A Christian nation indeed

Here are two very good opinion pieces about the hypocrisy of the religious right, just in time for Christmas.

Today Harold Meyerson writes in the Washington Post about "Hard Liners for Jesus." Things like Bush advocating torture and preemptive war yet touting Jesus as his favorite philosopher (although to be fair that was before 9/11 "changed everything" so maybe he swapped out Jesus for a more war-friendly philosopher). Meyerson also has good thoughts about the treatment of immigrants, which is of great concern to Judaism and Christianity: "the distinctive cry coming from the Republican base this year isn't simply to control the flow of immigrants across our borders but to punish the undocumented immigrants already here, children and parents alike." (Huckabee is actually on the "more Christian" side of that issue.)

Last week Judith Warner had a blog post titled Holier Than They in which she discusses what exactly is so Christian about the policies and platform of the GOP: opposition to progressive taxation and programs for the needy, attitudes toward gays, etc. But how about this from Barack Obama:

“We cannot abandon the field of religious discourse,” Barack Obama, the most eloquently convincing of them all, said back in June of 2006. “Because when we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew; when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations toward one another; when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we assume that we will be unwelcome - others will fill the vacuum, those with the most insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends.”

Another observation:

The Christian conservative vote is, apparently, splintering. Younger evangelicals are increasingly said to be interested in putting their faith to greater use than bashing gays, promoting guns and putting God on the presidential ticket. That would seem to indicate that we’re facing a moment of opportunity: a chance to expand and amplify the reach of the voice of religious moderation. The silence I’m hearing makes me think, though, that as a society we’ve come to accept the slippage of prejudicial and hateful attitudes into religious doctrine as somehow normal. Whether that’s due to cynicism or due to cowardice, it’s very troubling.

Warner rightly faults Huckabee for some of his less charitable moments, but Huckabee's surge is due to some of the splintering we're seeing. The other candidates are cynically pandering for the evangelical vote, whereas Huckabee is a true believer and presents a more hopeful message. I'm hopeful that maybe the cynicism and cowardice has had its day and that the country is ready to move beyond it. Now it's time for the Obamas and the Huckabees and those who look toward a better future to step in the gap. (Regardless of his tone, though, Huckabee is essentially a fundamentalist and I'd have trouble trusting him for that reason alone.)

God, guns and gays doesn't quite get it anymore, and that's a good thing for this country. Let's hope we can really listen to Bush's favorite philosopher and try to love our neighbors as ourselves, feed the hungry, visit the prisoner, welcome the stranger, and give a voice to the voiceless. In our personal lives and in our society. It's hard but it's worth working toward.

DMN takes advice of Filibuster Vigilantly

Someone's listening. The Morning News did an above-the-fold front page story - a well-reported one at that - on the evolution debate that is ensuing at the TEA. It does not give me good vibes though. The board is chaired by Perry appointee Don McLeroy who thinks that his version of religion has a place in the science classroom.

Specifically the new tactic of the flat earth folks is to "show both sides of the evolution debate." They want our science teachers to poke holes in the theory that underpins biology science. Pardon me, I am not a scientist, but isn't this a little like showing both sides of the debate that the Holocaust occurred? "Showing both sides" sounds so fair doesn't it? Don't let the fair sounding words fool you.

The board needs to listen to the scientists from Texas' leading institutions of higher education, who issued a statement earlier in the week stressing the importance of evolution education.

They should also listen to these folks: Christian clergy in support of teaching evolution. The rector of my old parish in New Jersey is a signator (and I see here that my current priest is as well - bravo). Science and religion need not be at odds here.

And they should listen to Chris Comer, the science curriculum director who was forced to resign due to her support for evolution education:

"Any science teacher worth their salt that has any background in biology will tell you there is no controversy," said Ms. Comer, a mother of two grown children. "It is time for America to grow up."

"A series of personality cults"

That's how Frank Schaeffer describes evangelicalism, as pointed out in a column today by William McKenzie. As an East Texas boy who was raised in the Southern Baptist tradition (now recovering) I can concur. Lots of folks become attached to a charismatic leader rather than a faith. Then when that leader lets them down they have to find another charismatic leader to follow.

It is frightening the kinds of things people will believe if their chosen leader tells them. I had a college Sunday School teacher who taught on nothing but the end times and how current events were biblically prophesied. He was an obsessed man, and was an intelligent attorney but badly misguided. And he misled many others. This is a dangerous obsession, if it is not obvious, because people will stop trying to bring about peace and justice, stop caring for their fellow humans, and stop caring for God's creation. Because after all, God's judgement is about to come down hard and this earth will pass away.

Another great quote from Schaeffer regarding the big name evangelical leaders: "Big-time American Christianity is incompatible with the Gospel. It is part of the entertainment business. No matter what you think you are doing, you are really just another celebrity in a celebrity-obsessed culture."

Every church has its problems, including my spiritual home, The Episcopal Church, but I really like our emphasis on welcoming inclusiveness, social justice, and embodying God's Kingdom. In our baptismal covenant we promise "to seek and serve Christ in all persons." And our worship is centered not on preaching and sermons (or preachers), but on Eucharist: Thanksgiving, the holy meal that binds us together with Christ and each other and strengthens us for service to the world.

Bishop Stanton shakes finger at Chicago Episcopalians

Warning, I’m diving into religious waters this morning, which for some reason I have been reluctant to do in the maiden days of Filibuster Vigilantly. I'm no expert or theologian. Just a pew-sitting Episcopalian.

When I clicked on Unfair Park this morning ("link") I was surprised to see a picture of my Bishop, the Rt. Rev. James Stanton, staring back at me (I love the caption under his picture). It appears he gave a quote to the Chicago Sun Times for a story they reported on the Rev. Tracey Lind, a finalist for bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Chicago. There are four other finalists, but of course the article is about Rev. Lind because she is a lesbian. And Bishop Stanton doesn’t like it one bit. I’m not sure how they chose Stanton for the anti-gay quote, but here ‘tis:

Bishop James Stanton of Dallas, a catalyst in the global effort against gay bishops, called Lind's nomination distressing.

"It's an action that says Chicago really doesn't care what the rest of the Anglican Communion says," he told the Sun-Times.

Allow me to respond (since this is my blog). First of all, Rev. Lind has not been elected yet, so I’m not sure why her being a finalist is so distressing. Of course, she could be elected and then what? I suppose then we’re really going to be in trouble with those African Archbishops who have already set up shop in the United States against the wishes of the Windsor Report, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church (TEC), the Archbishop of Canterbury, a handful of other official statements from the Communion, and of course against good catholic order. I’m sure they will write more nasty letters with help from their American friends about the Episcopal Church and how we’ve abandoned the Christian faith delivered once and for all to the saints, and we’re heretics, and (my favorite) apostate. So since that’s already happening, what’s the difference?

The difference would be that TEC would be taking a stand to say that we welcome all of God’s children warmly and that all orders of ordained ministry are open to faithful Christians, their sexuality notwithstanding. We would be stating that we intend to stand by our non-discrimination rules that already state that we will not bar the door to a candidate based on their sexual orientation.

And most importantly, we would be sending a message to the world that proclaiming God’s radical welcome is more important than staying in the good graces of blustery bigoted Archbishops who would require nothing less than our repentance of this welcome. I think the majority of TEC has already made this choice. Let’s not be shy about proclaiming it, with God’s help.

UPDATE:
Father Jake has a snippet from each of the nominees that they wrote to introduce themselves. Looks like a good slate of candidates. God bless them and the Diocese of Chicago as they call their new bishop.