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
5-16-06
CONGOblog A weblog of The Congregational Church of Manhasset (UCC) Archives--January 2006
| 1.29.06 | Evolution and Supersession |
| "Our earthly walls of
separation do not go up to heaven."
—Metropolitan Platon of Kyiv, Ukranian Orthodox bishop
|
I've been a little busy lately as my wife and I seek to adopt our second child (see my last sermon for some more info.). Yet, I've come across a number of items that I think are worth noting in the press lately. Due to my time constraints, I'll simply list them here in hopes I can comment upon them in the coming days.
- I've pretty much stayed away from Pat Robertson's last declaration of God's judgment--what more can I say about this guy's horrible arrogant theology? (Not to mention the New Orleans Mayor's similar declaration about God's wrath) Yet, there's a good article on Slate.com about the relationship between Evangelicals and Israel--also the relationship between Christians and Jews in general. The issue at hand is whether or not Christians view their own religion as superseding Judaism. It's worth thinking about, especially on Long Island where the lives of Christians and Jews are so intermixed.
- There was an interesting essay in last week's NY Times Book Review about the evolution/creationism debate--usually a subject that bores me to death. It deals with several books that seek to understand why creationism remains such a viable option for so many people. One of the reasons offered is that many proponents of evolution are arrogant and simultaneously criticize creationists/intelligent design advocates for going beyond the boundaries of science while going beyond the boundaries of science themselves in their view of evolution as informing our entire worldview, ethics, meaning, etc. This latter view is called "evolutionism" and is described as serving the same purpose as religion in trying to achieve a cosmological understanding, in contrast to evolutionary science which makes no such claims about existence.
Peace,
Chase
| 1.25.06 | Dreaming of Africa |
I've been to Africa only once, but it changed my life. My experience among African Christians in Ghana profoundly changed the way I understand the world, God and the Church. The love and joy of the people I met there has left me attuned to news of Africa and the suffering this continent has undergone for centuries often at the hands of Europeans and Americans that claimed to be doing the work of God. Recently, I've picked up on a number of stories about the relationship between current events in Africa and the legacy of slavery in our own country. As someone preparing to adopt an African-American child, such news has certainly become even more important to me.
This morning, I heard an NPR story on Elmina Castle in Ghana, a Portuguese castle that was used as a staging area to take slaves from Africa to the Caribbean and North America. I was surprised by the story, because I have been to Elmina Castle and it was an experience that will always stay with me. I toured the castle while on a mission trip to Ghana in 2001. As my fellow team members and I toured the dungeons that held men and women, who were taken captive, tortured, locked away in the dark, and eventually put on ships never to return, we were shocked to see the stains on the walls from the slaves packed like sardines into the holding rooms and to smell the odor of the human suffering (a smell unlike anything I have ever smelled before or since) that had literally sunk into the rock walls. Unlike the African Americans in the NPR story that went to Ghana in search of their own cultural and historical identities, I and the other white Americans with me merely felt a sense of shame over what our ancestors had done to the ancestors of our African hosts. The legacy of slavery is a complicated one that still lingers for our nation and for the African continent. The stains of great evil linger on us like the stains on that dungeon walls. Only God's grace can wash us clean, and God's grace may be free but it does not come cheaply and it requires our participation.
I was also moved by a recent series of stories on NPR regarding a group of African-American women's efforts to build a school for girls in southern Sudan. The group of African-American women is made up of a minister, lawyer, doctor and women of other professions. They are a part of a group called My Sister's Keeper that worked to buy the freedom of Sudanese women taken into slavery. They began working on this school for girls during previous trips to Sudan.
I was also heartened by the news of the inauguration of Liberia's new president, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, the first female head of state in the history of modern Africa. She was inaugurated on January 16 as the leader of this country founded by former American slaves which has undergone decades of violence. I found it auspicious that Liberia's inauguration day happened to be Martin Luther King Jr. Day in the United States, perhaps there is some sort of spiritual symmetry at work. Let's hope so for Liberia's sake.
Peace,
Chase
| 1.20.06 | Spielberg's Munich: A Film Review |
Yesterday, I saw Steven Spielberg's Munich. I found it to be deeply provocative.
I was a small child when the events that inspired this movie took place, so I'm unable to comment on the historical events or the historicity of this film (given that it's about the work of a Mossad assassination squad I'm not sure if anyone can really judge what parts of this film come close to what really happened). Clearly, whatever their basis in reality, the assassins in this film were created by the film's writers and Spielberg with particular intentions that speak perhaps more to the world of today's war on terror than that of the 1970's. What exactly are those intentions? Beyond provoking discussion, I'm not sure.
My initial impressions of the film were that it was powerful, haunting and paranoia-inducing.
SPOILER ALERT: If you haven't seen the film and don't want to know anything about what happens in it, stop reading now.
The greatest impression left on me by the film comes just as the final credits begin to roll. In the final scene, the movie's main character, Avner (Eric Bana), a loyal Israeli and leader of the squad sent to kill the plotters of the PLO attack on the Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics, talks with his handler, Ephraim (Geoffrey Rush) on the shore of the East River in New York. In the background, directly across the water, is the United Nations building, an obvious symbol of international diplomacy and an ironic background as these two men debate the point (or lack of a point) of assassinating their enemies. As their conversation finishes, the camera pans to southern Manhattan framing the World Trade Center towers (which were obviously still standing in the 70's) in the center of the screen. The intent is apparently to link the "war on terror" fought by the Israelis against their enemies in the 1970's with that of the United States today.
To what end?
Munich never says. Are we to believe that our nation will end up like present-day Israel--walling itself off from its enemies--in another thirty years? Are we to share the frustration of the Mossad agents who struggle to kill their enemies one by one only to discover that for every terrorist they kill, five more take their place? Are we to identify with the assassins who try to avoid casualties who are "non-combatants" but ultimately fail? Are we to share the paranoia of Bana's Avner, who finds himself so far down the path of violence and deception that he fears the government he fought to protect? Are we merely to think the film is relevant without knowing why?
In any case, the film does raise questions and perhaps that is all the film is aiming to do. If so, I had enough questions on my own before I went to see the film and Munich only reaffirmed them without giving me new ones.
Nonetheless, seeing the WTC standing again in the Manhattan skyline was powerful, if a bit heavy-handed.
I left the theatre and turned on the radio to hear that Osama bin Laden had put out another terror tape threatening attacks in America and that Mayor Bloomberg is repeating the same refrain of the last four years--the terror alert level in NYC has not changed since September 11, 2001. I did not need this bit of news to make me feel the film reflected our present reality.
Certainly, the film raises the issue of violence being a descending spiral that only seems to lead to more violence, degrading all who take part in it. As a Gentile watching the Jewish characters of the film struggle with their own morality, there was much I felt excluded from. One character tries to leave the team and asks whether being a Jew means being righteous or something else? If so, he believes he is unrighteous for the blood on his hands. He declares that two thousand years of suffering do not make a people righteous only long-suffering. I found it interesting that the most Aryan-looking member of the team (Daiel Craig's "Steve") declares his devotion to the cause the most fervently, declaring "The only blood that matters to me is Jewish blood." It raised the question in my mind of what is "blood," "race," "nation," and "people"--questions I'm not sure if I have the right to ask being a non-Jew.
As I expected, we are treated throughout the film to characters on the Palestinian side who explain their own suffering. I was not prepared for the emotions of the Israeli assassins, as they encountered their fellow humans and still chose to carry out their duty of assassination--at times they seemed unaffected by the claims of their enemies and at others they seemed confused and demoralized.
When Avner talks to a young PLO fighter who speaks of his desire to have a home to return to--a nation--we hear the same sentiments of Israeli characters in the film. It seems inevitable that the two will face each other over their respective gun barrels, and they eventually do.
Critics and writers are saying that the film is controversial and sure to provoke discussion. I guess they're right, except the film seemed to provoke in me more of the same questions I already have regarding the state of today's world and our nation's place in it. Perhaps, if I were Israeli or Palestinian, then I would have found the movie more controversial because of one scene or another.
As a Christian, I could only hope that Jesus' way of non-violence--that of King, Gandhi and others--has some relevance for the violence of nations as well as individuals. Our world could use a savior from violence of every stripe.
Peace,
Chase
| 1.20.06 | Questioning the War |
I read with interest today's op-ed in the NY Times by Charles Marsh, professor of religion at the University of Virginia and a self-described evangelical. It's called "Wayward Christian Soldiers" and addresses the pro-war sermons preached at the beginning of the Iraq War by leading evangelical and fundamentalist leaders (e.g. Jerry Falwell, Charles Stanley, Franklin Graham, etc.). Marsh writes that the religious views and political views of these leaders of the Christian Right have essentially merged, resulting in a message that boils down to "our president is a real brother in Christ, and because he has discerned that God's will is for our nation to be at war against Iraq, we shall gloriously comply."
With this as his starting point, Marsh questions whether the Religious Right has traded in it's devotion to God and dedication to the Bible in favor of political access and power. (DUH!) Here's his concluding paragraph:
| What will it take for evangelicals in the United States to recognize our mistaken loyalty? We have increasingly isolated ourselves from the shared faith of the global Church, and there is no denying that our Faustian bargain for access and power has undermined the credibility of our moral and evangelistic witness in the world. The Hebrew prophets might call us to repentance, but repentance is a tough demand for a people utterly convinced of their righteousness. |
Of course, I agree with Marsh's critique of the Religious Right, even thought I would not consider myself an evangelical and am looking at things from the outside as someone raised in that worldview but no longer subscribing to it. My only question is exactly who is Marsh writing to by submitting an op-ed to the Times--a paper those on the Right (Christian Right and otherwise) love to characterize as liberal to the extreme. I think it says something about the point Marsh is trying to make that this article did not (I would argue could not) appear on an evangelical publication's op-ed or even a more conservative paper's editorial page. I welcome evangelicals questioning their own self-righteousness, but As Marsh's op-ed shows, to question the war in Iraq--especially from a Christian perspective--remains taboo in many, many segments of our society.
Peace,
Chase
| 1.17.06 | Still Learning from Martin Luther King Jr. |
I was gratified by the response to my sermon in honor of Martin Luther King Jr. on Sunday. I was even more excited, however, by the discussion about race relations in 2005 that took place after worship.
The discussion was an honest time of sharing of the experiences of different people--black and while (although more white than black). During our time together we discussed hurricane Katrina, the plight of Hispanic day laborers on Long Island and the history of racism in real estate along the north shore of Long Island, among other issues. It was very interesting to hear one church member tell of the original deed to her current home. The paperwork from the 1940's for her Levit home included the decrees that the residents of the home would not hang their laundry on an outside clothes line or "have negroes on the property." It is a great example of the type of racism that existed (and in some ways) still exists in the North.
In my preparation for my sermon, I read through MLK's Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? and ended up quoting from it in the sermon. I knew little of King's life and work following the March on Washington in 1963, so I was fascinated by the challenge posed to King and his doctrine of non-violence by the Black Power movement and others who chose violent means of protest. His defense of non-violence in this book is truly powerful.
Also, I knew little about King's decision to move his family to inner city Chicago in 1966 in an effort to bring the Civil Rights Movement out of the South and into urban America. Jonathan Alter's article in the January 9 issue of Newsweek is a fascinating read about King during this time and the opposition he faced from Richard J. Daley and other white politicians.
Similarly, I experienced a real learning curve about King's opposition to the Vietnam War. In my sermon, I also quoted from King's sermon delivered at The Riverside Church, Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence. It is startlingly relevant to our current situation with the war in Iraq.
I have also benefited greatly from the media coverage of Taylor Branch's new book At Canaan's Edge, the third volume in his award-winning biography of MLK.
- Yesterday, Branch had an op-ed in the NY Times that is an eloquent argument for our nation's use of King's doctrine of non-violence in its foreign policy.
- Branch was interviewed on NPR's Fresh Air and provides some illuminating details about King's own doubts and even guilt, in addition to shining a light on these last year's of King's life.
- Branch was also interviewed on NPR's Weekend Edition Sunday. NPR's web site has a nice collection of interview segments, audio from FBI wiretaps of King and an excerpt from an audio book version of Branch's latest work.
I'm still learning a lot from Martin Luther King Jr. I hope our nation will continue to learn as well.
Peace,
Chase
| 1.13.06 | Thoughts for MLK Weekend |
Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home—so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any map of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person: The neighborhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, farm or office where he works. Such are the places where every man, woman and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere."
Cowardice asks the
question - is it safe?
Vanity asks the question - is it popular?
Expediency asks the question - is it political?
But conscience asks the question - is it right?
There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe,
popular, or political; but because it is right.
--Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
One day our descendants will think it incredible that we paid so much attention to things like the amount of melanin in our skin or the shape of our eyes or our gender instead of the unique identities of each of us as complex human beings.
--Franklin Thomas
It is often easier to become outraged by injustice half a world away than by oppression and discrimination half a block from home.
--Carl T. Rowan
Peace,
Chase
| 1.6.06 | A Lame Critique of Christian Pacifism: the commentaries of Joseph Loconte |
Happy New Year all you CONGOblog readers! We're getting up and running for the New Year and let's do so with that regular CONGOblog topic of religion and politics.
On Monday's NY Times editorial page, an op-ed appeared from Joseph Loconte, a fellow at that oh-so-fair-and-balanced Washington think-tank the Heritage Foundation (note my dripping sarcasm here). I've taken note of Loconte on previous occasions when I've stumbled across one of his op-eds or heard one of his commentaries on NPR, possibly because he's one of the few conservative commentators taking note of the religious left and possibly because his essays seem to have the aura of religious knowledge but they really don't say that much--an annoying quality.
In this week's piece, Loconte criticizes the Democrats for seeking out religious support for their politics and for left-leaning religious leaders and groups using what he considers to be the same tactics as the religious right. Loconte's basic point is one I agree with--God is not a Republican or a Democrat--in fact one of Loconte's favorite punching bags, Jim Wallis of Sojourners, started a campaign around just that idea, perhaps Loconte and Wallis aren't that far apart after all. Loconte has argued elsewhere, I think persuasively, of the perils of claiming Jesus is on your side, whether you be liberal or conservative. Yet, Loconte's argument would be far more convincing if most of his commentaries didn't support a Neoconservative and militarist agenda.
Prior to the current war in Iraq, he
harangued religious critics of the war for their complaint that
all peaceful alternatives for military action had not yet been
exhausted.
Also in 2003, in an NPR commentary, Loconte criticizes religious leaders for opposing the Iraq war, writing that "Jesus never soft-pedals evil. He never negotiates with it." and "The same Jesus who told us to love our neighbor also promised to crush Satan under his feet." In this week's Times, he criticizes liberal leaders for their mention of Satan in their protests of the Bush administration (see below for my thoughts on this argument) yet here Loconte argues that Jesus would support attacking Sadaam Hussein, I guess because Jesus said he would overthrow Satan. Now, who is throwing the name of Satan around?
At the end of his commentary, Loconte uses his own laughable prooftexting to refute a religious opposition to the war. He says, "The same figure hailed as the Prince of Peace is also called the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the one who judges and wages war." Exactly what kind of war does Jesus wage? Are his weapons smart bombs and tanks? Hardly. Jesus' weapons come in the form of rebuking spiritual evils and resisting human evil by not demeaning himself through violence and like-minded retribution.
In this piece, Loconte fairly criticizes those who oppose the Iraq War on religious grounds for not having a real alternative to military action, but his use of religious language amounts to nothing more than a shallow religious justification for a political agenda.
Last November in the Wall Street Journal, he criticized Christian leaders of many denominations for making peace into an "idol," failing to support unilateral military action and for writing statements like the following from Sojourners: "The distinction between good and evil does not run between one nation and another, or one group and another," the petition reads. "It runs straight through every human heart." Loconte criticizes this statement as going against the ethics of the Bible. HUH? Confessing each individual's sinfulness is a part of the basis of the ethics expressed in the Bible and the doctrine of every Christian denomination. It's interesting that Mr. Loconte never actually states his own views of what the Bible actually says about issues of poverty, violence, etc.
Last July on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, Loconte made basically the same argument he made this week in the Times, calling progressive Christians "fundamentalists of the left." Once again, his argument might have some merit if he were out there criticizing the religious right in the same way--but he is not. (with the exception of an article criticizing Pat Robertson, whose comments are beyond the pale of even the usual fundamentalist suspects)
While certainly, the religious left should be willing to face the same criticism that it lobs at the religious right--(misuse of scripture to justify its political point of view, claiming God's favor for one political party over another, etc.), Loconte repeatedly gives lip service to a critique of those on his side of the religious/political fence and then continues to bash those who disagree with him.
For example in this week's Times op-ed, he criticizes Jim Wallis of Sojourners and Call to Renewal (a favorite of mine), for (gasp!) quoting scripture to justify government policies that aid low-income people:
| "We affirm God's vision of a good society offered to us by the prophet Isaiah," [Wallis] writes. Yet Isaiah, an agent of divine judgment living in a theocratic state, conveniently affirms every spending scheme of the Democratic Party. This is no different than the fundamentalist impulse to cite the book of Leviticus to justify laws against homosexuality. |
Then he goes on to criticize liberal Christian leaders for moralizing in extreme terms:]
| There is another worrisome trait shared by religious liberals and many conservatives: the tendency to moralize in the most extreme terms. William Sloane Coffin of the Clergy Leadership Network was typical in his denunciation of the Bush tax cuts: "I think he should remember that it was the devil who tempted Jesus with unparalleled wealth and power." |
Let's get real. If we take the example Loconte cites from William Sloane Coffin as an example, it hardly compares with the kind of inflammatory language used by televangelists and fundamentalist preachers each and every week.
If Coffin is quoted correctly here, he uses the temptation of Jesus towards wealth and power to criticize the recent budget passed by Congress that drastically cuts funding for programs that help the poor while maintaining tax cuts for the wealthy. At the heart of Jesus' ministry was a rejection of power and wealth in human and material terms, so I think it is a fair use of scripture to question our government's privileging of the wealthy over the poor. This is not extreme.
From the appearance of the angels to marginalized shepherds at Jesus' birth to Jesus' temptations in the wilderness to Jesus' teachings about wealth in the Sermon on the Mount to Jesus' parables about wealth to Jesus' instructions to his disciples regarding what to take on their missionary journeys to Jesus to Jesus' refusal to respond with violence to his arrest, torture and eventual murder--Jesus continually refuses to pursue power through normal human means (wealth and power). To point towards a theme that not only runs throughout Jesus' life and ministry but also through the words of Israel's prophets and laws, along with the ministry of the early Church is not irresponsible--quite the contrary. Picking and choosing individual verses is one thing, but identifying with a concern for the poor that runs throughout scripture is another.
Compare this to Loconte's own example of conservatives' use of scripture to condemn homosexuals and you'll find that the Bible contains only a handful of verses that are even relevant to the debate, if at all. On the other hand, by most scholars' count there are well over two thousand verses in the Bible that address the believer's use of money and God's concern for the poor. Sure, there are people on all sides religiously and politically that misuse scripture for their own ends, but I do not believe the use of scripture by the right and left are necessarily comparable--especially in regards to an issue that is so important throughout scripture: treatment of the poor and the oppressed.
Loconte makes vacuous statements like "the Bible is a priceless source of moral and spiritual insight" but never offers a concrete example of how the Bible should be used in relation to political debate. I get the feeling that, given Loconte's one-sided critique of the religious left, his real problem is not with the use of scripture in political debate, but the use of scripture in political debate to support positions different than his own.
If there is any validity to Loconte's arguments (and as I've indicated there certainly is at times, albeit rarely), it is that liberal Christians can fall prey to the delusion that Jesus' teachings are the same as Democratic social programs. Yet, I would argue that it is Loconte who suffers from a similar delusion in his assumptions that Jesus' teachings are somehow compatible with a militaristic American foreign policy.
Peace,
Chase