The Congregational Church of Manhasset (UCC)--CONGOblog

Yesterday I sent out an e-mail regarding the genocide in Darfur,
Sudan. Here's what it said:

Dear Congregational Church members,

I try to use the church e-mail list to send you updates about the
church web site and church events, but I wanted to use it this time
to ask you to do something out of the ordinary. This week, like me,
you may have read the editorial in the New York Times by Nicholas Kristof regarding the genocide in Darfur, Sudan being carried out by
the Sudanese government. In the past, I have seen news about the
genocide and thought how horrible it is and then moved on with
other things. This time, after reading Kristof’s article, I found that I
could not simply shake my head and move on. This happened for 2 reasons:

The editorial contained 4 pictures smuggled out of Sudan by
some aid workers. They appear to be authentic. They are
graphic and very disturbing. One picture shows a young
boy killed by members of a militia supported by the Sudanese
government. That boy looks to be about the same age as my
son, Julian. I am moved to tears just thinking about it. This
picture has moved me, because I have put myself in the place
of the father of that child—if that father is still living. I just
can’t sit back while a child, like my son, has been slaughtered.
Kristof mentions some steps that could be taken to stop the
genocide in Sudan, but he quotes the late Senator Paul
Simon regarding the Rwandan genocide. "If every member of
the 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." This quote struck me,
because it meant that there was something I could do to
motivate my government to stop this obscene slaughter. I
could write my Senators and my congressman. I could be
one of the 100 letters that might make a difference.

I apologize if this e-mail seems like a bother, but I simply had to take
some action and to spread the word. I feel like this simple action of
writing our leaders about this horror was something I had to do as a
Christian. Political issues can be complicated and messy, but I think
we all can agree that a genocide should be stopped and that our
country has the ability to help make it happen. I have heard members
of our church speak about how they had family members killed in the
Armenian Genocide that the world did nothing to stop and has yet to
really admit that it even happened. I would like to think that had I
been alive 90 years ago that I would have tried to do something. So,
I am doing one small thing now in the case of this genocide.

Here is the letter that I sent to Senators Clinton and Schumer along
with Rep. Ackerman.

Dear _____________

I am writing to you regarding the genocide that is occurring in Darfur,
Sudan. I have just seen pictures in the New York Times of some of
the victims—including women and children—who have been killed
in horrible ways. I urge you to take steps to stop this horror. In the
20^th century, America stood by while innocents were killed in places
like Armenia, Cambodia and Rwanda. Please do not make the same
mistake for the 21^st century. As one of your constituents, I urge you
to work towards sanctions against the government of Sudan, a no-fly
zone in the Darfur region, and prosecution of the war criminals behind
this terrible humanitarian disaster. I believe it is in our national
interest to not allow a government-organized slaughter of scores of
innocent people. Please do all you can to stop this genocide!

Grace and Peace,
Rev. Chase Peeples

I don’t know if my letter will make a difference, but at least I have
done something. I encourage you to do something too.

Read Kristof’s editorial—but please be warned, the 4 pictures
he shows are graphic—but I believe it will prompt you to
action.
Write to your Senators and Congressman. You can even use
my text if you want. You can e-mail them or send a form via
their web sites. I chose to write to them, just because in this
day and age an actual letter may show that I cared enough to
put a little more effort into it. Here is the contact information
for our members of Congress.

Senator Hilary Clinton
476 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-4451
http://clinton.senate.gov/

Senator Charles Schumer
313 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-6542
http://schumer.senate.gov/

Representative Gary Ackerman
2243 Rayburn House Office Building
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
202-225-2601
http://www.house.gov/ackerman/

If a letter takes more time than you have (it only took me about 10
minutes to write to all 3), please visit the web sites of the Senators
and the Congressman. Each has simple ways to send them an e-mail
or message.

Thanks for reading this and thank you ahead of time for doing
something about the genocide in Sudan.

Chase

Respond with your thoughts

TOP

Here's additional article about Reinhold Niebuhr and his daughter
Elisabeth Sifton's book. This one comes from the Boston Globe and
is quite accessible. It offers a helpful overview of Niebuhr's desire
to find serenity in the midst of the struggle for a better world rather
than apart from it.

On a lighter note, check out this week's edition of The Onion where
they have an article about President Bush's determination to find
the warehouse where they stored the Ark of the Covenant. He also
has plans for taking on the Temple of Doom.

Considering the recent posts regarding the death penalty and a
Christian response to it, it is worth adding a quotation to the blog
that Jimmy used in last week's Lenten service. It's from Sister Helen
Prejean, the Roman Catholic nun portrayed in the movie Dead Man
Walking.

In our society forgiveness is often seen as weakness. People who
forgive those who have hurt them or their family are made to look
as if they don't really care about their loved ones. But forgiveness
is tremendous strength."

There is a really interesting article in The Christian Century about
Jesus, Paul and the Roman Empire. It details the recent work of
Biblical scholars on the way contemporary Christians divorce the
religious elements of the New Testament from the political elements.
For example, Jesus taught about the Kingdom of God, which we tend
to spiritualize, but to Jesus' listeners the idea that God was the true
ruler of the world rather than a Roman emperor who claimed to be God
would be controversial indeed. Paul's language in Galatians 3 ("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.") challenged everything in the Greco-Roman world in
terms of power.

This article raised a lot of questions in my mind about how non-
threatening the Gospel has become to those in power in America--
and in the world--today. It seems to me the American Church simply
has watered down the challenge of Jesus' teachings and the reality
of the resurrection. I think Jesus would have something to say about
the debates over Social Security which stress the amount of return
people will get over how a just society should care for its elderly
members. I think Jesus would have something to say about
governments that condemn "rogue states" for possessing nuclear
weapons but continue to develop their own nuclear arsenals. I think
Jesus would have something to say about the epidemic of corruption
at the highest levels of corporate culture. I think the Gospel of Jesus
Christ is much more threatening than we may care to realize--after all,
it just might require normal people to do something about some of
these big problems.

Looking at the orders of worship for this past Sunday, last
Wednesday's Lenten service and what I am preparing for tomorrow's
Lenten service, a name shows up in all of them--that of Reinhold
Niebuhr.

Niebuhr was a renown theologian who taught at Union Theological
Seminary in New York City during the middle decades of the 20th
century. He was a minister in The Evangelical & Reformed Church,
one of the denominations that merged to form the United Church of
Christ, along with our church's own tradition--Congregationalism. He
was widely read in America and around the world during his lifetime
and even had politicians and presidents consult him on public policy.

Perhaps his most widely known work is a simple prayer that has come
to be known as the Serenity Prayer. It reads:

God give us grace to accept with serenity the things that cannot
be changed;
Courage to change the things that should be changed;
And the wisdom to distinguish the one from the other.

It was adapted by the Hallmark greeting card company and by
Alcoholics Anonymous (both with Niebuhr's permission) into a
more individualistic prayer:

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

Niebuhr's daughter, Elisabeth Sifton has written a book about this
prayer, its influence and her personal relationship with her father. In
promoting the book, she did a number of interviews that you can
listen to on-line.

The first interview--and the one I prefer--was on the NPR show
Fresh Air. I really enjoy Fresh Air, but I think that the host Terry
Gross often is at her weakest when dealing with religious subjects.
In this interview, however, Gross is at her usual high level.

Another interview with Sifton comes on the terrific radio show
Speaking of Faith, put out by Minnesota Public Radio. The host
Krista Tippett is an accomplished journalist and a graduate of Yale
Divinity School. She does a great job with the many religious topics
addressed on the show. Her interview with Sifton is extensive, but it's
interesting for the private life of this influential theologian (including
tidbits like W. H. Auden dropping over for dinner with the Niebuhr
family).

Also, Speaking of Faith did an entire show on Niebuhr's thought
that is well worth listening to. Additionally, on the show's web site
they have links to correspondence between Niebuhr and some of the
great writer's, thinkers and politicians of his day.

The great PBS show Ethics & Religion News Weekly has a nice
interview with Sifton in print form on their site.

Nothing worth doing is completed in our lifetime,
Therefore, we are saved by hope.
Nothing true or beautiful or good makes complete sense in any immediate context of history;
Therefore, we are saved by faith.
Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone.
Therefore, we are saved by love.
No virtuous act is quite a virtuous from the standpoint of our friend or foe as from our own;
Therefore, we are saved by the final form of love which is forgiveness.
Reinhold Niebuhr

Like many great thinkers and writers, Niebuhr was responding to
trends in thought that preceded him, just as theologians and ethicists
who have come behind Niebuhr have both criticized and embraced his
thoughts. He wrote broadly enough on a variety of topics that people
on different political and ideological sides of the same issue may quote
him--for example opponents and proponents of the war in Iraq make
use of his writings. Nonetheless, Niebuhr remains an important figure
that shaped the 20th century church.

This one is from Natalie L. re: the 2.8.05 post where I mentioned
football players praying for Jesus to help them with the Super Bowl:

I do not think it is right to pray to win; however, I have no problem
with praying that one is able to play/do one’s best whether it if a
football game, a career, a marriage, or parenthood.

We do not know whether the player making a touchdown is thanking
God for helping him play well or for helping him make the score which
causes his team to win.

I realize that this may be splitting hairs a bit, but there is a big
difference in my mind between asking for help in doing one’s best
(which may be only average but is the best one is capable of) versus
asking always to “win”.

Good point, Natalie. Clearly there is a difference between praying to
do your best and expecting God to help your side beat the other side.

The 2.16.05 post where I mentioned Christians and the death penalty
brought two responses from friends of mine. Interestingly enough,
these are two of the people, both of whom are Christians, who
influenced my views on the death penalty. The first comes from Doug
R., who is a defense lawyer and actually has defended individuals
facing the death penalty:

About a year ago, I spoke with a Christian group about death penalty issues and Christianity, and I was shocked at the support of the death penalty among a group of Christians. One of the main viewpoints seemed to be based not as much on "an eye for an eye", but on the idea that our government is put in place by God as stated in Romans. [I don't recall the passage in particular].

They had this amazing way of rationalizing that if God did not want the death penalty then our government would not allow it, but since they did then we had to respect the law and would be subject to its punishments... These are people who would tell you that Christ's love is all encompassing and that humans are flawed and that everyone is able to be redeemed but still we as humans should be able to take the life of someone who we decide is not worthy. What I have decided is that people find a rationalization for what they want to do, and the Bible can certainly offer that rationalization. I have been involved in too many death penalty cases, and the emotions run very high. My heart goes out to the family of the victim who have been put through tremendous trauma and pain, but I have never heard anyone say that they think that the murderer should live, but God demands that he die, so that is what we have to do. God never demands it, and always allows for redemption, it is our own emotions that prevent us from forgiveness. While I also like the story of the adulterous woman because it is Jesus in action, people are still able to rationalize away its teachings. First, they say that it would not be punished by death today, so it is not relevant to our discussion. As if Jesus was merely lobbying for a higher standard of crime before the death penalty may be imposed. Second, I have heard them argue that Jesus was merely arguing for equality since the man that committed adultery with the woman was not being punished as well. So since the man was not being punished than the woman should not be either. Once again this is people rationalizing their own positions in spite of a clear message to not kill someone for their mistakes because we all make mistakes.

Doug offers some good examples of people using scripture to justify their support of the death penalty. The passage from Romans Doug mentions is Romans 13, however it is worth mentioning that the New Testament presents a variety of different viewpoints on earthly governments, some of them are clearly negative. I usually find that people apply this passage to our government when their own political party is in power.

I'm concerned about what effects the death penalty has on the society that practices it. It seems to me, especially now that I'm raising a child, that the existence of state-sponsored killing, with ANY justification, sends a brutal message about humanity's capacity for living in peaceful community. It's akin to the "coarsening of society" argument now being put forth by conservatives against television sex and violence (a la Janet Jackson's Superbowl "wardrobe malfunction"). Surely though, killing by an elected government of the people is at least as damaging to society as seeing Janet's private part on television for a couple of seconds.

Both of these responses raise questions about the value of a human life--even the life of a criminal. Surely many of the arguments used, especially ones based upon Christian scripture are twisted and self- contradictory.

As we continue our journey through Lent, I read a moving sermon
by John Claypool, Rector, St. Luke's Episcopal Church in Birmingham
Alabama and a well-known scholar of preaching, that is worth passing
on.

Claypool shares about a young woman in his church who had decided
not to be a Christian because she felt like it was not true, merely a
projection of a person's own desires or needs. Claypool responded by
asking her to consider several different examples from scripture where
Christianity demands from a person exactly the opposite of what that
person wants. Far from being wish-fulfillment, the Gospel can require
dramatic change in our lives and can force us to re-think deeply held
conceptions of reality, identity and the world. The Gospel can also
ask us to make great sacrifices on behalf of others. Far from merely
being our own projections of what we need or to combat our
existential fears in a frightening universe, Christ projects onto us God's
own grace and deep love.

I encourage you to read Claypool's sermon and reflect upon what God
may be asking of you this Lent.

The front page of the NY Times yesterday presented the results of
a new poll that shows support for the death penalty in NY to be at
a new low (only 34%). On WNYC yesterday, Brian Lehrer did a
segment on changing views about the death penalty as well. His
guest was David Kaczynski, the Executive Director of New Yorkers
Against the Death Penalty. Kaczynski is also the brother of the
Unabomber, whom he turned in to federal authorities. I'm glad to
see this issue in the media.

It appears that approval for the death penalty is dropping because
of the number of recent cases where people on death row have been
exonerated by DNA evidence or some other means. Also, various
groups point to statistics about the death penalty failing to serve as
a deterrent to violent crime. Finally, there are doubts about the time
and money it takes to execute someone. I think that the recent case
of Michael Ross in CT shows how much time and effort is spent
battling out an execution in the courts, not to mention the decades it
takes for an execution even to take place. I think Christians should
also have some real doubts about the morality of the death penalty
based upon Christian principles.

I always groan when supporters of the death penalty quote the Bible
to justify their view. Certainly, the Hebrew Bible supports a death
penalty for many cases in ancient Israel (e.g. Exodus 21 and Leviticus
24 that mention an "eye for an eye"), but using these texts to talk
about today's laws is problematic to say the least. The laws of the
Hebrew Bible advocate death for many crimes we would consider
misdemeanors and many more we would never consider capital crimes.
Exodus 21, for example, advocates death for someone who curses
their mother or father, but it seems to have no problem with slavery.

Jesus explicitly addresses the "eye for an eye" brand of justice in the
Sermon on the Mount where he urges his followers to offer the other
cheek to someone who strikes you. Also, as in the case of the woman
caught in adultery in John 8, Jesus points out the sinful nature of
those who wish to put someone to death. I find in Jesus' teachings
and actions the idea that violence done to others, even in the name
of justice, takes a toll upon the one committing the violence. Jesus'
own unjust death by means of capital punishment should make us
aware, if we aren't already, of human fallibility when it comes to meting
out justice by means of violence.

For me, the Christian message is one that says Christ can redeem--can
make something out of--even the most violent criminal (Saul of Tarsus
comes to mind). Death is so final that it cuts off any possibility of
change and redemption. Clearly to function as a society we need a
criminal justice system, but I would offer that if we are to function as
a society that recognizes the potential for good inside every person,
we cannot afford to eliminate all chance for some good to happen in a
person's life. Life without parole seems like a superior alternative to
capital punishment.

I like the way the Evangelical Lutheran Church has described their
stance against the death penalty. This stance speaks of "restorative
justice"--the idea that justice should do more than punish, more than
rehabilitate--it should seek to heal the problems that led to crimes in
the first place.

The church talent show on Saturday was great fun! Thanks to all who
participated and to the great crowd that showed up. Also, thanks for
not throwing tomatoes at me because of my corny jokes. Pictures of
the show will be up soon. The lack of posts at the end of last week
was due to getting ready for the show.

Thanks to Ted H. who e-mailed me re: Nicholas Kristof's column in the
NY Times on Saturday. Kristof makes much of the rather speculative
work of Dean Hamer who claims to have found one of the genes which
makes certain people more religious than others. Hamer's work has
raised a lot of eyebrows. I believe Newsweek ran a cover story about
the "God Gene" recently.

I guess Kristof was just writing a general article about why people are
religious. In my mind it was a classic example of a columnist having a
germ of an idea for a column that didn't really develop into anything.
He throws in everything from the "God gene" to Chinese taxi cab
drivers venerating Mao.

I have a difficult time with the work of Hamer and others who are
reductionist in their thinking about all kinds of big human desires and
emotions. I'm not particularly threatened by such research, because I
just don't think you can ever reduce something like faith or love down
to a chemical process or a turn of the evolutionary wheel. Humans are
complex, and our deepest drives involve the physical as well as the
social as well as the emotional as well as the intellectual as well as...
(you get the idea).

When it comes to religion, I tend to think that each person has a
propensity for looking beyond themselves and beyond what is readily
discernable with their senses. Each person recognizes that they are
finite and there are many things beyond them. There is a myriad of
reasons for why each person responds to those insights to whatever
degree. A gene might be one of them, but I fail to see how it could be
one of the more significant reasons someone turns toward or away
from faith.

From a theological perspective, I believe that each of us is made in
God's image (Genesis 1:26). When this term is used at the beginning
of the Bible, I understand this to mean that God has left God's imprint
upon us. It is built into every person's basic material--not just some
who are genetically predisposed towards it. At our deepest level, we
long to be connected with the one who made us.

Adam H. Becker, a religious studies professor at NYU, offers a few
sentences of critique of Hamer's work on The Revealer. Chief among
his criticisms is his opinion that religion is at its heart a social enterprise.
It's worth taking a look at.

Every year at the beginning of Lent, during my children's sermon I
lead the children in "boxing up" the alleluia. I explain that Lent is a
solemn time where we get ready for Easter and during Lent we will
not say "alleluia". We will not celebrate until Easter so there is no
need to say it. We all say it one last time together and then I make
a show of shutting away the alleluia in a box that will not be opened
until Easter. We'll be boxing up the alleluia this Sunday.

I got this idea from a minister at a church I belonged to in Richmond.
I don't know where she picked it up. It turns out that there is a
tradition of doing more than just putting the alleluia in a box. Medieval
churches in Europe would have large rituals where the alleluia would
be buried. Sometimes a small casket would be made. In Paris, a straw
man was made bearing a sign reading "alleluia". The straw man was
then burned in the courtyard. Most of all, the word was not spoken
nor sung during Lent. On Easter day, the alleluia would be dug out
and the word would be declared.

I like the idea, not only because it is a fun way to get children thinking
about Lent and Easter, but also because it is dramatic and fun. It would
be really fun to do in a Shrove Tuesday celebration. Imagine a New
Orleans funeral jazz band accompanying the alleluia to the grave.

We'll just box up the alleluia at our church. Something tells me that
having a burial would violate some kind of zoning ordinance.

Okay, here's a weird one for you. I just came across a link to a guy's site
that made me laugh. We'll see if it's funny to anyone else. Apparently,
there is a book put out in the "Little Golden Book" series called The
Little Golden Book About God. This guy was freaked out by the
artwork, so he updated it adding his own text. Instead of a theological
introduction to children, we now have an alien invasion manual.

Today we made our own ashes in church. Even though our church
does not go through with the traditional ritual of the sign of the cross
on the forehead with ashes, we did have ashes. I held up a piece of
paper and asked everyone present to write spiritually upon the paper
whatever it is that keeps them from embracing the life that Christ offers
them--whatever keeps them in a sort of half-life--in the shadow of death.
Then I burned the paper. Ashes were left.

Ashes bring to mind different images--usually negative. The ruin of
something that was but which has now been destroyed by fire.
Mourning, as in ashes on the forehead that many cultures still practice.

But ashes can also bring to mind positive images. Ashes can be a
visible sign of a fire that was shared by people who care for one
another. The ashes are left after the warmth of a fire and the warmth
of intimacy have been shared. When the mortgage is paid off, you
burn the note. The ashes symbolize a burden lifted.

Sorry for the lack of a post yesterday. I was home sick and I continue
to be under the influence of all kinds of cold medicine.

In place of me trying to overcome the influence of Dayquil and writing
something that may or may not be coherent, I'm going to post a
response to an earlier post. This one comes from a friend of mine from
seminary days who has been keeping up with the blog.

Link raises the difficult question of how should people of faith operate
in the public sphere? As I see it, people of faith must always be on
their guard against a lack of humility. Religious language and ideas
seem to naturally slide into categories of right and wrong, good and
evil. If you happen to be on the side of good fighting against evil,
then your opponents really do not deserve respect and compromise
is no longer an option. Somehow the faith that inspires us to take
action must also allow us the grace to realize that we do not have all
the answers and our opponents may have some valid answers of their
own.

Those are my preliminary thoughts. I'll write more when I beat this disease that plagues me.

In the meantime, take a look at this article from today's NY Times which
describes the struggles of some psychiatrists and forensic pathologists
to fit a concept of "evil" into their own thinking and analysis. This
article was disturbing to me, not just because of the cases of psychotic
criminals it mentions, but also because it raises questions about what
exactly "evil" is. Is "evil" classifiable? Is "evil" always subjective or
can it be objectively identified? Is "evil" something that should be left
only to religious discourse? When is someone "evil" and when are
they just insane or somehow mentally deficient?

Since I was out of it yesterday, I did not have the chance to remark on
the Super Bowl. I noted that there was a lack of football players
thanking Jesus for giving them victory in the game--or at least none of
them made it on to TV. I was ready to give a good harangue and point
out that Jesus has more important things to do than help a multi-
millionaire football player make more money, but nobody that I saw
gave a "shout out" to the big J. C. Anyway, I may have the wrong
point of view on this anyway. I recently came across the following
picture that is forcing me to re-think Jesus' involvement in football.

I got another response to the blog today by Marilyn L. who did not
want to put her thoughts in writing for fear that Michael Powell would
come after her. I told her that Michael Powell had retired from the FCC,
but she wasn't satisfied. ("Now he has even more time to come after
me...")

As we were discussing Jim Wallis' book she reminded me of a quotation
I had apparently put at the top of an order of service back in 2002. It's
from Desmond Tutu, which explains why she remembered the quotation
and hung on to it. It's good to read again.

“The Church of God has to be the salt and light of the
world. We are the hope of the hopeless, through the power
of God. We have no option. We are servants of the God
who reigns and cares. He wants us to be the alternative
society; where there is harshness and insensitivity, we
must be compassionate and caring; where people are
statistics, we must show they count as being of immense
value to God. In the early church people were attracted to
it not so much by the preaching, but by the fact that they
saw Christians as a community, living a new life as if what
God had done was important, and had made a difference."

This Sunday night following the Super Bowl, check out The Simpsons,
where they satirize the hoopla over Janet Jackson's performance in last
year's Super Bowl half-time show. Ned Flanders, my favorite Christian
in the media, gets upset over the filth on TV and gets to design the
Super Bowl Half-time show. I wonder what the result might be:

"All over America today," reports newsman Kent Brockman, "viewers
were outraged by the Super Bowl halftime show's blatant display of
religion and decency."

Well, I'm a day late responding to the State of the Union. I must confess
that despite my best efforts, it was difficult to pay attention. I caught
the emotional hug between the Iraqi woman and the mother of the dead
soldier (I also saw their buttons or some other kind of dress adornments
getting caught together. My wife informed me, "That's what happens when women hug." Hmm...)

I missed the purple fingers of the Republicans meant to show solidarity
with the Iraqi people (maybe my TV is going out?). I choose to not be
cynical about these purple fingers and believe that the folks sporting
dyed fingers meant it as more than just a good photo-op. I do have
some qualms about it, however. Rep. Christopher Shays, a Republican,
chose not to dip his finger in the inkwell, because he was in Iraq for the
voting and asked if he could dip his finger in the ink. The surprised
election worker looked at him and said, "No, you're not Iraqi." That's
the point--they/we are not Iraqi. The purple fingers may be similar to
wearing an AIDS ribbon, but like the red ribbons sported by celebrities,
who do so for their own ends without really identifying with people
suffering with AIDS, I felt these politicians--and the rest of us--really do
not know what it is like to risk your life just to cast a ballot.

I heard a moving story on the NPR show Day to Day about an Iraqi
Shiite man, a poor fish vendor, who was so excited about voting that he
bought a new robe for the day. When he went to vote, he was so
moved by the election workers' courage that he went home, made tea
for them and returned to the polling place. As he turned to leave, a car
bomb exploded outside killing him and others nearby. That's what it
means to have your finger dyed purple. Until American politicians of
both parties come to grips with the horrors of war and the true stakes
of dealing with the consequences of war, I'd rather not see any of them
with purple fingers.

Based upon what I heard live and in excerpts since, I was surprised to
note the absence of faith-talk in this year's SOTU. I have been deeply
troubled by some of the language the President has used which has
equated the work of America or even his administration's policies with
the work of God. With that thought in mind, I introduce to you (drum
roll please) an actual reply to the blog, this one's from Mary B. (I've
gone to the initial for the last name just in case anybody is leery of
putting their whole name out on the internet. Church folks know who
they are anyway.):

Chase,
re: your recent blog question (CONGOblog 2.2.05): "under what
circumstances are you comfortable w politicians talking about God,
faith etc?"

I'm very uncomfortable with it when it seems to be used as a means to
a political end--which is far too often. I don't like it when professions
of faith are used to put a sort of moral gloss over immoral actions
(which, in my opinion, includes misleading the nation into a war with
Iraq, sanctioning torture of prisoners, reducing civil liberties, etc).
Regarding Hilary Clinton, I think her timing is suspect; talking about
faith seems to be a vote-getter right now, something the Democratic
party is finding out a little too late.
Mary

Great point Mary! From ancient times to the present, governments
have invoked the name of God to justify their own policies--many times
to justify the most heinous and murderous policies. People of faith should always be on their guard when fallible human institutions seek
to justify their actions by cloaking them in religious language. In his
new book, Jim Wallis has some great lines about how a Christian
understanding of human sinfulness and evil should naturally lead us to
watch out for political institutions (and religious ones for that matter)
that seek to mask immoral behavior.

One of the remarks by President Bush in a previous SOTU that really
bothered me was when he said there is "power, wonder-working power
in the goodness and idealism and faith of the American people.” The
line "power, wonder-working power" comes from a hymn I grew up
singing called "There is Power in the Blood". The power in question
refers to the power of Christ's sacrifice on the cross to free us from sin. To make use of the atonement of Christ for political ends just seems
like blasphemy.

Take a look at this article on Beliefnet.com which is a transcript of a
speech given by Michael Gerson, a speechwriter for Bush, about using
religious language in political speeches. I agree with many of Gerson's
points about the rich history of political and religious rhetoric in our
country and the biblical illiteracy by many writers in the media, but I
just wish he had followed the example of President Abraham Lincoln
who said, “Pray not that God is on our side but that we are on the side
of God.” (But we see how far that got John Kerry who used this quote
in his convention speech.)

Take a look at Lincoln's second inaugural address to see a truly
masterful and humble use of religious symbolism and rhetoric in the
wake of the Civil War. I'm pretty sure Lincoln didn't use a speechwriter
either.

Looks like I made up for the lack of a post yesterday by writing twice
as much today. Thanks again Mary B. for the response. Let's hear
some more from the other three people actually reading this thing. :)

Yesterday, there were two articles in the NY Times that dealt with
politicians trying to speak about faith but with very different political
ends in mind. The first was Newt Gingrich on the comeback trail and
putting out feelers for a 2008 presidential run. Among other things in
his new book, he apparently spends a chapter talking about how the
"liberal elite" have attempted to move God out of the public sphere.
The second was Hilary Clinton, possibly establishing her religious
street cred for a 2008 presidential run. She's been talking more openly
in recent speeches about her own faith. Among other interesting
tidbits in the article is the fact that she taught Sunday School during
her time as First Lady of Arkansas. (Also yesterday's episode of The
Brian Leher Show dealt with the Clinton article. Listen on-line.)

As I read these two articles, I noted my own response to each
politician's use of faith-talk. I respect Gingrich's intelligence and some
of his points, but generally his stunts in the 90's made me sick, not to
mention his personal life. I tend to view Clinton as unfairly vilified by
the Right, but I do think many of her stances in the Senate smack of
political convenience rather than conscience. Because of these kind
of thoughts, I found myself wrinkling my nose at Gingrich's talk of God
and being more sympathetic to Clinton's material.

I am sure that there are many people who view Clinton and Gingrich in
opposite terms from my own (i.e. disgust at Clinton's behavior in the
90's and her personal life along with an allowance of political insincerity
at times by Gingrich but general sympathy for his views.) There seems
to me to be a point here about our political presuppositions determining
who we want talking about faith in the political sphere and under what
circumstances.

As Christians, I think we are called to be suspicious of any politicians
who seek to use the language of faith to justify political policy. While
I welcome a more well-rounded discussion of faith in the public realm
by those on the left as well as those on the right, I am mindful that
ultimately my allegiance is to the Kingdom of God that Jesus taught us
about rather than to one party or ideology. The prophets of Ancient
Israel stood outside of the political structure in order to offer a word
from God that had some kind of political credibility. The Church of
Jesus Christ needs to take the same kind of prophetic stance today.

I'm glad to hear Clinton speak of dealing with poverty as a moral value
(sounds like she has been reading Jim Wallis' book--see past posts),
but the timing is suspicious. When it comes to Gingrich on the other
hand, having only read one article about his book, I can only say that
I remain disturbed by any politician that seeks to lead the charge to
bring God back to Washington. God doesn't need Gingrich or any
other politician to legislate God's place in society. God just needs
some good Christians who follow Christ's teachings and do so with
humility and grace.

When politicians start quoting scripture without the proper kind of
humility, I get nervous. We'll see what scripture citations tonight's
State of the Union holds.

Respond with your thoughts--The responses have been few and far
between lately, so I'll ask you, "Under what circumstances are you
comfortable with politicians talking about God, faith, scripture, etc.?"

It turns out that the government of Brazil is spurning the Microsoft
behemoth. They are changing over their computers from Windows-
based software to entirely "open-source" software, such as Linux. The
advantages of this software for a developing country like Brazil are 1.
it is free, and 2. the user has control over the code and content of the
software. Other developing nations around the world are also
considering a similar move. This could be the beginning of a dramatic
shift in how the world uses information technology, especially in
developing countries.

For me, this case symbolizes the ethical problems of being an American
today. Our country benefits from a company like Microsoft. 2004
fourth quarter personal earnings and savings rates rose primarily
because of Microsoft stock dividends. Also, profit-driven companies
like Microsoft create wealth, that if used in a moral manner can do great
good. Consider the $750 million that the Gates Foundation just gave to
the World Health Organization. Yet, wealth is often not used in a moral
manner. It is horded and wasted. It is often made through the
exploitation of people in developing countries. In the case of
Microsoft, even with all the good done by its founder and its
stockholders, a great deal of power is concentrated in the hands of a
few people.

This type of power disparity is not unique to Microsoft. I'm sure most
of Africa wishes for some type of "open source" AIDS vaccine, rather
than depending on Western pharmaceutical companies.

I applaud Brazil for wanting a say in its own development and hope
they continue to do so more than in just what kind of software they use.
I think those of us in the Northern Hemisphere are in for a rude
awakening this century when nations still coming out from the shadows
of colonialism demand more control over their own destinies.

I've been listening lately to U2's most recent album How to Dismantle
an Atomic Bomb. There is a line in one of the songs that goes "Where
you live should not decide whether you live or whether you die." Bono,
U2''s lead singer, has remarked in interviews about this line that people
in the Southern Hemisphere die in absurd numbers because of diseases
easily treated in developed nations. An accident of longitude and
latitude can determine your fate.

I don't have solutions to the complex economic problems of the world,
but as a Christian, I believe that Christ's command to love my neighbor
as myself includes people in developing and impoverished nations. I
think that really putting into practice the kind of love Christ taught
means that those of us in the rich North will have to face adjustments in
our stock portfolios and accept the "open-sourcing" of the rest of the
world.