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 © 2002-5
The Congregational
Church of Manhasset
Questions
or |
Page last updated
12-27-05
CONGOblog A weblog of The Congregational Church of Manhasset (UCC) Archives--October 2005
In yesterday's sermon, Jimmy referred to a fact that I only learned last week--Rosa Parks was not the first African-American woman arrested in Montgomery, AL for not giving up her seat to a white person. It raises the question of why the bus boycott did not arise after one of the earlier cases. As Jimmy explained yesterday, apparently the civil rights leaders in Montgomery felt that in the first two cases the women in question would not serve as symbols to rally around. In both cases, civil rights leaders feared the white press would make the women's character the issue (due to real or merely rumored activities). In the movie, Barbershop, the character played by Cedric the Entertainer criticizes Parks for merely "sitting down on a bus" while worthier civil rights leaders were ignored. This view is shared by others--for example, Brendan Koerner at Slate.com. I think this is a fair point to raise, so I was glad to learn more about Rosa Parks last week after news of her death began to spread. On NPR last week, Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), himself a civil rights hero, shared his memories of Parks. He states that Parks' character and standing in the community was such that no one black or white could say anything legitimate against her. Everyone knew that if "Ms. Parks" was arrested, then it was unjust. Similarly, in today's NY Times, Fox News analyst and NPR correspondent, Juan Williams makes similar points. Parks had spent years working on behalf of civil rights for African Americans, including championing the rights of one of her predecessors in being arrested for not giving up her bus seat, Claudette Colvin. Yet, apparently it was her character and her dignity most of all that made her a person to rally around. Parks story raises the question in my mind about the kind of character that each of us aspires to. In each of our lives, we are faced with situations where we must choose to stand up for what is right and against people of policies that are oppressive and unjust. What determines our response is our own integrity and our own dignity. It is worth asking of ourselves, when our time comes (whether or not it receives the attention of Park's case or no one else every knows of it) how will our own character serve us? Peace, Chase
The
more you know the less you feel Yes, U2 is my favorite band and Bono is one of my heroes and yes, I did see the band at Madison Square Garden two weeks ago, but I think that God has been whispering to me through a U2 song I've had stuck in my head. I've been haunted lately by the lyrics to one of their songs, "City of Blinding Lights." It's a song about the band's relationship with New York and Bono's reflection upon how he has changed since he first visited New York as a young man. I'm sure mixed in with his reflections are thoughts about his own stardom and success and how unworthy of it he is. In short, among other things in this song, I hear a reflection on grace. Blessings are not just for the ones who kneel...luckily This particular phrase has echoed in my mind and reminded me of God's grace. So often we categorize others into good and bad, those worth helping and those who are helpless, those deserving good things in life and those who deserve the bad things they get. Grace, however, by its very nature overturns our categories and completely removes the idea of worthiness from any kind of equation. God's love for us and blessings given to us are unrelated to whether or not we are worthy of them. Blessings are not just for the ones who kneel...lucky for me, because I don't kneel enough--either in prayer or in respect for a God I call "Lord." It is always easy to give to people we feel are worthy of our gift, but it is much more difficult to give to people who we feel are either unworthy of our attention or somehow deserve the troubles they get. As Christians--those who bear the name of Christ--we are called to respond in kind to others based upon how God has dealt with us--we are called to reach out with grace in the same way grace has reached out to us. The politics of grace seems to run contrary to the way our society gives to people in need. A while back, I posted on this blog my response to an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal and although I found much to agree with in the article, I was troubled by the writer's division of people affected by Hurricane Katrina into those worthy of help and " the looters and thugs, and... inert women doing nothing to help themselves or their children." It turns out the writer of this op-ed is not alone. The article represents a trend in charitable giving in our country that differentiates between people worthy of helping and those who are unworthy. A recent article in The Christian Century ("Donors favor those 'worthy' of compassion" by G. Jeffrey MacDonald, Christian Century, Oct. 4, 2005) describes this trend:
Despite the fact that charitable giving on the whole is going up, giving to organizations that may help people who have made questionable choices has fallen (e.g. legal services, food pantries and rehabilitation for ex-convicts, etc.)
It is a difficult job of giving out aid to help people in need. There is always more need than there is money to help, and those charged with meeting human needs have to do so responsibly. Often doing so entails making difficult choices. A person or group of people that looks somehow more "innocent" looks more worthy than someone who seems "responsible" for their own condition. The way people appear may help those giving aid to more easily make a difficult decision of who to give to and why. The problem, of course, is that God deals with us in a way that has nothing to do with our worthiness. Grace knows no bounds. If we mean to be instruments of God's grace, then our giving to others must somehow risk being irresponsible at times (all the time?) by giving to those who seem unworthy of it. Perhaps, we American Christians not of the lower economic class have forgotten that we are the beneficiaries of grace. Maybe we feel that we have earned what we have and therefore only want to help others who are worthy. Yet, if we're honest, we may admit to ourselves that we too have received blessings unrelated to our time kneeling. Blessings are not just for the ones who kneel...luckily Peace, Chase
In a world where religion is used to condone violence on a daily basis, it's nice to read some good news about people building bridges between people of different faiths. In yesterday's Newsday, there was a story about members of The Islamic Center of Long Island and members of Temple Beth-El in Great Neck joining together for a combined Ramadan and Sukkot dinner. It's a brief story but a beautiful one about people coming together to learn about a different faith in a peaceful, respectful and even joyous manner. Here's an excerpt:
You may recognize the speaker of the last quote, Faroque Khan, because he will be our guest speaker during morning worship on November 6. I'm excited that our church is beginning a relationship with Dr. Khan and the Islamic Center of Long Island that may build friendships and clear up misconceptions, especially on our end about Islam. It seems that I regularly get e-mails--usually the forwarded kind that were generated who knows where--from folks (often church members) that seems to only describe Muslims as prone to violence and as all being terrorists. I'm praying that Dr. Khan's message and Q&A time will help us to set aside our stereotypes and to follow Christ's example of reaching out to people different from ourselves. I hope you can make it on Nov. 6! Peace, Chase
Darfur: the Genocide continues It's been a while since I posted anything about Darfur. There's not a whole lot to report. More killings of innocent civilians while political solutions grind on. The Washington Post actually offers some possible steps that our government could take to stop the genocide--too bad our government isn't listening. Religious belief that needs to evolve: As I've posted previously, the whole creationism vs. evolution debate, even in its new guise of "intelligent design" vs. evolution bores me. I've never understood why some Christians feel so threatened by Darwin's theory. (If only they got as bent out of shape about world hunger!) I maintain that a high school science classroom is not the right place to teach theology. The Christian Science Monitor has an editorial on the case now being heard in Pennsylvania that gets at some of the inherent problems with government-funded schools teaching creationism no matter what name it goes by. Here's a taste:
******* Bono's at it again My hero Bono met with President Bush yesterday to talk about poverty in Africa and the Bush administration's success and failure regarding helping the millions of the world's poorest people. As I've said in previous posts, I'm amazed at Bono's ability to praise the good that the Bush administration has done (billions to provide anti-retroviral drugs) and make a prophetic attack upon its indifference to the plight of the world's poor (canceling the Millennium Challenge Grants). From my perspective, Bono is standing up for the world's poorest in a manner that takes seriously Jesus' commands to do so. (Jon Stewart's take on this meeting at the beginning of the 10.20 Daily Show episode was hilarious. Too bad it's not on the Comedy Central web site.) ******* A new blog Beliefnet has a new blog on pop culture and religion called Idol Chatter. So far it's not too exciting, but it may be worth checking in with on occasion. Peace, Chase
I wanted to see the new film A History of Violence after I heard a movie review by Kenneth Turan, Los Angeles Times film critic, on NPR. Turan writes that the film is "casually subversive" and is about the "prevalence of violence in America and how that impacts individuals and society as a whole." Turan writes that the film never lets you forget that one violent act, even an heroic one, is still violent. The film is about the "pernicious, corrosive effects of violence--the way it's taint as as hard to rub off as blood is to wash out. Each act of mayhem in the film, no matter how justified, leads to another one. It starts to seem axiomatic that once you let violence into your life, it will never leave you alone." The film stars Viggo Mortensen as Tom Stall, family man and owner of a diner in a small Indiana town. When violent criminals attempt to rob Stall's diner and to attack his employees, Stall responds with surprising deadly force. Hailed as a hero, Stall becomes the focus of major media attention. Soon after, a group of Philadelphia mobsters arrive in town claiming that Stall is in reality a former mobster and murderer that they demand retribution from. The plot unfolds from this point as Stall's family begins to question whether or not he is the man they know as father and husband or whether he is someone else with a hidden past. Soon Stall must use violence again to protect himself and his family, but the quiet and peaceful life he sought will never be the same again. The scenes of violence and of sexuality are graphic, as filmed by David Cronenburg, but they are all purposeful. Rather than ignoring the toll violence takes on all involved as most action movies do or mocking our love of violence through the over-the-top presentation of violence in Quentin Tarentino films, this film reveals the price paid by everyone involved in a violent act, even when such an act was necessary. J. J. Helland, an NYU grad student who writes on The Revealer, a blog about religion and the media, is the only writer I've read so far that takes seriously the religious dimensions of the film, especially in regards to redemption. Certainly, redemption is a theme in the film, and A History of Violence shows that redemption is never easily won and questions whether one can ever be redeemed by committing acts of violence. I found this film so provocative that I thought about it for days. I still am thinking through some of the ramifications of what happens to the characters in this film. Certainly, it is one of the only American films I have seen that calls into question the myths Americans make about the use of violence, especially the idea that violent acts make no claim upon the soul of the one committing them. Whether defending the innocent in an Indiana diner or on the battlefields of Iraq, violence takes a toll on the one committing it, no matter how noble the reasons for it. The violence committed by the character Tom Stall comes to infect his family, especially his son, and brings up things from his past that he thought he had left behind. This film reminds us that we fool ourselves when we think that violence done by individuals or nations can ever truly put to an end the spirals of violence that plague humanity. When I read Jesus' teachings about non-violence and his own refusal to respond to violence with violence, I think Jesus offers us the only way to save us from ourselves--to save us from our own warring madness. For me, A History of Violence points beyond itself to the Cross of Christ and our need for someone outside of ourselves to lead us away from our delusions that violence can save us from the evils of this world. Peace, Chase
Here's two links to articles that relate to sermons recently preached by Jimmy and myself. Jimmy's last sermon, Religion: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, made use of the book, When Religion Becomes Evil, by Charles Kimball, which also happens to be our selection for the November book club meeting. Here's a good archived program of NPR's Talk of the Nation where Kimball and another scholar talk about the intersection of religion and violence. I found Kimball's thoughts enlightening--the other guy not so much. Nonetheless, it's well worth a listen. In my sermon this past Sunday (hopefully posted soon on the sermons page), I spoke about the subject of idolatry (I even used props!) and one of the examples I gave was of a man dreaming of and planning on buying a new BMW Z4. Hey, I know speaking of luxury cars as idols in an affluent area of Long Island is a bit dangerous, but as I hope I showed in the sermon, it's more than just the car. It's also why you want the car and what else you could do with the money spent on a luxury car. I chose to use the symbol of a BMW as an idol, because I'd been thinking about a statement by sociology professor and Baptist minister Tony Campolo. I've heard Campolo speak a number of times and read a number of things by him. I usually walk away from encountering his ideas being challenged and troubled in regards to wealth in our culture--my own and everybody else's too. He has been quoted as saying that a Christian should not own a luxury car--with a BMW as his primary example. Here's a nice interview with him in a youth ministry magazine. It's focus is on challenging youth in our culture to heed Jesus' teachings on materialism, but I think it's worth reading and worth applying it to one's own life, no matter your age. It certainly offers a challenge to those of us who work with youth for a living. Peace, Chase
The NY Times, Washington Post and I'm sure most other major daily newspapers carried front page articles today about the religious faith of President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court, Harriet Miers. It seems that in response to criticism of Bush's pick by many conservative groups that her record is unknown and that she has not been explicitly anti-abortion in a public manner, the White House has been holding conference calls with conservative leaders (and obviously talking with reporters) about Miers' religious background. According to reports, she was raised Roman Catholic and as an adult converted to evangelical Christianity. Then she began attending a conservative evangelical church in Dallas where ministers preach against abortion and homosexuality, view the Bible in a literal fashion, etc. I have a lot of problems with this religious PR campaign. Most of all, I think it and all the times religion is used in service to politics rather than as a force that informs and shapes our politics cheapens Christianity and ultimately trivializes it. Furthermore, I reject the idea that a person's particular religious background automatically means they should believe a certain way on such difficult issues as abortion, homosexuality, the separation of church and state, etc. Be they Roman Catholic, evangelical Protestant, Muslim or whatever, I would hope that each and every person of faith--Harriet Miers included--would have the strength of character and respect for God to work through on their own what they believe rather than towing the party line--whether the party in question is a political or religious one. Here's to hoping that Harriet Miers, John Roberts and all the rest can truly rule on such difficult cases guided by wisdom, training, intellect and religion, rather than by a particular ideology, especially one masked in religious terms as the only "true" or "right" way to think or act. ******* On a different note, I just finished listening to an episode of Speaking of Faith, Minnesota Public Radio's terrific program on issues of faith and ethics. This program was on Biblical understandings of marriage and featured Rabbi Elliot Dorf, professor at the University of Judaism in Bel-Air, CA and Luke Timothy Johnson, professor of New Testament at Emory--a former professor of mine from graduate school. It was an invigorating program that frankly discusses the difficulties of applying the various messages in the Bible concerning marriage to our own times. I highly recommend it as one of the most thoughtful discussions of "marriage and family values" I have ever heard. Peace, Chase
In August, Brother Roger, a Catholic monk and founder of the ecumenical spiritual movement Taizé, was shot dead by a person with mental problems. I didn't know much about Brother Roger during his life, but I've been finding out a lot about him after his death. The movement he founded focusing on humble prayer multiple times daily and service to the world's poorest people appealed to people of all walks of life and countries around the world. Today, I read a remembrance of him in The Christian Century that seems to illustrate Brother Roger's character. Here's an excerpt:
Peace, Chase
All right, all you conservative CONGOblog readers, here's a post about an editorial in a good old-fashioned conservative paper just for you. I read with interest
Charles
Murray's op-ed in the Wall Street Journal yesterday.
In his article, he writes about what he calls the "underclass" which
he differentiates from low-income people whom when given a chance to
improve their lives would take it (e.g. jobs, good schools, etc.).
According to Murray, it's the latter group that is the real problem
that government has never dealt with and shows no sign of dealing with
in the future. He writes:
The problem I have with Murray's dichotomy is that the people he describes as "low-income people who are trying hard" aren't being given the opportunities he describes. There may be plenty of people who fit in the former category, but his depiction of ways to help them is simplistic and naive. Of course, if given a good job or given a good education most low-income people would take it, but where are these jobs and educations? There will always be a certain amount of people that will overcome the odds and work their way out of poverty, but most won't. Why not? That's the real question. I get ticked off, frustrated and am tempted to throw in the towel just when I visit the DMV. I can't imagine trying to negotiate government bureaucracies when it comes to food, housing, college loans, etc. I admire those who have. I have to think a big part of the problem is that the social programs set up by government often work against rather than for the people they're supposed to help. Throw in our changing industrial economy and the need for job training and the simple need for new types of jobs to be trained for along with the failing schools in many urban centers, and you've got some real difficulties. Writing, as Murray does, that jobs and schools can be handed out doesn't really solve the problems of low-income people. Murray goes on to describe the "underclass" as beset with illegitimate births and criminals (both in and out of prison). I think he rightly points out that these problems cross racial lines, and that there is a certain segment of the population that will choose self-destructive acts over ones that will help them improve their circumstances. (He seems to make no judgment on our criminal justice system and whether or not locking up everyone we do ends up producing more hardened criminals that end up back on the streets.) My problem with Murray's portrait is that I'm not sure where he draws the line between low-income people who would escape their circumstances if given the opportunity and those who would refuse to work and/or become criminals. There's got to be room for at least one more category of people: those who choose not to work, because the jobs available to them offer them no chance to improve their lives or choose to be criminals for similar reasons. Using a term like "underclass" paints with a pretty broad brush that risks painting everyone below middle class as chronic criminals and screw-ups. I do agree, however, with Murray's portrait of the response (or lack of response) from the middle and upper classes to the problems of low-income people.
As I see it, those who have money to escape from the problems of poverty and crime do so and never look back, doing all they can to insulate themselves from others' pain. As Christians, Jesus does not give us that option. In Christ, God chose not to be insulated from the pain of humanity but became one of us, to share our pain and to help us escape it. To wear Christ's name means we must do the same. No matter what name we call people struggling with poverty, we are called to use all we have to work alongside them to improve their lives. Peace, Chase
When it comes to the current debate about "Intelligent Design" vs. Evolution, I almost always break out into a big YAWN. It's just not that interesting to me, and it hardly seems relevant to my faith or my life. I have to confess that I was never particularly good at science and I rarely ever read articles about the latest scientific finds or medical breakthroughs. So, maybe I'm just biased against caring about this discussion that tends to raise so much ire. Also, evolution has never threatened my faith in God as creator of all. The creation accounts in Genesis chapters 1-3 have never struck me as a scientific explanation for how the world got here. Instead the first chapters of the Bible seem to say more to me about eternal truths: God created everything and pronounced Creation "good;" God has a special love and concern for human beings; human beings seem to have an innate desire to disobey God; etc. Whether it took God six days and a few words of six billion years and a long process, doesn't matter to me. I still believe God did it. My faith has never depended on evolution being false, or for that matter, evolution being correct. I've never understood why so many people seem to get so upset about evolution being taught in science classes. I don't see any biologists suing churches to get a better science curriculum in Sunday School. The language of science and faith are distinct for me. In addition to sometimes being in conflict, they may also complement each other, but neither is dependent upon the other. An agreement with science may help some people to feel that having faith is more reasonable, but in the end faith is not faith if it can be proven. I do agree with some tenets of "intelligent design"--or at least what I think "intelligent design" is, I keep trying to read about it and dozing off. I do believe that the majesty of Creation points to a Creator and the complexity of the universe makes it more likely that someone or something had a hand in ordering it. HOWEVER--and it's a big however--I still recognize that I make my conclusions through the eyes of faith and that others can look at the same stuff and come up with a different conclusion. I don't need it taught in schools and I do not need to force anyone else to believe the same thing I do. This is what my faith says to me and if others don't come out at the same place, I don't feel threatened by that. With all this in mind, I finally came across an editorial about "intelligent design" that I felt is worth passing along. Kenneth Woodward of Newsweek had an op-ed in the NY Times today that I felt was sensitive to both sides of the debate and that managed to cut through a lot of the junk floating around current court cases. It's worth reading. Peace, Chase
|