Note to self: do not talk about religion on Facebook

While I’m perfectly willing to debate religion, I find it tiresome when persons unknown to me make assertions about me that are untrue,

Twice late last month – once on Christmas eve – I had “conversations” about religion on Facebook. It’s often unsatisfying, because I am a believer in spite of uncertainty, and these folks are usually convinced of their rightness.

Oddly, both ended up involving the Biblical phrase “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, render unto God what is God’s.” Without getting into the whole back-and-forth, one guy insisted that the verses, appearing in all three of the synoptic Gospels (all, except John), meant that we are directed to obey earthly authority, pay taxes, and the like.

My view is more in line that it suggests a separation of church and state, and that, further, the church should speak out when the state is going wrong, rather than embrace the state’s bad behavior (apartheid, slavery, exploitation, et al.) If you read the Wikipedia article on the phrase, you’ll see that there are several different interpretations of those verses, including both of these, a notion which I can accept.

The guy on Facebook cannot. While I’m perfectly willing to debate religion, I find it tiresome when persons unknown to me make assertions about me that are untrue, such as “You don’t know the Bible very well” or “You must not have read very much of the Bible.” Defensively, I sneered (if you can sneer online): “I have read the Bible at least three times all the way through,” noting the King James, New Revised Standard Version, and the New International Version.

Now he has ticked me off, and I assert something about the nonviolent direct action of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and others being in the Jesus tradition. Bored with me, he went away.

He’s like those people I grew up with who were convinced at least two-thirds of the world is going to hell. This, BTW, was the mindset that drove me out of the church by the time I was twenty. As the article says:

…we WILL NOT judge another person’s soul. Jesus warned us not to do so. Paul warned the same thing. Jesus will be the judge. Period. It is not our job and we are not qualified.

I’ll give a big AMEN to THAT.

Knocking at Midnight: Martin Luther King, Jr.

The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool. If the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority.

I like to look for less familiar text for Martin Luther King’s birthday. Unfortunately, soundbites from his I Have a Dream speech, for instance, have been so torn from its context as to make it unrecognizable.

A Knock at Midnight (found here [PDF]) was delivered on 14 September 1958. It has some Cold War references that I removed, not because there aren’t modern-day equivalents, but for clarity, and an attempt at brevity. The text was based on Luke 11:5-6, RSV: “Which of you who has a friend will go to him at midnight and say to him, “Friend, lend me three loaves; for a friend of mine has arrived on a journey, and I have nothing to set before him”? It’s all MLK until the end.

Although this parable is concerned with the power of persistent prayer, it may also serve as a basis for our thought concerning many contemporary problems and the role of the church in grappling with them. It is midnight in the parable; it is also midnight in our world, and the darkness is so deep that we can hardly see which way to turn…

Midnight is the hour when men desperately seek to obey the eleventh commandment, “Thou shalt not get caught.” According to the ethic of midnight, the cardinal sin is to be caught and the cardinal virtue is to get by. It is all right to lie, but one must lie with real finesse. It is all right to steal if one is so dignified that, if caught, the charge becomes embezzlement, not robbery. It is permissible even to hate if one so dresses his hating in the garments of love that hating appears to be loving. The Darwinian concept of the survival of the fittest has been substituted by a philosophy of the survival of the slickest. This mentality has brought a tragic breakdown of moral standards, and the midnight of moral degeneration deepens…

When the man in the parable knocked on his friend’s door and asked for the three loaves of bread, he received the impatient retort, “Do not bother me; the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot get up and give you anything.” How often have men experienced a similar disappointment when at midnight they knock on the door of the church…

In the terrible midnight of war, men have knocked on the door of the church to ask for the bread of peace, but the church has often disappointed them. What more pathetically reveals the irrelevancy of the church in present-day world affairs than its witness regarding war? In a world gone mad with arms buildups, chauvinistic passions, and imperialistic exploitation, the church has either endorsed these activities or remained appallingly silent. During the last two world wars, national churches even functioned as the ready lackeys of the state, sprinkling holy water upon the battleships and joining the mighty armies in singing, “Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.” A weary world, pleading desperately for peace, has often found the church morally sanctioning war.

And those who have gone to the church to seek the bread of economic justice have been left in the frustrating midnight of economic privation. In many instances, the church has so aligned itself with the privileged classes and so defended the status quo that it has been unwilling to answer the knock at midnight. The Greek Church in Russia allied itself with the status quo and became so inextricably bound to the despotic czarist regime that it became impossible to be rid of the corrupt political and social system without being rid of the church. Such is the fate of every ecclesiastical organization that allies itself with things-as-they-are.

The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool. If the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority. If the church does not participate actively in the struggle for peace and for economic and racial justice, it will forfeit the loyalty of millions and cause men everywhere to say that it has atrophied its will. But if the church will free itself from the shackles of a deadening status quo, and, recovering its great historic mission, will speak and act fearlessly and insistently in terms of justice and peace, it will enkindle the imagination of mankind and fire the souls of men, imbuing them with a glowing and ardent love for truth, justice, and peace. Men far and near will know the church as a great fellowship of love that provides light and bread for lonely travelers at midnight.

Midnight is a confusing hour when it is difficult to be faithful. The most inspiring word that the church must speak is that no midnight long remains. The weary traveler by midnight who asks for bread is really seeking the dawn. Our eternal message of hope is that dawn will come…
***
Obviously, this sermon is about faith – there’s a great story about the Montgomery bus boycott near the end – but it’s also about what the role of the church should, and should NOT be in the greater society. Just as the Greek Orthodox church in czarist Russia became too tied in the mind with the government as to be ineffectual as a change agent, so too it is with the modern western church.

 

The church ought not to be in a role to be a cheerleader for the government when it wages war, ignores and oppresses the poor, accepts injustice, and looks the other way when inequality takes place. I can’t help but wonder that the increasing amount of agnosticism and atheism in this world is a DIRECT result of the church’s failure to follow its own mission statement, which, I will suggest, is the paragraph italicized above, even while the church wrings its hands over the increasing secularism of the society. Perhaps the church is merely reaping what has inadvertently sown. Perhaps, in the United States, a greater separation of church and state would be good for the soul of the church.

I believe in Christmas

As John Lennon wrote, “the Word is love.”

The day after Thanksgiving, I found myself at the flagship Macy’s store in Manhattan with The Wife, The Daughter, my eldest niece, her husband, and a couple of their friends. I also saw a guy I knew from Albany walk by.

The Macy’s windows are great because they’re so imaginative. On one set of windows was the retelling of Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Claus, that famous New York Sun editorial from 1897, complete with a backstory about the girl and her family. It’s certainly why I know there’s a Saint Nick, who’s black and white and Hispanic and Asian and all sorts of colors.

I believe in the love of Jesus, too, who almost certainly wasn’t born in December, but rather under the sign of Aries or Pisces, not that it much matters. Got into a debate recently about how Christianity has led to lots of wars, and such – I’ve had that conversation a LOT, as you might imagine – but, for me, that comes from people misconstruing the Word. And, as John Lennon wrote, “the Word is love.”

You can call it magic, or hoodoo, or myth, and I’m all right with that. Faith is kind of like that. Like the love that the Pope showed to immigrants recently.

Merry Christmas.

In the midst of hate, I found there was, within me, an invincible love.
In the midst of tears, I found there was, within me, an invincible smile.
In the midst of chaos, I found there was, within me, an invincible calm.
I realized, through it all, that…
In the midst of winter, I found there was, within me, an invincible summer.
~ Albert Camus

Last-minute gift ideas

so this lady walks up at a traffic light, and. . .

NALT Christians

October is LGBT History Month

Last month, my friend Dan sent me a link to this nifty page about Christians Openly Supporting LGBT Community In ‘We’re Not All Like That’ Campaign. I wrote back, “This will appear on my blog within the week! Thanks; I had not seen this.” I was particularly taken by Fred Clark’s video, maybe because of how he self-identifies.

Obviously, I didn’t post anything, and frankly, it got lost in my e-mails. Then Arthur wrote about it, and I was going to let it go as a topic. Moreover, while I appreciate the sentiment of NALT, I never like things identified by what they are NOT. Quirky, I know.

But then I saw this story about a tea party leader and former Baptist pastor who is proposing to file a ‘class action lawsuit’ against ‘homosexuality.’ Oy.

So let me share with you a sermon by Nicole Garcia at the MLP National Conference at St. Mark’s Presbyterian Church in Tucson, AZ on Saturday, September 28, 2013, which addresses the topic of how some in the church view an inclusive faith.

Did you know that October is LGBT History Month? I did not until I saw a couple of huge displays in the fellowship hall of MY church.

I was telling this story recently: At my previous church, I was talking to one of the church leaders about the fact that we ought to have a discussion about gay rights; this would have been c 1990. She said, “We already did that.” I started attending in 1982 and joined in 1984, and I had no recollection of this. “Oh, we had somebody come in and talk with us in 1976.” Over the next several years, I brought it up, but the idea never gained any traction.

I’m happy to be in a church now without that ambiguity.
***
From Newsmax:

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on Monday withdrew legal opposition to gay marriage, making same-sex nuptials the law in the state.
The move makes New Jersey the 14th state in the nation to legalize gay marriage…
At City Hall in Newark, the state’s most populous city, Cory Booker, the two-term Democratic mayor who voters elected to the U.S. Senate last week, officiated for seven gay and two heterosexual couples who descended a set of curving steps just before midnight…
Booker, 44, who had refused to perform heterosexual weddings in his city of 277,700 residents because he objected to the exclusion of same-sex couples, called the ceremonies “one of the greatest privileges of my life.”

This dialogue from The West Wing is even better when you hear Martin Sheen say it.

LISTEN to Red Flag by XELLE

 

Should a Christian say the Pledge of Allegiance?

Is the Pledge of Allegiance a lie, idolatry or showing respect to the country?

Growing up in the 1960s in the United States, I started to wonder about the validity of saying the Pledge of Allegiance. That “liberty and justice for all” part seemed a bit, let’s just say, farfetched, with discrimination based on race, gender, economic condition, and so on. It was explained to me, though, that it was not a pledge to what is, but rather what the ideal nation could be. Hmm. Well, OK.

Back in 1940, in Minersville School District v. Gobitis, the Supreme Court “ruled that public schools could compel students—in this case, Jehovah’s Witnesses—to salute the American Flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance despite the students’ religious objections to these practices.” But a mere three years later, in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette held “that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protected students from being forced to do” these things. “It was a significant court victory won by Jehovah’s Witnesses, whose religion forbade them from saluting or pledging to symbols, including symbols of political institutions.”

And that was BEFORE the addition of “under God,” to the pledge in the 1950s, instigated by a sermon by a Presbyterian minister, and easily passed by a Congress in the midst of the Red scare, so that it now reads: “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

More recently, I’ve been reading about Christians who do not, or did not, believe in saying the Pledge, and there seemed to be two overriding, and not mutually exclusive, reasons. One was like my early thinking, that it was untrue, and that one ought not to swear to a falsehood. More intriguing, though, is the idea that pledging allegiance to the flag equates to making an oath of loyalty to an earthly kingdom, a form of nationalistic idolatry.

Interestingly, the argument tends not to be a divide among the liberal/progressive church folks and evangelicals. Laurence Vance notes that “the United States is in fact about as far from being ‘under God’ as any country on the planet,” that it “leads the world in the incarceration rate, the total prison population, the divorce rate, car thefts, rapes, total crimes, illegal drug use, legal drug use, and Internet pornography production,” among other sins, reasons for refusing to say the pledge.

Conversely, as the Restored Church of God website points out: “Saluting the flag is merely a way of showing respect, and is not of and by itself an act of worship. God commands us, in Romans 13:1-7, to show honor and respect where they are deserved. We salute the flag not because it represents another god, but because it symbolizes the many blessings—freedom being just one—that the Eternal God has bestowed upon one’s nation.”

What say you? Is the Pledge of Allegiance a lie, idolatry or showing respect to the country? I’m particularly interested in how folks from beyond the US feel about similar pledges if in fact there are any in their countries.

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial