Of Obama and Pastors and Grace

I haven't been cross-posting anything I write for Donklephant. But I feel strongly about this topic and wanted to put my words up here as well. The original post is here and I ask, if you feel like linking to this piece, please link to the Donklephant version. Thanks and here's the post:



As we’ve already covered, Barack Obama has condemned the controversial words of Rev. Jeremiah Wright. But what now – particularly what now for those of us who aren’t Obama supporters?

My feeling is those who want to use this as a political bludgeon will continue to do so, regardless of what Obama or anyone else says. There is a profound difference between matters of the spirit and matters of the state, but we’ve so often and so purposefully intertwined the two that few can even grasp the difference between a pastor and a political advisor (and that goes for some pastors themselves).

Theology is not my forte, but I know this much: there is no easy reconciliation between the eternal spirit and the transient body. And there is nothing more temporary or less divine than politics. Pastors often wrestle with how our faith should influence our choices as citizens. There is nothing wrong with that. But when they start adulterating theology to achieve political ends, they move themselves and their congregations away from the divine and into the corrupting world of the physical. For some pastors, the move away from the divine is momentary, a sermon here, an off-hand remark there. For others, it defines their entire religious career.

Christians often talk of grace. The concept is both simple and theologically complex. But I think an apt definition for grace is the complete absence of politics, not just of governmental politics but of all the worldly power struggles that so define our lives. Grace is seeing another human not for how they may benefit us or harm us but for their eternal selves, for their equal and equally divine presence in the Body of Christ. From grace comes love as well as compassion, mercy and forgiveness. But there is often very little grace when we twist ourselves up in the political.

Rev. Wright exhibited gracelessness when he said we should sing “god damn America” and when he blamed 9/11 on America’s perceived imperialistic sins. But we should not further that act of gracelessness by continuing to tar Obama with the pastor’s words. The Senator has unequivocally condemned them and has gone so far as to say, spiritually, he believes in universal compassion and he believes that’s what his church teaches.

Religion is attacked often in this country, and people are even attacked for suggesting religion is attacked. But those who attack religion often get it wrong. It’s not religion that’s to blame for intolerance and sins of pride. It’s the politicization of religion that’s to blame. Politics corrupts. But I would like, for once, not to play politics with a man’s faith. Let’s judge Obama for his policies, for his plans for this nation, for his leadership experience or lack thereof. Let’s take his condemnation of his former pastor’s words at face value and move on. If we who lean to the right can’t do that for a religious liberal how do we ever expect those on the left to do it for us and our religion?

Lovin' this Country

This weekend I went to a wedding reception where the groom was Hindu and the bride was Muslim (the happy couple are both American born, their parents are immigrants). Why was I there? The groom’s sister married my brother (Anglo Christian) four years ago. For more cross-religious romance, I can look to my wife’s side where her Roman Catholic uncle married a Jewish woman (he later converted).

I don’t have to say all of this happened in America. You know it happened in America because where else does this happen regularly and with no fanfare? Not only do these kinds of marriages occur every weekend, they occur without so much as the thought they might lead to violence. Sure, not every family is as warmly welcoming as those involved in my ever-growing list of relations, but our culture supports this blending of peoples and traditions like no other. Being American is not about ethnicity or religion or country of birth -- it's a moral and intellectual ideal to which anyone can subscribe.

At our best, we are a wonderful people with a magnanimous culture. It doesn’t and it shouldn’t take grand events to make us proud of who we are and where we live. Sometimes, just a few cocktails with new relations is enough to make you thankful to be American.

The Archbishop's Sharia Mistake

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury and head of the worldwide Anglican Communion, recently stated that he believes the eventual adoption of some aspects of sharia law into British law is unavoidable. This has caused quite an outcry.

As an Episcopalian and thus part of the Anglican Communion, I’m familiar with Archbishop Rowan. He’s a very thoughtful man and a wonderful writer. He has had the misfortune of inheriting a church that is greatly divided over social issues, particularly whether to accept or condemn homosexuality. He also has the misfortune of being a poor politician. This is not the first time he’s made less-than-wise political statements. But it is the largest denunciation of his words.

Taken at face value, his comments on sharia law are quite condemnable. There is little reason to think Britain could maintain its equal rights or even its democracy under a plural legal system, one of which strictly limits certain freedoms held dear in Western culture. However, in the greater context of British thought and law, Dr. Williams’ comments make a little more sense, even though they remain worthy of rebuke.

Sharia courts already operate in Great Britain. Although their status is unofficial, British authorities have generally allowed them to continue and Dr. Williams is hardly the first to argue that a plural legal system could be acceptable.

In fact, Dr. Williams’ mistake was not so much the suggestion that there’s room for sharia courts in Britain, but that the adoption of some sharia law into British law is unavoidable. To that point, John O’Sullivan of The New York Post says:

The archbishop's use of the word "unavoidable" was significant: It reflects not just his mindset but that of British ministers and the country's wider multicultural establishment - who would like to protect rights such as gender equality in law but positively shrink from any conflict with ethno-cultural groups that oppose and threaten them.

If that mindset prevails, then sharia - women's second-class status and all - will indeed be unavoidable.

That, I think, is the crux of the problem. Dr. Williams sees the creep of sharia law into the British system and, rather than voicing concern about the trend, has decided acquiescence is the more appropriate reaction. It’s not. But for a religious scholar of a denomination known for accommodating new ideas and permitting dissent, I’m not too surprised by Dr. Williams’ remarks.

Clearly, the Archbishop was wrong and all of us who condemn his statement are right to do so. But we must remember that this man is not a legal scholar or a politician. He’s a religious man whose concerns are more with divine grace than contemporary concepts of freedom. Yes, I would prefer an Archbishop with a more worldly sense of human rights (particularly women’s rights), but I can understand why a religious leader might choose conciliation rather than confrontation with another religion. Rowan Williams is no radical and shouldn’t be treated as such.

Cross(ed) Signals

First Mike Huckabee and now John McCain have used the image of a cross in their Christmas ad. Huckabee actually denied the use of a cross many claim appears floating in the background – McCain’s use is explicit and admitted. Whatever the use, I have two reactions: who cares and so what?

Who cares if a candidate who is Christian uses a cross in their Christmas message? You’d prefer Santa Claus? There is nothing inherently offensive about the cross, just as there is nothing inherently offensive about the Star of David or the Muslim crescent or a Ganesh statuette. Anyone who thinks the use of a cross signifies a candidate’s desire to impose theocracy is either willfully stupid or a partisan looking for any advantage, however disingenuous.

Then again, so what if a candidate uses a cross? Personally, I have no need for my elected officials to share my religion or have any religion at all, so long as they share my basic values. Sure, my values are based on Christianity but so are the values of a lot of people with whom I vehemently disagree. Being a fellow Christian doesn’t mean we share the same values. I realize that and I’m sure the evangelicals realize that. If either Huckabee or McCain think the image of a cross will win them any extra support, they are almost certainly mistaken.

If it’s pandering, it’s bad pandering. If it’s a sincere show of faith, there’s nothing much to criticize. Either way, it’s not a big deal and doesn’t require hand-wringing on either side.

Happy Easter

For us Christians, this is the most important holy day of the year. So, for all those who belive in the resurrection, may you have a blessed Easter.

For all the rest, hope the Easter bunny brought you plenty of chocolate!

Must-Read of the Day

Ali Eteraz writes about evolving Islamic jurisprudence. There's no way you can read this post and not learn something new about Islam, its diversity of thought and its ability to change with the times.

Purging the Islamaphobes

In the greater scheme of things, few would consider Dean Esmay a leading conservative voice. But he is the proprietor of Dean’s World, one of the most-read group blogs on the center-right. And he’s just tackled head-on an issue that may become a huge point of conflict within the conservative movement: Islamaphobia.

A few days ago, Dean drew a line in the virtual sand and purged all front-page writers and all commentors who refused to abide by these five points:

1) Islam does not represent the forces of Satan or the Anti-Christ bent on destruction of the Christian world.

2) There is no 1,400 year old "war with the West/Christianity" being waged by Muslims or anyone else.

3) Islam as a religion is no more inherently incompatible with modernity, minority rights, women's rights, or democratic pluralism than most religions.

4) Medieval, anachronistic, obscure terms like "dhimmitude" or "taqiyya" are suitable for polite intellectual discussion. They are not and never will be appropriate to slap in the face of everyday Muslims or their friends.

5) Muslims have no more need to prove that they can be good Americans, loyal citizens, decent people, or enemies of terrorism than anyone else does.

He’s right. He’s right on all five points whether or not he’s right to cast out those who disagree (I’m not one for purges but it’s his blog and there are far worse reasons to cast people out).

Here’s the crux of it: Islam is not the cause of terror anymore than Christianity was the cause of the Spanish Inquisition. Islam is a tool being used by evil men who desire total power at any price. Religion is problematic that way. Ancient texts are easily abused, meanings easily warped, taken out of context and applied wrongfully to the modern world.

Don’t agree? Let me ask you this: do you believe there are Muslims who have no bloodlust and no plan (secret of otherwise) to forcibly convert us all? If yes, then you have to accept that Islam is indeed compatible with modernity and can be practiced free of violence. If no, then you have to claim that every non-violent Muslim is not a real Muslim. And who are you to make that claim? It’s fallacious on every level.

Look, the problem with Nazism was the Nazis, not the German people. The problem with Soviet communism was the Soviet communists, not the Russian people. And the problem with radical Islam is the radical Islamists, not the Muslim believers. Yes all radical Islamists are Muslims but the equation doesn’t work in reverse. In many ways, the Muslim world is just as threatened by this death cult as are we in the West.

Combating the radical Islamists is already extremely difficult because they’ve wrapped their ideology in the trappings of religion. We do not need to make things any more difficult by accusing those not on the radical side of being incapable of coexisting with our values. Are we going to exterminate one of the world’s largest religions? Hell no. And there’s no sense even taking one step down any path that will result in such a profane conclusion.

Maybe Dean is wrong to effectively silence debate on the issue. But, then again, the end of this war can only come by forming alliances with and providing aide to moderate Muslims. Those who think otherwise really don’t leave much room for debate.

Environmentalism as Earth Worship

Last week, my wife and I toured one of the few area preschools not associated with a church. We knew it was a bit hippy-dippy but we also knew it had a good reputation. Everything was going well until the school day began with all the children sitting around in a circle. They use this time to tell a multi-culturally approved story and sing a song, which was fine by me. But then, at the end, they placed a globe in the center of the circle and proceeded to worship it.

O.k., they didn’t worship it. They said some mumbo jumbo about loving and caring for Mother Earth and then began the school day. But I was left with the feeling of having just unwittingly prayed to someone else’s god – not something you expect from a secular school.

In one of those odd convergences, I have since read two references to Earth worship as the new secular religion. First, Amba mentioned the phenomenon in her post about the Oscars. Then today I read an article from American Thinker, also about the Oscars, that made the same point:

The belief in man-made catastrophic global warming, or what Gore kept dubbing the "climate crisis," (any bad weather will do, as in this year's extremely cold winter) is the new secular religion and Gore its preacher. And Hollywood has become the locus for its devotees.

Amba even jokingly called An Inconvenient Truth Hollywood’s answer to The Passion of the Christ. And I have to say, there’s some real truth there.

Science aside (and I do believe the science), it is primitively religious to believe that natural disasters are a punishment for man’s sins – in this case our wastefulness. And our penance? Acts of self-denial of course.

Where the religious man fasts, the environmentalist gives up his large car or green lawn or toilet that flushes properly. Where the religious man gives alms, the environmentalist plants a tree. Sunday communion at church vs. Sundays communing with nature.

It’s all right there, the parallels strikingly clear. And it’s not too much of a surprise. After all, there is nothing more taxing than being an atheist. We’re all keenly aware of our minuteness and inclined to find solace in that which is greater than us. For secularists, there is no higher power more worldly than the world itself.

And, instead of being supported by an ancient holy book, environmentalists can point to science and know they are grounded in reality. Expect the problem is, once you start seeing all actions and reactions as inextricably linked to a higher power, you’ve crossed over into faith. And faith meshes poorly with science.

The challenge for environmentalists is to keep their minds open to new science. Some things we consider environmentally unfriendly today may turn out to be not so bad. Some of our solutions may turn out to be worthless. If the environmentalist movement can roll with the punches, then their religious-esque rituals are harmless. If they become rutted in their beliefs, we’ll make little environmental progress.

The challenge for the rest of us is to not fall into the trap of conflating all environmentalism with some kind of Gaia worship (as this article from the American Policy Group does). I can easily see the braying nimrods of the right using this Earth Worship meme as a means to discredit all attempts at environmental protection and improvement. We can’t let such idiocy take hold.

As for me, looks like the boy is going to be attending a nice mainline Protestant preschool – where worship is called worship. And where the monthly tuition is actually affordable.

Lent, Big Macs and Faith as Free Will

For the last six years, I’ve partaken in the rituals of Lent. For a few years, I gave up all meat—until I realized that a 40-day diet of pasta and cheese pizza is bad for the body. Since then, I’ve chosen other indulgences to forgo. Beer. Cookies. This year: all fast food.

But why? After all, the Bible makes no mention of Lent or the traditions surrounding this Christian holy season. The entire event was constructed by the Church, the 40 days chosen as a spiritual bond with the 40 days Jesus spent in the wilderness before beginning his missionary.

Like that period in Christ’s life, this is a time for reflection, for penance and, ultimately, for renewal. A renewal that comes in celebration of another moment in the life of Christ: the crucifixion and the resurrection. So, the faithful who choose to observe Lent are choosing to walk closer with Jesus, to prepare their spirits to embrace the resurrection.

That’s the point. But how does giving up Big Macs bring anyone closer to their God? Well, it’s all about the “why.” If you’re just giving up a pleasure out of tradition, I don’t believe there’s much point in the practice. But if you choose to abstain from a pleasure as an earnest test of your will, then a certain transcendence can be reached.

Our bodies are vessels of our souls. The link between the two is our mind. When we reject the cravings of the body, we’re placing mind over matter. The void left by the denial of the craving is filled by the spirit. In that very small yet meaningful way, we move closer to the Lord.

For those who are agnostic or atheist, such a description of the purpose of Lent’s rituals must seem odd or even a little unhinged. And yet, for me and many others, the struggle of Lent makes Easter more joyous and meaningful. Each year as I break my chosen fast, I reflect on the accomplishment and celebrate the gifts of God that allow me free will and offer me the hope that salvation is possible through the proper use of that free will.

I am no fundamentalist. I constantly question my own faith and I know my interpretations of Christianity are not supported by all or even most. But Lent is a period I deeply respect. So, this Ash Wednesday, I forgo fast food in an act of faithful will. Come Easter, I believe I’ll be better for the abstinence.

Democrats Get Right With God

A number of Democrats running in this election are openly discussing their faith and reaching out to religious voters. Now, I’m sure some would say this is a ploy engineered by conniving secular Democrats trying to steal votes from the Republicans. But, in reality, you can’t fake faith. This is, I believe, another sign that the Democratic party is changing for the better.

Religion is an important part of American life. You can argue it shouldn’t be that way but you can’t deny our nation’s strong spiritual core. Over the past few decades, Democrats have moved slowly away from that core. The reasons for this are varied but the consequence is clear: party leaders are no longer able to fluidly speak in the language of hope.

Follow me here…

Most religious Americans believe in a religion of hope. Call it naïve or willfully ignorant, but most religious Americans hold it as a matter of faith that our best days are ahead, assuming we do what’s right. And “what’s right” is a matter not just of policy but of morality—a morality informed through religious texts.

When you remove the religious undertones and touchstones from political rhetoric, you remove the spirit of hope. I’m not talking about quoting the Bible. I’m talking about being able to speak in a manner that interweaves politics with the themes, wonders and moralities of faith. Bill Clinton can do it. Barack Obama can do it. But most Democrats can not.

Democrats, for the most part, offer a secular hope of plans and policies and humanist justice. That’s all valid, but it lacks the sweep, the crescendo and the depth of religious oratory. Spiritual hope, on the other hand, offers something more. It offers vision and righteousness and divine justice. I’m sure secularists who view religion as an opiate or a mind control will find my preference for religious rhetoric to be worrisome if not down-right dangerous. But for the majority of Americans who are comfortable in their duel role as Christian and American (or Jew and American, or Muslim and American), spiritually rich political oratory is inspiring.

Over the last few decades, Republicans have pulled in voters by acknowledging the importance of faith and its moral impulses. Even though they have too often reached for the intolerant extremes of American Christianity, Republicans have still bested Democrats in their ability to speak in a way that resonates with the religious.

But Republicans have erred in focusing too specifically on social conservatism while ignoring other highly important religious tenants—specifically the call to help the least of us and not needlessly enrich oneself. In that arena, Democrats have the higher ground. Imagine if they had the right rhetoric to go with it? Imagine if Kerry, instead of droning on and on about “his plan” for this and that had been able to, like Dr. King, speak convincingly about his dreams?

There are those in the Democratic party who will cringe when they realize how many religious Democrats are running and winning this year. But the over-reliance on secularism has hurt the party. It’s good that some Democrats are trying to reverse that trend.