens of the Southern Baptist Convention and the principles of Berg, I would hope to follow the latter.
Grace and Peace,
Chase
6.16.06 Loving My Iraqi Neighbor It was an interesting juxtaposition last Thursday--I read the op-ed pages of the NY Times while on the TV and radio the news of Musab al-Zarqawi's death broke. As the news of the terrorist leader's death from American bombs played in the background along with the cheers of Iraqi reporters and politicians and the self-congratulations of American soldiers and politicians, I was reading a number of op-eds about just how bad things were in Iraq.
I bet the Times editors wished they could have seen just a few hours into the future. They would have held off on the Iraqi doom and gloom--at least for a day--as the American media reveled in one of the only good bits of news to come our of Iraq in some time.
(Well--at least it's good news insofar as anything can be good when a woman and child die in a bomb blast along with a brutal sadist. I've noticed how little anybody had to say about the other people killed in the blast.)
Despite whatever good may come out of Zarqawi's death, pretty much everyone agrees that Iraq's problems are far greater than what Zarqawi managed to cause. Indeed, the number of bodies rolling into the Baghdad morgue and morgues across the country have not stopped. This is of course, because most of the killing in Iraq is not being done by Al-Qaeda but by members of various militias, former Baathists and criminal gangs. Not even today's photo-op visit by President Bush seems likely to slow down the bloodshed.
So, going back to that Times op-ed page--the words of Iraqi doom and gloom offered by the editors, David Brooks and Bob Herbert seem just as true this week as they were last week. The generic editorial was about the failures of the Iraqi government to do much of anything. More interesting were the columns by Herbert and Brooks (2 writers I rarely find interesting at all).
First, here's a bit from Brooks:
"When you have to deal with barbarians, you must behave like a barbarian yourself," a Greek officer in the Balkan wars of 1912-13 declared. But Americans, to their credit, have been unwilling to rationalize barbaric action so easily. Because American troops come from the culture they do, they have not become the sort of people they would have to be to defeat the insurgents at their own game. Indeed, the people who are most furious about what happened at Haditha are those marines who have been in similarly awful circumstances but who have not snapped, and who fear that their heroic restraint will be tainted or overshadowed by comrades who behave despicably.
Similarly, in our debates at home we are searching for ways to exercise enough power to defeat the insurgents while still behaving in accordance with our national conscience. We are seeking a sweet spot that satisfies both the demands of power and of principle. But it could be that given the circumstances we have allowed the insurgents to create, that sweet spot no longer exists.
Brooks' words are notable, because he actually admits the failures of American war planners in not doing much of anything to prepare for the violent consequences of their war. Granted, Brooks only mentions this point in passing, but at least he does mention it, which is more than most conservative commentators bother to do.
He also makes the valid point that there is a difference between the American forces who have carried out atrocities and those who have not.
What Brooks leaves unsaid, however, is that although American forces and our allies do not as a rule indulge themselves in brutal sadism like the videos on islamist web sites depict, many many many innocent Iraqis have died due to American weaponry. No matter how noble our intentions--the combination of poor planning, poor training and the general fog of war have left grieving family members and lives cut short. Add to these uncounted lives--uncounted, I believe, because we Americans do not want to know and our leaders are glad to keep it that way--the also uncounted number of civilians caught in the crossfire.
Bob Herbert comes at things from the other side and makes some good points. I have to admit that I usually scan the first sentence of Herbert's columns and move on. As with Maureen Dowd and some other columnists, I pretty much know what to expect from him on any given day and it's largely a broken record. Last Thursday, however, I found his column very insightful. Here's a bit from it:
For the smug, comfortable, well-off Americans, it doesn't seem to matter how long the war in Iraq goes on — as long as the agony is endured by others. If the network coverage gets too grim, viewers can always switch to the E! channel (one hand on the remote, the other burrowing into a bag of chips) to follow the hilarious antics of Paris, Britney, Brangelina et al. The war is depressing and denial is the antidote. Why should ordinary citizens (good people, religious people, patriots) consider their role in — and responsibility for — the thunderous, unending carnage? Enough with this introspection. Let's go to the ballpark, get drunk and boo Barry Bonds...
While Mr. Bush's approval ratings are low, the public has been largely indifferent to the profound suffering in Iraq. This is primarily for two reasons: Because most Americans have no immediate personal stake in the war, and because the administration and the news media keep the worst of the suffering at a safe distance from the U.S. population...
The killing of American troops is usually kissed off with a paragraph or two in the major papers, and a sentence or two, at best, on national newscasts. (Imagine if someone in your office, sitting at a desk across from you, were suddenly blown to bits, splattering you with his or her blood. You wouldn't get over it for the rest of your life. This is what happens daily in Iraq.)
The many thousands of Iraqis who are killed — including babies and children who are shot to death, blown up, or incinerated — remain completely unknown to the American public. So not only is there very little empathy for the suffering of Iraqis, there is virtually no sense among ordinary Americans of a shared responsibility for that suffering.
In his column, Herbert advocates an immediate pullout from Iraq and as with most people putting forth that position, he does not address the question--valid, I think--of what will happen once we do. It seems to me that there's a good chance that the bloodshed we're witnessing now would be much much worse.
Herbert's main point, however, is a good and powerful one that needs to be shouted from the rooftops. As Americans, we are insulated from the killings in Iraq and we have no conception of the part our nation has played in things progressing to this awful point. Our own troops barely get noticed when they die. The many thousands who are seriously disabled physically and mentally get no notice at all. Worst of all, the thousands of civilians--ordinary people going about their daily lives, or at least trying to--people like you and me, with families to mourn them--die and are nothing more than a statistic--if that.
Americans let this war happen and have watched the aftermath of this war spiral downward into a state of lawlessness and bloodshed. Our society has let this happen, because, as Herbert notes, it exists at a distance far enough removed from our lives that it makes little difference.
From a Christian perspective--following Jesus' commandment to love our neighbor as ourselves--what should our response to the carnage in Iraq be?
In a world that is increasingly connected globally, we do not have the luxury of seeing people on the other side of the world as anything but connected to us. We may be removed from the Iraqi people by geography, culture and religion, but they remain our neighbors according to Christ. What should our response be to their suffering?
At the very least, we should care more than we do.
Grace and Peace,
Chase
6.8.06 Darfur Vote in the House Today Below is an e-mail I just sent out on the church e-mail list:
Dear church folks,
As I hope you know, Jimmy preached this past Sunday about what our response should be as Christians to the genocide in Darfur. Many members of our church wrote letters to our government officials in Washington asking for help in stopping this genocide. In keeping with trying to do what we can in response to genocide, we have another opportunity to influence our government’s response.
I received an e-mail today from www.savedarfur.org about a funding vote that will take place today in the House of Representatives. It is for $50 million to go towards humanitarian aid. On the church blog (www.uccmanhasset.org/blog.htm), I posted an article from the NY Times regarding the horrible crisis facing Darfur refugees who have fled from genocide only to arrive in camps where humanitarian aid groups are pulling out due to lack of funding—leaving hundreds of thousands of women and children without food or medical care. The situation is dire and this funding vote could literally save thousands and thousands of lives.
Below, you will find the information on how to call your congressman and what to say to the person in his/her office in order to express your support for today’s vote. I called Rep. Ackerman’s office and urged his support. He has supported funding for Darfur in the past. However, I was told that Ackerman does not announce ahead of time how he will vote on an amendment or bill since wording can change at the last minute. I informed his office that our church had focused upon Darfur in worship and is deeply concerned about the people of Darfur.
This vote is still up in the air and your phone call can make a difference.
Grace and Peace,
Chase
________________________________________
Dear Chase,
Later today the House of Representatives will vote on whether or not to provide critical funding for humanitarian aid in Darfur. In a country where a state-sponsored genocide has already claimed over 400,000 lives and left millions more homeless and starving, this funding could literally mean the difference between life and death.
Last month, the United Nations was forced to cut daily food rations in half - well below survival level - due to lack of funds. We need your help today to make sure that this doesn’t happen again.
Please call your Representative today and ask that he or she vote for the Obey/Hyde/Lantos amendment which would add $50 million in humanitarian aid in Darfur. We have provided a call script below for you to use.
Just one minute of your time could have a tremendous impact for the millions of innocent men, women, and children in Darfur who live every day in fear of murder, starvation, and rape.
You can find contact information for your Representative here, http://www.house.gov, or if you know who your Representative is you can simply call the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask to be connected. We have included a sample call script below.
Thank you once again for your commitment to helping the people of Darfur..
Sincerely,
David Rubenstein
Save Darfur Coalition-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sample call script:
Hi, this is [NAME] calling from [CITY/TOWN]. I'm calling to ask Congressman/woman _____ to support the Obey/Lantos/Hyde Amendment to add $50 million dollars for humanitarian aid in Darfur. Do you know if [HE/SHE] will vote to help provide this crucial aid to the million of men, women, and children displaced by the genocide in Darfur?
If yes:
That's great news. Please thank [HIM/HER] for me and let [HIM/HER] know that I'll tell my friends and family that [HE'S/SHE'S] supporting this important cause.
If no, or don't know:
[ONLY IF NO] Do you know why not?
[EITHER WAY] Please let [HIM/HER] know that these programs are keeping millions of families alive and safe. Please ask [HIM/HER] to do everything [HE/SHE] can to ensure that humanitarian aid life support system remains intact. If possible, I'd like a written response explaining [HIS/HER] vote. Thank you for your time.
_____________________________
Grace and Peace,
Chase
6.6.06 The Mark of the Beast
In case you didn't realize it, today (depending on your particular form of biblical interpretation) is a day of tremendous apocalyptic importance. It is the sixth day of the sixth month of the sixth year of the millennium. That's right, 6-6-6!
It's a number that's been made famous in horror movies and novels. In fact the remake of the 1970's son of Satan thriller, The Omen, cashed in on the date and opened today. I recall people identifying the number with Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev back in the 1980's
Some of it's potency seems to have lapsed, at least as far as I can tell. I was interested, however, in this story about how they're celebrating the day in the town of Hell, Michigan--yes, there apparently really is a town called Hell, Michigan. I hope the guys there cash in as much as they can.
Here's another article regarding some of they hype out there about today's date.
A fun and educational site on the 6-6-6 phenomenon is maintained by Felix Just, a Jesuit priest and professor at the University of San Francisco. He takes a very sane perspective on the number.
For the record, the number appears in Revelation 13:18, which says:
"Let anyone with understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a person. Its number is six hundred sixty-six. (NRSV)
I fall into the camp that sees this bizarre passage as referring to the emperor Nero or possibly the emperor Domitian, both of whom persecuted Christians in the first century.
In any case, be careful out there today...
Grace and Peace,
Chase
6.5.06 Preaching About Darfur Once again, I'm apologizing for the lack of posts here at the CONGOblog. I've been busy. Last week we delivered all of the items that were donated for the Carlisle family who have recently moved out of the Saratoga Family Inn shelter into their own apartment. Great thanks go to all those who donated items and helped deliver them.
Yesterday, Jimmy preached an excellent sermon (to be posted on the site soon) on the role of Christian faith when it comes to public policy. His example of where Christians should be speaking out and shaping public policy was the Darfur genocide. Jimmy and I have mentioned the crisis in Darfur in previous sermons. We've sent out e-mails about taking action. I've written about it here on the blog. This was the first time, however, that an attempt had been made for us as a church to respond to the genocide.
I hope everyone who took home sample letters to write to our senators, congressmen and president will actually take the time to do so. It's my understanding that a hand-written letter from a constituent carries more weight than an e-mail campaign or when photocopied letters are signed and sent in. I always reflect upon the late Senator Paul Simon's words about the Rwandan genocide:
“If every member of (the U.S.) House and Senate had received 100 letters from people back home saying we have to do something about Rwanda when the crisis was first developing, then I think the response would have been different.”
If you've lost your sample letter or weren't here Sunday, you can still find out how to send one or join the on-line campaign started by www.savedarfur.org called "A Million Voices for Darfur."
If you're new to the Darfur situation, you may have heard about recent efforts at peace talks between the Sudanese government and Darfur rebel groups. It's true talks have happened and some parties have signed an agreement, but if anything, the situation on the ground in Darfur has gotten worse. Here's an excerpt from a column last week in The Washington Post about how things to continue to spiral into chaos and despair:
The U.S. government has described the killing in Darfur as genocide, a term that Sudan's government rejects and that the United Nations and Europeans have also shrunk from using. The more that the conflict in Darfur features infighting between rebel factions rather than just atrocities by the government's militia, the more observers may resist pointing the finger at the government and accusing it of genocide. But the reason that Sudan's government is culpable, today as in the past, is that it is deliberately creating the conditions in which thousands of civilians from rebel-aligned tribes are likely to die. First the government and its militia drove these people from their villages. Then it impeded humanitarian workers so that thousands of them fell prey to disease or starved. Now it is obstructing a serious peacekeeping deployment, with the result that its victims will continue to face shortages of medicines and food. This may not be genocide by gas chamber or machete. But it is still a calculated policy of targeting ethnic groups and planning, meticulously, to eliminate them.
Also last week, there was an article in the NY Times about the deepening medical and food crisis among the hundreds of thousands of Darfur refugees forced out of their own country by the Sudanese government. The prospects for these people--especially their children--are absolutely heart-breaking.
Now, more than ever, our government needs to intervene, but unfortunately it looks as if the governments of the world and the media have turned their back on the crisis after the peace talks which accomplished nothing.
If you'd like to understand more about Darfur, here are some of the on-line sources that Jimmy made use of for yesterday's sermon:
There is a comprehensive presentation of the genocide in Darfur at the online companion to PBS' Newshour with Jim Lehrer. It includes an overview of the history and politics of Sudan and Darfur--gotta love those British colonial mapmakers who just loved to mash different tribal and ethnic groups into a previously non-existent countries! Also, it gives nice descriptions of all the political groups involved and what the U.S. has done and not done to stop the genocide. Most importantly, it gives a readable explanation of how things devolved into the horrific state that exists today.
Human Rights Watch has extensive details of the crimes committed in Darfur. They have led the way in documenting crimes in the hopes of future prosecution not only in Darfur but in countries around the world.
Part of the reason for Jimmy's sermon yesterday was to talk about the role Christians can play in helping to shape public policy. It's certainly a question that requires careful study, especially since the dominant image of Christians involved in politics is that of the Religious Right--which has more in common with greedy lobbying firms than the prophets of the Hebrew Bible. To help churches and ordinary Christians think about their place in public life, our denomination has a helpful guide for reflection. Jimmy referred to it yesterday in talking about the passage from Amos.
Grace and Peace,
Chase
5.28.06 Lobbying Money and Jesus
Wow, where have I been over the last week or so? Well, I've been at church working, I promise--just not on the old CONGOblog. It's a busy time around here with Christian Education Sunday coming up and the PF mission trip not too far behind.
Nonetheless, I am back in the CONGOblog saddle and here's something that's been on my mind this week.
On Tuesday's episode of NPR's Morning Edition, there was a story about the US Family Network, a conservative Christian lobbying organization. This organization was started by Ed Buckham, an aide to Tom Delay. Allegedly, the lobbying group accepted a $1 million donation from a Russian oil magnate, large donations from gambling interests and a $500,000 donation from textile companies in the Marianas Islands. This latter group is in the midst of the scandal involving Jack Abramoff. The Marianas Islands, a US commonwealth, are a place where abysmal labor practices and sweatshops were allowed by Congress due to lobbying from Abramoff.
The Justice department is investigating Buckham along with its investigation of Delay, Abramoff and others. The US Family Network closed its doors after an investigation by the Federal Election Commission of a donation to the organization from the National Republican Party.
Lobbying scandals are not new, but what is really disturbing is the way Buckham used his evangelical Christian beliefs and practices as a front for his work and continues to use religious language and justifications in his defense. It is alleged that over $1,000,000 of the money raised by the US Family Network went to Buckham and his wife. This from a church-going man who also supposedly was Tom Delay's spiritual advisor.
The NPR story centers on the involvement of Buckham's minister who served on the board of the US Family Network. The minister now feels used by Buckham and decries the relationship between the Republican Party, big political donors and conservative Christian advocacy groups.
It's nice to hear at least one evangelical minister speaking out against these shameful practices. It's too bad it took him getting burned in such a public way for it to happen. It's also too bad that the thousands of other evangelical ministers that support groups like the US Family Network do not seem to have a problem with the many unethical alliances between their movement and corrupt political officials.
This case represents a problem that is all too-typical of Christians of every political persuasion--the real temptation to use the Gospel of Christ as a means of acquiring political power. It is tragic that a religion centered upon Jesus--who gave up his power to serve others and taught the first shall be last and the last shall be first--is presented to so many in our culture as one more morally bankrupt part of our society.
Grace and Peace,
Chase
5.19.06 And I Thought Chase Peeples was a Weird Name
The NY Times and ABC had stories this week about one of the most popular girl's names last year: NEVAEH. The Times wrote:
The spectacular rise of Nevaeh (commonly pronounced nah-VAY-uh) has little precedent, name experts say. They watched it break into the top 1,000 of girls' names in 2001 at No. 266, the third-highest debut ever. Four years later it cracked the top 100 with 4,457 newborn Nevaehs, having made the fastest climb among all names in more than a century, the entire period for which the Social Security Administration has such records. Nevaeh is not in the Bible or any religious text. It is not from a foreign language. It is not the name of a celebrity, real or fictional.
Nevaeh is Heaven spelled backward.
Apparently the name got it's start when the lead singer of the rock (Christian?) rock group P.O.D. named his daughter Nevaeh. I've listened to P.O.D. They're alright. Who knew they had such an impact upon culture?
The Times made the lame joke in their headline "If it's a boy, will it be Lleh?" Way to go NYT--making fun of a kid's name on the front page of a major national newspaper! (and you wonder why religious conservatives think the paper has a secular liberal bias).
Peace,
Chase
5.16.06 Jaroslav Pelikan Rest in Peace
Jaroslav Pelikan died Saturday. He was one of the leading scholars in Church History and longtime professor at Yale. I have made use of a number of his books (Jesus Through the Centuries comes to mind). Here's a great interview he did for NPR in 2005 promoting his last book, Whose Bible is It?--one I haven't read, but the interview makes me think it would be a great way for people to be introduced to what exactly the Bible is and is not.
Peace,
Chase
5.16.06 Better Red Than Dead
London newspaper, The Independent, let Bono, lead singer of U2, political activist, and hero of mine, be the guest editor of its paper today. Half of the proceeds of today's sales will go to help fight AIDS in Africa. The front page headline read: "No News Today" -- except for the deaths of 6,500 Africans from HIV/AIDS. The whole event is a way to raise awareness of the AIDS epidemic in Africa and PROJECT RED, a campaign to raise money for the Global Fund to fight AIDS through a line of clothing, a cell phone and even a special AMEX card. Here are some of the articles in this special edition:
- Bono's Editorial explaining what the heck he's doing running a newspaper for a day--also explaining about PROJECT RED, which raises money to fight AIDS in Africa through a line of cell phones, clothing and even an AMEX card (apparently only available in the UK so far)
- Aids and a Lost Generation: Children Raising Children
- The Woman Who Has the Power to Change Africa
- Africa's Medicine Man
Eddie Izzard: 'We need Europe to be a melting-pot. We need to melt
Peace,
Chase
5.16.06 Genocide in the News Although it's depressing to have news of genocide--any genocide--for me it's also hopeful, because talking about this greatest of human crimes is a step towards preventing it in the future.
The NY Times had an editorial today about Turkey's continual hysterical denial of the Armenian Genocide.
Also in today's Times, Nicholas Kristof has another column about Darfur--this time about the United Nations' failure to prevent the genocide in Darfur. (If you're not a "Times Select" subscriber, you can read the column for free at www.savedarfur.org.) Here's some of what he wrote:
My guess is that the recent peace deal in Darfur will fall apart. It is fragile on the rebel side, and Sudan is probably lying once again when it promises to disarm the janjaweed militia. All that said, this peace agreement is the best hope we have to end the genocide, and the U.N. needs to back it up by dispatching an international force to Darfur. If the U.N. fails that test in the coming weeks, it will have disgraced itself again.
Frankly, the U.N. has regularly failed abysmally in situations like the one in Darfur, when military intervention is needed but a major power (in this case China) uses the threat of a veto to block action...Does this mean I buy into the right wing's denunciations of the U.N.?
No, partly because the U.N. agencies do a fine job in humanitarian operations. The World Food Program and Unicef are first-rate; they jointly run the U.N. operation I most admire, the school-feeding program. For 19 cents a day per child, they provide meals in impoverished schools, and those meals hugely increase school attendance (see www.wfp.org).
And without the World Food Program organizing food shipments to Sudan and Chad, hundreds of thousands more people would have died. Those U.N. field workers are heroic - just this month, a 37-year-old Spanish woman working for Unicef was shot and critically injured in Chad. People like her redeem the honor of the U.N.
Sunday's Newsday had a cover story on Darfur that begins a series of stories (including an interactive multimedia feature on their web site) on the genocide. So far, there's not a whole lot of new information for those up on the subject, but for those unaware of what is going on, it's great. The series was prompted by a 14-year old in Floral Park who learned about Darfur in school and urged the paper to cover the unfolding genocide. Here are the articles:
- Where Despair Begins--May 14
- Factions That are Factors in Darfur--May 14
- Using Rape as a Weapon of War--May 14
- Starved for a Solution--May 15
- A Flawed Peace Pact--May 15
Peace,
Chase
5.14.06 Other People's Mothers
Whether or not you have children yourself, you are a parent to the next generation. If we can only stop thinking of children as individual property and think of them as the next generation, then we can realize we all have a role to play." —Charlotte Davis Kasl
In the NY Times today, there's an interesting (and I would argue Christian) thought for Mother's Day. It's an op-ed by Amy Stewart who has a new book out on where exactly all the flowers come from that we send on days like Mother's Day. She writes,
Today I've sent my mother a bouquet that doesn't come at the expense of someone else's mother, working under much worse conditions and for much less pay. The conditions she describes in the Latin American fields and factories where these flowers come from are truly frightening--certainly nothing I'd want my mother working in. I guess loving your neighbor includes loving your neighbor's mother as you love your own.
Peace,
Chase
5.14.06 Peace in Our Time--not in Sudan
"They say there is a peace, but yesterday they kill us. They always say peace is coming. But we are still waiting." --Aunt of a woman raped and robbed by Sudanese government backed militiamen. There may be a peace agreement signed by some of the parties in the Darfur genocide, but the slaughter continues on the ground. It remains to be seen if this agreement actually accomplishes anything and if the rest of the world, the U.S. included, uses it as an excuse to say "problem solved" and to go back to ignoring a genocide.
Peace,
Chase
5.12.06 Evil Spock for President
Do you ever feel like you wandered into that Star Trek episode where Kirk, Bones and Uhura zap into a parallel dimension where the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise are really evil and Spock has a goatee?
I felt that way when listening to a recent interview with Salon.com journalist Michelle Goldberg. Goldberg has a new book out called Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism. I almost didn't listen to the interview, because I grew up Southern Baptist--what else do I need to know about Protestant fundamentalists and their role in the Republican party?
But listen I did, and I actually realized that there is a whole new world of the Religious Right out there that is operating in a different America than I am. In this parallel dimension, things are much more weird than Spock having a goatee. In this America, gaining control of the American government is a means of bringing about the second coming of Christ, returning the country to a time when it privileged Christianity above all other religions, and defending Christians against the vast gay conspiracy that seeks to destroy families, abolish Christianity itself and turn our children into pink feather boa and leather chaps --wearing pedophiles.
The most disturbing thing to me was the number of big name senators and congressmen that cater to this group and even share many of their beliefs. The movement is far past the abortion and school prayer debates that occurred twenty years ago. It's now into organized efforts to amend the U.S. constitution to grant special rights to Christians (rights they belief the nation's founders intended).
Get ready for Evil Spock.
Peace,
Chase
5.10.06 You + Work = Fulfillment (sound far-fetched?)
I subscribe to an e-mail newsletter put out by David Batstone, he holds the National Endowment for the Humanities Chair at the University of San Francisco for his work in technology and ethics. In addition to that, he coaches executives from major corporations, is an executive editor at Sojourners magazine, and one of the founders of Business 2.0 magazine. His articles regularly appear in the NY Times, Wired, and other major newspapers and magazines. Oh and he is also an investment banker and entrepreneur focusing on the tech and entertainment sectors.
Here's a good audio interview with Batstone where he talks about finding fulfillment in work and the relationship between spirituality and corporate culture. (The link to the MP3 is at the bottom of the left column of the web page.)
Peace,
Chase
5.9.06 Why the Da Vinci Code Rings True (even though we know better)
The countdown has begun and The Da Vinci Code will arrive in theatres this weekend. I've read of a number of churches, including ones in our area, that are doing study groups or sermon tie-ins with the movie. We chose not to pursue something like this, since we'd already had some discussions about the book when it first came out--the turnout for the Da Vinci Code seminar still stands hold the record for attendance. Nonetheless, the book remains a best seller and the movie will certainly set records, so it's at least worth mentioning here on the old CONGOblog.
I read an interview with Brian McLaren today, in which he states things in a very fair and articulate manner regarding the success of this book and what it means for the Church. McLaren is one of the leaders in what's called "the Emergent Church" movement. I haven't read his books, but I've read enough by him to generally like where he's coming from. Here's some of what he has to say:
I think a lot of people have read the book, not just as a popular page-turner but also as an experience in shared frustration with status-quo, male-dominated, power-oriented, cover-up-prone organized Christian religion. We need to ask ourselves why the vision of Jesus hinted at in Dan Brown's book is more interesting, attractive, and intriguing to these people than the standard vision of Jesus they hear about in church. Why would so many people be disappointed to find that Brown's version of Jesus has been largely discredited as fanciful and inaccurate, leaving only the church's conventional version? Is it possible that, even though Brown's fictional version misleads in many ways, it at least serves to open up the possibility that the church's conventional version of Jesus may not do him justice? ...I also think that the whole issue of male domination is huge and that Brown's suggestion that the real Jesus was not as misogynist or anti-woman as the Christian religion often has been is very attractive. Brown's book is about exposing hypocrisy and cover-up in organized religion, and it is exposing organized religion's grasping for power. Again, there's something in that that people resonate with in the age of pedophilia scandals, televangelists, and religious political alliances. As a follower of Jesus I resonate with their concerns as well.
When I led our seminar on The Da Vinci Code and asked folks why did Brown's picture of Jesus and church history seem so attractive to them, the reply was especially strong from women, who commented on the Church's historical oppression of women and resistance to any lessening of male-dominated authority. That response and the attraction Brown's book holds for people--especially women--is a lesson for the Church--and our church in particular.
I wonder if all of the churches that will be holding Da Vinci Code tie-in events this weekend will talk about the Church's historic oppression of women? Something tells me that it is more likely Mary Magdalene will be dragged through the mud yet again.
Peace,
Chase
5.8.06 Confirmation Sunday Yesterday was a great day in the life of our church as we welcomed 11 youth as members upon completion of their confirmation class. I wish everyone could have heard the youth read their papers at the Wednesday night's confirmation dinner. (Three read their papers on Sunday morning.) At the end of their year of confirmation each youth is asked to write a paper that answers the questions: Why do you want to be a follower of Christ? and Why do you want to be a member of this church? I challenge our adults to do the same thing and to present it publicly! It takes courage. Jimmy's sermon did a good job of summarizing what the youth had to say.
The papers were profound and showed the real effort put out by the youth in terms of reflection and consideration. I was especially pleased by the reasons the youth gave for wanting to be a part of our particular church. Along with family ties, many of the youth said that they found appealing the idea that our church welcomes anyone and everyone--no matter, their race, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or other means of dividing and excluding people.
I pray that we as a church can live up to the expectations of exclusivity possessed by our youth.
In the hopes of continuing to offer people a loving welcome--no matter who they are or wherever they are on life's journey--our denomination, The United Church of Christ, has put together a new web site geared towards people who have felt rejected by churches. It's called Rejection Hurts and I encourage you to go there and read some of the posts by people who are discovering churches like ours for the first time and are hoping to finally find a church that cares.
Peace,
Chase
5.8.06 God's Idea of Success
"God does not demand that I be successful. God demands that I be faithful." — Mother Teresa"I’m sure not afraid of success and I’ve learned not to be afraid of failure. The only thing I’m afraid of now is of being someone I don’t like much."
—Anna Quindlen
Peace,
Chase
5.5.06 Delicious Dish o' N-P-R
I admit it I'm an NPR junkie. I have a problem. I spend most mornings listening to Morning Edition while drinking coffee and trying to keep up with my 3 year-old.
I've heard a couple of stories this week that are worth passing on. The great thing about the NPR web site is you can listen on-line to individual stories any time you want.
First--I've beat the drum on this blog about Darfur and given the peace talks this week between the Khartoum government and different Darfur rebel factions--none of whom really represent the people who have been the victims of this genocide--this terrible human tragedy and the shameful disregard of it by the world have actually gotten some press. If you're wondering where Darfur is and how things got to their current condition, here's a good story to give you a recap and summary of the whole sorry mess.
Second--this last Sunday, Jimmy had a good response to his sermon on the Evolution/Creation/ID debate and the discussion after church was great (see below). At Tuesday night's Deacons meeting, members of the board expressed their concern over what is happening in our educational system and the many teachers who feel between a rock and a hard place when it comes to teaching basic science. There was a nice story on Wed. morning about this very issue.
Happy listening.
Peace,
Chase
5.3.06 Fighting Osama bin Laden with Mosquito Nets AMERICANS have a perfect retort to Osama Bin Laden's call for expanding the terrorism war to Sudan. We should respond by showing our abiding concern for the plight of Africans by helping to save millions of children who are at risk of death from disease. In honoring the sanctity of the lives of the least among us we have the best chance to defeat the ideologies of hate.
--Jeffrey Sachs
Interested in how you can fight Osama bin Laden? How about paying $10 for a mosquito net? Economist Jeffrey Sachs has a great op-ed in this past Saturday's NY Times outlining simply and rationally how donations to pay for mosquito nets that prevent malaria can help save millions of children's lives and help to stabilize countries that could become terrorist production centers. Sachs doesn't say it, but DOING SO IS ALSO JUST PLAIN CHRIST-LIKE!
President Bush told the UN, "We must help raise up the failing states and stagnant societies that provide fertile ground for the terrorists." So, how about a few million mosquito nets instead of just one Haliburton contract?
It's been a while since I mentioned the One Campaign here on the CONGOblog, but I still wear the white bracelet around my wrist. Sachs' economic work has been a major part of the campaign's work to eliminate extreme poverty in Africa.
Peace,
Chase
5.3.06 Taking Note of Hell on Earth "Twelve years ago, a militia was slaughtering innocent civilians in cities and towns in Rwanda," said Rusesabagina, whose story was depicted in the movie "Hotel Rwanda."
"As Rwanda has been abandoned, Darfur is also abandoned," he said. "The world is still standing by when a genocide was taking place."
Amid all the marches this past weekend (e.g. Saturday's anti-war march in Manhattan, the May 1 Immigrants' rights rallies around the nation), I'm really happy that the smaller yet very important march for Darfur in Washington D.C. got some real media attention. I am hopeful that people in America--the country that can actually do something to stop the genocide--are beginning to take notice of what Kofi Annan called "hell on earth."
Coinciding with the peace talks between the Khartoum government and the Darfur rebel groups, newspapers really seemed to take note of the various advocacy groups that joined together to urge the Bush administration to stop the genocide. I doubt you'll ever see again the Southern Baptist Commission's Richard Land and George Clooney on the same same stage. The rally was unique because its participants crossed religious, ethnic and political lines. It appears that stopping genocide is something everybody can agree on.
The genocide in Darfur is receiving some additional media attention this week in the form of a new video game that lets you take the role of a refugee from Darfur and a Thursday-night ER episode. Whatever it takes to get people in America to care about the slaughter of thousands of innocent people is okay with me.
I was greatly pleased to receive e-mails from church members who have recently joined on to the Million Voices for Darfur Campaign and have sent postcards to President Bush urging his administration to take action. It appears that after the failure of the international community to stop this genocide, we are all that is left in the way of tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) more being slaughtered. Although late to the game, it appears that the Bush administration is finally taking an active role in stopping the genocide. Let's hope their initial efforts will be just the start. If you haven't made your voice heard, now is the time when it matters and can make a real difference.
Peace,
Chase
5.2.06 A World Able to Make Itself Back in the CONGOblog saddle again...
‘God created something more clever than a ready-made world, a world able to make itself.’
--John Polkinghorne
If you missed Jimmy's sermon on Sunday, you missed a good one. It was the debut of the long-awaited and much-postponed "Evolution Sunday" sermon that was originally supposed to be held back in February. A blizzard took care of the original date and a crisis in the community took care of the next one.
The group discussion after church was well-attended, and the discussion was civil and enlightening. I'm really happy that our church could have this kind of discussion,. Although most folks would solidly fall outside of the traditional Creationist camp and the Intelligent Design camp, it was still good for us to consider the relationship between science and religion.
It's interesting. Jimmy and I have talked about his sermon, and he's stated that it was a difficult one to write. There's so much information out there, and for non-scientists like the two of us, it's hard to talk science, much less explain it to others. His sermon contains a lot of quotations, as is appropriate given the subject matter. Nonetheless, Jimmy's done us a favor by gathering information and crafting it in a way that's accessible to us as a community of faith.
The best quotations in my opinion (and Jimmy's) are those by John Polkinghorne, former Cambridge physics professor and current Cambridge theologian and priest. I think that since he's in Britain, he is removed from a lot of the static here in the States. Also, I think he speaks out of his own experience as a scientist and as a minister. I find his thoughts cogent, articulate and moving.
There's a great interview with him that Jimmy draws from on the Public Radio show Speaking of Faith. The site also contains a lot of useful links to other sites, suggested readings and other information on the issues of science, religion and the debates over the origin of our world. Also, Polkinghorne has his own web site with a wealth of great information to look over including his answers to hundreds of questions from people around the world..
Peace,
Chase
4.18.06 William Sloane Coffin Rest in Peace It has been a really busy week around the church since my last post--it was Holy Week after all. Yet, there is so much going on out there that's worth mentioning here. If I only had the time...
One significant event that barely made ripples in the press was the death last week of William Sloane Coffin, former chaplain at Yale and pastor of Riverside Church. He achieved fame for his resistance to the Vietnam War and support of the Civil Rights movement, but I would offer that his entire life was lived with a degree of substance and depth that is unfortunately all too rare in the Church. The obituaries for Coffin read as if his life peaked in the 60's (see the Washington Post's for example), but I found him to be compelling and prophetic right until his end.
The NPR show Fresh Air replayed an interview with Coffin recorded back in the 1980's. Although his reflections upon his work in the 1960's is informative, I find much more powerful his simple reflections upon good and evil, death and grief, and the place of Christianity in public life.
Rest in peace William Sloane Coffin.
Peace,
Chase
4.10.06 Judas Rides Again (sort of) Wow, I'm not sure where last week went to in regards to posting to the old CONGOblog, but a lot has certainly been going on out there in the world in terms of religion.
One of the biggest religion stories of last week (actually it's been percolating for a number of weeks) is the upcoming publication of and National Geographic special regarding the Gospel of Judas. No doubt this long lost manuscript is important in terms of understanding what some Christians were reading and writing in the early centuries of the Christian era, but in terms of telling us any more about Jesus, Judas and what was going around in the first century C.E. (or A.D. if you prefer) it won't tell us much.
In this post Da-Vinci Code world, there is a lot of interest in "hidden" gospels--most of which aren't very hidden at all, you can find them on the shelf at any Barnes and Noble. There were plenty of gospels being written in the second and third centuries in the name of various apostles and disciples, the most famous of which, the Gospel of Thomas, was publicized most noticeably to be on par theologically and historically with the four gospels in the New Testament by the Jesus Seminar, a few years ago. (FYI: I consider Luke Timothy Johnson's The Real Jesus to be the best response to the work of the Jesus Seminar--in the interests of full disclosure--I studied with Johnson during my time at Emory.)
Although it is possible that some actual pieces of historical material or sayings of Jesus not reported elsewhere managed to make their way into some of these gospels, it is far more likely that these apocryphal gospels say more about what early Christians were thinking and pondering. (FYI: apocrypha--means of "hidden" and sometimes "of dubious authenticity." It is also used as a term to describe a group of writings not included in Protestant Bibles but included in Roman Catholic and Orthodox Bibles but not considered as authoritative as the rest of the Bible)
Of course the same charge can be made against the gospels that made it into the Bible, but the canonical four have the advantage of being written decades if not centuries earlier than these later gospels (Judas dates to around 300 C.E.) during the time when actual witnesses to Jesus' life and ministry were still alive. Theologizing of the story of Jesus is no doubt in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John--we do have four different views of Jesus in the Bible after all--but to a far lesser extent than these later gospels..
One of the things most interesting to me, and perhaps most disturbing, is the organized media campaign being waged by National Geographic. They've put up $1,000,000 plus to publish Judas and produce a special about it, and they surely wish to recoup their investment. (Slate has a good article detailing NG's efforts.) Here's an excerpt:
...along with the merchandising of the codex have come exaggerated claims. For instance, National Geographic spokesperson Terry Garcia reported anonymous claims that the discovery of the text ranks with that of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi collection. Garcia also suggested that by presenting Judas as Jesus' special confidante, the Gospel of Judas may be seen as threatening two millenniums of Christian doctrine. This is all ballyhoo designed to get us to buy the books and CDs and watch the TV specials, all of which National Geographic is producing to make back the $1 million it reportedly invested in the project. If you go to the National Geographic web site, you can find out a lot about the TV special, their books and the Gospel of Judas itself. You can download the gospel in English translation (or in Coptic for all of you Coptic readers out there). I just read it and it reminds me a lot of other materials in the Nag Hammadi collection--a lot of talk about angelic beings creating humanity, secret knowledge that only some can have, levels of enlightenment, etc. In my opinion, there's not a whole lot here for the average layperson to get that excited about.
I do believe that the hype--and it is hype--about The Gospel of Judas can serve some good purposes, just as the fiction of Dan Brown serves some good purposes. Most of the information about the writings that did not make it into the New Testament has been the purview of scholars and academics alone. These apocryphal gospels (and other writings) are fascinating to read and it's fun to think what our Bible and the history of the church might have looked like had different works made it into the canon.
It's not a bad thing at all for the lay person to ask questions about how we got our Bible, what was going on during the 300 years it took the Church to decide what books were in and what books were out? It is a good thing for people to ask what exactly is the Bible (hint: it's not one book but an anthology of 66 writings written over centuries) Of course, there's always the academic or the Hollywood movie producer or the mass market fiction writer who would like to take discoveries like this and claim that all of Christian history has been just one big conspiracy and cover-up, but stepping back from that extreme, it can only be beneficial for believers to consider the dynamic nature of Christian belief centuries ago and today.
The real interesting question that is being raised in all the media coverage of Judas is what if Judas wasn't such a bad guy after all--if Jesus came to die on the cross and then be resurrected, didn't he sort of need a Judas to betray him? This is not a new question. At least as early as the Gospel of John found in the New Testament, there's the real question as to how much Judas was acting on his own and how much he was just a part of the divine plan:
John 13:21, 26-27 reads
Jesus was troubled in spirit, and declared, "Very truly, I tell you, one of you will betray me"..."It is the one to whom I give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish. So when he had dipped the piece of bread he gave it to Judas son of Simon Iscariot. After he received the piece of bread, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, "Do quickly what you are going to do."
John 18:4-5 reads:
Then Jesus knowing all that was to happen to him, came forward and asked them, "Whom are you looking for? They answered, "Jesus of Nazareth." Jesus replied, "I am he." Judas who betrayed him was standing with them.
(Both scriptures are NRSV.)
Don't look for the faith to be shaken or for it to spawn another bestseller by Dan Brown. The Gospel of Judas doesn't say anything that hasn't already been said in one way or another by other gospels--canonical or apocryphal.
Another interesting question is what the heck was this lost gospel doing in Hicksville, Long Island for 16+ years sitting in a bank safe deposit box? Apparently it was rotting. What other ancient mysteries lurk in the Hicksville Citibank branch bank vaults? (I just love that this Newsday article ends with Assemblyman Rob Walker speaking of a 1700 year-old lost gospel and Billy Joel in the same breath--only on Long Island!)
Peace,
Chase
HUH?
- Jesus of the Week
- Jesus, Mary, Moses
& David Talking
Dolls- Candles That Smell
Like Jesus- Christian Sports
Jerseys- Jesus Sports
Statues- Jesus: the
monster truck- Inflatable
Church- Brick
Testament- Lego Church
- Little Golden Book
About God
LAUGHS
BLOGS Got a site, blog
or bizarre
internet find
you want to
recommend?
Let me
know.
SEEK
HELP
- Save Darfur
- Call to Renewal
- ONE Campaign
- Hunger Site
- Breast Cancer Site
- Rainforest Site
- Animal Rescue Site
- Child Health Site
- EcologyFund.com
- Amnesty International
- Bread for the World
- UCC Justice Page
Books Mentioned
on This Blog
- Tempting Faith:
An Inside Tale of
Political
Seduction
--David Kuo- The Most
Famous Man in
America--Debby
Applegate- Whose Bible is
It?--Jaroslav
Pelikan- Jesus Through
the Centuries--
Jaroslav Pelikan- Kingdom Coming:
The Rise of
Christian
Nationalism--
Michelle Goldberg- At Canaan's
Edge: America
During the King
Years 1965-1968--
Taylor Branch- Where Do We Go
From Here:
Chaos or
Community--
Martin Luther
King Jr.- Amazing Peace:
A Christmas
Poem--Maya
Angelou- Our Endangered
Values--Jimmy
Carter- When Religion
Becomes Evil--
Charles Kimball- Harry Potter and
the Half-Blood
Prince--J. K.
Rowling- The Historian--
Elizabeth Kostova- Reading Lolita in
Tehran: A Memoir
in Books--Azar
Nafisi- Writing in the Dust:
After September 11--
Rowan Williams- Gilead--Marilynne
Robinson- Losing Moses on
the Freeway: The
10 Commandments
in America--Chris
Hedges- War is a Force that
Gives Us Meaning--
Chris Hedges- Lost Icons:
Reflections on
Cultural
Bereavement--
Rowan Williams- Texts of Terror:
Literary Feminist
Readings of Biblical
Narratives--Phylis
Trible- The Invention of
Sodomy in
Christian Theology-
-Mark Jordan- A Feminist
Introduction to Paul--
Sandra Hack Polaski- Scripture and
Discernment:
Decision Making in
the Church--Luke
Timothy Johnson- Plan B: Further
Thoughts on Faith--
Anne Lamott- Traveling Mercies:
Some Thoughts on
Faith--Anne Lamott- Operating
Instructions: A
Journal of My Son's
First Year--Anne
Lamott- Bowling Alone--
Robert Putnam- Better Together--
Robert Putnam- The Da Vinci Code--
Dan Brown- Romans 9-16--James
D. G. Dunn- Romans--Paul
Achtemeier- God's Politics--Jim
Wallis- The Book of Judas--
Brendan Kennelly- The Serenity Prayer:
Faith and Politics in
Times of Peace and
War--Elisabeth Sifton- Crying in the
Wilderness: The
Struggle for Justice
in South Africa--
Desmond Tutu- The Burning Tigris:
The Armenian
Genocide and
America's Response--
Peter Balakian
,
