Spiga

Archive for March, 2008

Is the Apostle Paul a Bigot?

March 27, 08 by ed

Sparked by some brief, but troubling comments made by journalist Chris Hedges at a book promotion event, I began a little series about a week ago on some common misconceptions and concerns about the Bible. Here is the list of reasons Hedges listed when he cautioned against reading the Bible as the revelation of God:

  1. It was rewritten by Christians over time and especially at the Council of Nicea.
  2. The Bible is anti-Semitic.
  3. The Bible, Paul in particular, is bigoted toward homosexuals.
  4. The Bible supports genocide, especially in the case of the Canannites.

Today I’ll take a stab at the bigotry accusation. Of course this means I’ll once again have to revisit the controversial homosexual issue. In starting out, I think it will be most helpful to examine first what exactly a bigot is.

Dictionary.com says: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

The American Heritage Dictionary says: One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Curiously, I think we can apply this to Christians who sometimes refuse to listen to anyone who disagrees with their perspectives, however you can find people like that in every religion and nation. The hard part here is drawing a line between opinions/perspectives and the hard edge of bigotry. If we find passages in the Bible where Paul lists homosexual behavior as a sin, we do not necessarily have the same thing as bigotry. If a pacifist believes it is sinful to kill under any circumstances, does this belief make the pacifist bigoted toward the army? If a pastor says it is wrong to have sex outside of marriage, does this belief make him bigoted toward the thousands of people who do?

The distinction here is key, and the larger problem rests in how we have applied these texts. In other words, Paul is not a bigot, but we can take his words and use them to be bigoted.

Read the rest of this entry »

Stanley Fish Puts the Media in Its Place

March 24, 08 by ed

If you’ve grown weary of the media and it’s attempt to force candidates to denounce and renounce what other people have said, then you need to read the latest opinion piece by professor Stanley Fish:

This denouncing and renouncing game is simply not serious. It is a media-staged theater, produced not in response to genuine concerns – no one thinks that Obama is unpatriotic or that Clinton is a racist or that McCain is a right-wing bigot – but in response to the needs of a news cycle. First you do the outrage (did you see what X said?), then you put the question to the candidate (do you hereby denounce and renounce?), then you have a debate on the answer (Did he go far enough? Has she shut her husband up?), and then you do endless polls that quickly become the basis of a new round.

He goes in for the kill by praising Obama for his speech and gutting the media:

He [Obama] rejected Reverend Wright’s rants against the United States and against the white power-structure, but he refused to reject the man to whom he had looked for spiritual guidance. And he deplored the tendency “to pounce” on every “gaffe,” because, he said, if we continue to do that, we’ll just be “talking about some other distraction, and then another one, and then another one.”

The odd thing is that the press that produces these distractions and the populace that consumes them really believe they are discussing issues and participating in genuine political dialogue. But in fact they have abandoned genuine political dialogue and have committed themselves to a conversation that differs only in subject matter from conversations about Eliot Spitzer’s and David Paterson’s sex lives. It’s not politics; it’s titillation clothed in political garb.

It makes me glad that I generally skipped all of the coverage and analysis save for Obama’s speech itself. It’s like gossip on a national scale surrounding a high stakes “vote” for the class president.

Technorati Tags: - -

Another Year, Another Lent, Another Fast, Another Rabbit Card

March 23, 08 by ed

Easterbunny Easter is a little different in our home. While we are Christians who believe that the Resurrection is one of the most important holy days, if not THE most important holy day, we also plunge headlong into the rabbit craze of Easter. It’s not that we badly want to blend the new life Christians celebrate with ancient pagan rituals, fun though it seems for some. No, we use Easter to also celebrate our three rabbits: Eva, Baxter, and Evan–the jerk who eats our carpet.

So while we wind down our fasts, read through the abridged daily liturgy of the Divine Hours, and set the alarm for a ridiculously early hour for Easter sunrise service, we also stock up the mushiest, cutest, furriest bunny cards. It’s a competition to out-cute the other. This year I swept in with two adorable gray bunnies snuggling with a pink backdrop, thinking I had a lock on the competition. However, Julie countered with a beautiful brown bunny sitting alert in a field and glaring with that penetrating dark bunny eye, much like the one I’ve inserted at the top of this post.

So, yeah, we’re a bit strange about all of this. Of course we also finished up our Lenten fasts…

Read the rest of this entry »

Standing by the Cross

March 22, 08 by ed

Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary’s sister, Mary the wife of Cloppas, and Mary Magdalene stood by the cross in Jesus’ final hour. John mentions his own presence there almost as an afterthought with Jesus requesting that he care for his mother.

The Jewish leaders and people passing by jeer at Jesus. The soldiers gamble for Jesus’ clothing. The Sabbath was fast approaching with sun-down, and the Jewish leaders, though guilty of murder, sought to ensure that the bodies would be removed from the crosses before the Sabbath. The final moments of Jesus’ life approached rapidly. The small crowd gathered by the cross must have known that while death was inevitable at this point, their vigil would be far shorter than they probably expected.

Standing by the cross is lonely business.

Imagine, standing in such a public place, a hill outside the city gate, and identifying yourself with a convicted “criminal,” a criminal dying the most ignominious of deaths. We rightly focus on the suffering of Jesus and the way his death functioned as a sin offering. However, we should remember that very few of Jesus’ followers stood by him in his final hour.

There were five left.

The Jewish leaders must have felt pretty good about themselves.

Perhaps Jesus’ mother and Aunt weren’t necessarily even close followers at this point. Even if they were, they could at least be counted as family who wanted to be near a dying relative. As for the other two Mary’s and John, they could only claim an affection for Jesus, a belief in his teachings, and a loyalty to him. That was a dangerous place to be. Their reputations were no doubt soiled by this literal stand.

Technorati tags: , , ,

Maundy Thursday: Setting Aside Power

March 20, 08 by ed

It’s a cold, rainy, windy Maundy or Holy Thursday here in Vermont. According to Wikipedia, Maundy Thursday is the

The feast or holy day falling on the Thursday before Easter that commemorates the Last Supper of Jesus Christ with the Apostles. It is the fifth day of Holy Week, and is preceded by Holy Wednesday and followed by Good Friday.

On this day four events are commemorated: the washing of the Disciples’ feet by Jesus Christ, the institution of the Mystery of the Holy Eucharist at the Last Supper, the agony of Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane, the betrayal of Christ by Judas Iscariot.

That’s a  lot of events to cram into one day. In observance of Maundy Thursday I’ve been reading the account of the last supper in the Gospel of John. The last week of Jesus’ life occupies a huge amount of space in John’s Gospel and much of John’s material is unique.

Right off the bat in John 13, just as things are warming up, John makes a startling statement about Jesus:

Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God. (John 13:3 NIV)

This is what John wants us to know right before Jesus starts washing everyone’s feet: he had all power, but he still humbly served his followers and remained committed to dying for our sins. Keep in mind that execution on a cross in Jesus’ time was a reminder of Rome’s power, but in Jesus the cross became a symbol of power set aside, power restrained, power held up until the fullness of time: the time of the Resurrection.

Technorati Tags: - - -

Ben Witherington on Depak Chopra’s Latest

March 19, 08 by ed

The other day at the book store I was looking at the top 10 hard back bestsellers and sure enough another Depak Chopra book was listed as number one: The Third Jesus. I checked out the dust jacket and it seemed to be as I suspected, another new age-take on Jesus that draws on the love and redemption of Jesus, but sort of skips over the cost of discipleship and the road to the cross.

The language is all spirituality and enlightenment, which can be applied to Jesus in a few ways, but does not capture the complete, orthodox picture the Bible and historic church give us about Jesus.

Noted Biblical scholar Ben Witherington has written up a review of the book at his blog and comes to this conclusion:

Jesus did not, and does not come to take us to a higher spiritual plane, so that we might better get in touch with the little bit of God that is in us all or our own God-consciousness. Indeed, he seeks to lead us to have a relationship with the God he called Abba who is wholly other, and who urges us to recognize the Creator Creature distinction. We are not God, nor is God inherently in us or a part of our being. The end result of navel gazing is that we may well get more in touch with ‘our inner child’, but we do not get more in touch with the ‘outer’ God who created the universe and all that is in it. The former sort of spirituality is a form of narcissism, or at its worse, self- worship. The latter form of spirituality reinforces the Creator/creature distinction and leads to worship of the one true God.

I don’t claim to have Jesus all figured out. I don’t claim that people can’t learn from Jesus even if they won’t become committed followers of Jesus. However, I do not believe Chopra presents an accurate view of Jesus with his Biblical grab-bag approach.  Of course the main difference here is my Christian tradition values the Biblical witness and the traditions passed down throughout Christian history. Chopra is coming from a completely different angle, an angle that I think misses out on the life-changing revelation of God and call to discipleship.

Amy Sedaris and Rabbits. Need I Say More?

March 19, 08 by ed

This ad for Microsoft Office with Amy Sedaris may be one of the funniest commercials ever. And in case you’re wondering, there is a house rabbit society. We are members and rabbit owners.

A Note to White American Christians: We Don’t Own Theology

March 19, 08 by ed

In the latest round of political mud-slinging, white Americans have come face to face with a perspective other than their own, a counter-narrative that has the “audacity” of saying “God damn America.”

Who could think, let alone say such a thing?

Well, a lot of people actually. In this case the much publicized line, taken out of context, taken out of its place in culture, history, theology, and every other factor that would help it make sense, was made by an African American pastor who has been struggling for equality for his people and who preaches a form of theology called Black Liberation Theology.

It’s not the kind of theology that will make white people feel all that comfortable because it seeks to address the wrongs dealt against African Americans right up to the present day. One need only visit the neighborhoods of Kensington or West Philadelphia to get a sense of how America has abandoned the African Americans and other minorities who inhabit our inner cities. NPR has a great story with some insights from theology professor Dwight Hopkins:

“Jesus says my mission is to eradicate poverty and to bring about freedom and liberation for the oppressed,” Hopkins says. “And most Christian pastors in America skip over that part of the book.”

Hopkins attends Trinity United Church of Christ, where Rev. Wright just retired as pastor. In the now-famous sermon from 2003, Wright said black people’s troubles are a result of racism that still exists in America, crying out, “No, no, no, not God bless America! God damn America — that’s in the Bible — for killing innocent people.”

According to Hopkins, that was theological wordplay — because the word “damn” is straight out of the Bible and has a specific meaning in the original Hebrew.

“It means a sacred condemnation by God to a wayward nation who has strayed from issues of justice, strayed from issues of peace, strayed from issues of reconciliation,” Hopkins says.

That narrative runs against the flow of white Chritians on the right who focus on the faith of the founding fathers, forgetting that our nation was made prosperous in its early years in part because of the slave trade. Even after slavery was abolished close to 100 years of institutionalized racism followed. These are deep, dark sins that cannot be reconciled simply with the passage of a law. And so if white people, such as myself, have a hard understanding the sermon of a black liberation preacher, I assure that the black liberation preacher doesn’t understand why some Christians persist in calling our country a “Christian nation.”

Theologian Diana Butler Bass offers her own take on this issue:

As MSNBC, CNN, and FOX endlessly play the tape of Rev. Wright’s “radical” sermons today, I do not hear the words of a “dangerous” preacher (at least any more dangerous than any preacher who takes the Gospel seriously!) No, I hear the long tradition that Jeremiah Wright has inherited from his ancestors. I hear prophetic critique. I hear Frederick Douglass. And, mostly, I hear the Gospel slant—I hear it from an angle that is not natural to me. It is good to hear that slant.

That is not, of course, comfortable for white people. Nor is it easily understood in sound bites. It does not easily fit in a contemporary political campaign. But it is a deep spiritual river in American faith and culture, a river that—as I had to learn—flows from the throne of God.

And lest we pluck splinters amidst the planks in our own eyes, we should heed the words of Frank Schaeffer, son of Evangelical theologian and bulwark of the religious right Francis Schaeffer. He shares some quotes from his father’s writing, quotes that should frighten us far more than anything coming out of Liberation Theology:

Consider a few passages from my father’s immensely influential America-bashing book A Christian Manifesto. It sailed under the radar of the major media who, back when it was published in 1980, were not paying particular attention to best-selling religious books. Nevertheless it sold more than a million copies.
Here’s Dad writing in his chapter on civil disobedience:

‘If there is a legitimate reason for the use of force [against the US government]… then at a certain point force is justifiable.’

And this:

‘In the United States the materialistic, humanistic world view is being taught exclusively in most state schools… There is an obvious parallel between this and the situation in Russia [the USSR]. And we really must not be blind to the fact that indeed in the public schools in the United States all religious influence is as forcibly forbidden as in the Soviet Union….’

Then this:

‘There does come a time when force, even physical force, is appropriate… A true Christian in Hitler’s Germany and in the occupied countries should have defied the false and counterfeit state. This brings us to a current issue that is crucial for the future of the church in the United States, the issue of abortion… It is time we consciously realize that when any office commands what is contrary to God’s law it abrogates it’s authority. And our loyalty to the God who gave this law then requires that we make the appropriate response in that situation…’

Was any conservative political leader associated with Dad running for cover? Far from it. Dad was a frequent guest of the Kemps, had lunch with the Fords, stayed in the White House as their guest, he met with Reagan, helped Dr. C. Everett Koop become Surgeon General. (I went on the 700 Club several times to generate support for Koop).

So while it’s hard for a white person to truly relate to the experiences of African Americans, we should be slow to judge that which we do not understand.

Technorati Tags: - - - -

For the Last Time: The Bible is Not Anti-Semitic

March 18, 08 by ed

I thought this has been made abundantly clear over the past 50+ years, especially with the renewed interest in the Jewish roots of Christianity (renewed with Sanders and continued by mainstream pastors such as Bell). However, I recently heard an accusation that the Bible should not be taken seriously because it has anti-Semitic statements, such as the time that Jesus calls some Jewish leaders a brood of vipers.

So just in case there is any doubt, ambiguity, or accusation remaining here, let me address this head-on: the Bible is not anti-Semitic.

Keep in mind that the Bible records stuff, lots of stuff that it does not necessarily endorse as something we should do. Solomon had many wives, Ezekiel walked around half-naked, and then there’s Jesus and John the Baptist. Both called a very select group of Jewish leaders a “Brood of vipers.” Jesus and John were Jews as well, so it isn’t that they were being racist against the Jewish people. Also, the simple fact that they are recorded insulting these leaders who were essentially oppressing, misleading, and exploiting the people, not to mention who eventually arranged to have Jesus killed, does not mean that the Bible now tells us to use these choice words for any old Jew we meet.

There was a very clear conflict between the Pharisees/Sadducees and Jesus/John. Jesus and John were calling them out for their oppression of the Jewish people, challenging their sin in public. It’s not pretty. It’s not something they did  lightly. However, it is preposterous to assert that this event shows us what the writers of the Bible thought of Jews. The writers of the Bible were Jews for crying out loud!

Technorati Tags: - -

Rewriting the Bible

March 17, 08 by ed

Besides the continual criticism of Bart Ehrman, author of Misquoting Jesus and God’s Problem among other books, journalist Chris Hedges threw in his two cents at a recent book event to promote his latest work I Don’t Believe in Atheists. When I mentioned the innovative ministry of social justice advocate and Evangelical Christian Jim Wallis, Hedges said he has one major problem with Wallis: Wallis believes the Bible is inspired by God.

He proceeded to list a number of reasons why it’s ridiculous to believe the Bible is inspired by God:

  1. It was rewritten by Christians over time and especially at the Council of Nicea.
  2. The Bible is anti-Semitic.
  3. The Bible is bigoted toward homosexuals.
  4. The Bible supports genocide, especially in the case of the Canannites.

Ehrman would no doubt agree for the most part with this list, especially the first point that has been his bread and butter as a former Evangelical turned agnostic due to his heavy reliance of inerrancy and the subsequent problems he found in the various manuscripts of the Biblical text. If you do a search of my blog, you’ll find a few other articles written in response to Ehrman, but now I’d like to focus on the some of the charges leveled by Hedges. I’ll start with his claim that the Bible was rewritten by Christians with an agenda.

Read the rest of this entry »

Is Hedges Right about the Christian Right?

March 14, 08 by ed

I’m still thinking through the presentation by Chris Hedges last night and I did a little digging into some interviews with him. For instance, he was interviewed a little over a year ago about his book American Fascists on Talk of the Nation. I was thinking that he was perhaps a bit rough on Christians, but in the interview on Talk of the Nation I think he does say the people on the far right he’s worried about are only about 10% of Christians. However he does fear the influence of the fringes on the rest of Christians on the right who may not be so extreme.

I have to say that I think he’s overreacting to Christians on the extreme end of our faith. He has clearly encountered some disturbing streams in fundamentalist Christianity, but I don’t think he’s aware that even some Evangelicals on the right are put off by the more extreme fundamentalists he describes in his interview. This is not to mention Christians more to the center and to the right.

Hedges seems to fear that the far right will gain more and more power and influence, eventually creating an intolerant America where homosexuals are persecuted, if not executed, everyone is forced to accept the Christian ideology, and all laws are run through the far right’s interpretive grid.

Sensationalist? I think so. As a Christian who’s more to the middle, I can’t see the far right taking over the middle. If anything, I see the right imploding upon itself as it corners itself into increasing obscurity and irrelevance. I’m not a reporter, but I am a Christian, so that’s my $.02.

I’m sure that Hedges hopes I’m right…

Chris Hedges on What Christians and Atheists Have in Common

March 13, 08 by ed

atheists

UPDATE: I’ve added some additional reflections on this post here.

Christians and atheists have something in common.

I just heard this from author, journalist, and divinity school graduate Chris Hedges at the Northshire Bookstore. He was giving a talk on his latest book I Don’t Believe in Atheists, a challenge to the new atheism of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris. After spending two years researching the Christian right for his book American Fascists, Hedges was asked to debate one of these authors and in the course of his preparation he was deeply disturbed by what he found.

While Hedges has no problem with atheists, and actually has a liberal Christian background that he is very proud of, he is taking aim at the philosophy behind these scientists who espouse a philosophy that is dangerous to our society, much like the religious right. Before I dig into that, I would first like to give a little background on Hedges.

Chris Hedges has a liberal theological background. In his talk tonight he shared that he agrees with Einstein’s view of God, namely that God exists, but is not personal in the traditional Christian sense. He graduated from Harvard with a Divinity Degree and has been all over the world for the past 20 years covering numerous military conflicts and global terrorism. His interaction with war and the influence of religion has proven quite instructive in his evaluation of atheists and the Christian right.

So what exactly do atheists and Christians have in common?

Read the rest of this entry »

Sharpening the Focus of the Emerging Church

March 13, 08 by ed

There’s a great article at Publisher’s Weekly that not only addresses what it actually means for a book to be marketed as Emergent or Emerging. The best part of the article is the part where the author states:

What I fear will be next is a trend of blurring Emergent ideas with self-help. It’s easy to see how publishers would find this marriage irresistible: why not join an appealingly edgy hipster ethos with those stock-in-trade Christian books that promise improved prayer life, more effective parenting, and better abs in 30 days? But Emergent folks deserve more than becoming the book equivalent of a glossy infomercial. I’m not the only one who’s uncomfortable: I can, in an utterly un-postmodern appeal to an Authority Figure, quote Brian McLaren on the subject: “It’s not about the church meeting your needs; it’s about joining the mission of God’s people to meet the world’s needs.”

I jumped in with my own thoughts:

“If I can offer some sweeping generalizations… Fundamentalists tried to preserve the faith. Evangelicals tried to take that faith to individuals. Emerging Christians are trying to take that faith to beyond individuals into the very fabric of our society.”

What State Are You In?

March 13, 08 by ed

Telephone conversation today…

Call Center: “What organization are you calling from?”

Me: “The Southern Vermont Business Name

Call Center: “What state are you in?

Me: “Vermont”

I really hope this guy wasn’t from America.

The Spitzers: Sacrifice, Betrayal, and Brokenness

March 12, 08 by ed

I’ve been wondering what exactly is going on behind the scene with the Spitzers, which really is none of my business, but you can’t help wondering what the heck his wife Silda is thinking right now. The New York Times has an interesting article revealing some of the contours of the Spitzer marriage, particularly that Eliot never forgot to be grateful for the sacrifices she has made for his career.

I think this provides a more humanizing element to this situation that will help us pray for them as a family, even as the former governor must clean up the mess he has made.