Bold Faith Type

August 29, 2007

What's new in the neighborhood? Disaster edition

Boulevard of Broken Dreams with Hurricane Katrina footage

JSpot celebrates Katrina's second birthday with some whithering posts. One the rhetoric vs. the reality and also on the role of women in the recovery.

And so does Pam's House Blend, drawing attention to indicting video of the still-broken Gulf Coast: To get a true sense of what it is like two years later, go to Voices from the Gulf from ColorofChange.org -- unvarnished video perspectives from the region.

On the Gulf Coast, one of the sharpest men in show biz, Harry Shearer has been on the hurricane recovery beat for two years now. At the HuffPo, he writes: "Along with other New Orleanians, I've been amazed at the lack of alacrity with which both Republicans and Democrats have approached the problem of a federally caused flood that destroyed or damaged hundreds of thousands of homes, wrecking whole neighborhoods and communities, and spinning half a city's population into involuntary, semi-permanent exile. Now the answer becomes clear: the post-Katrina flooding just didn't destroy enough houses."

Faithfully Liberal interviews Rev. Tim Ahrens, senior pastor at First Church in Columbus, Ohio and the leader of We Believe Ohio, which played a significant role in balancing out the religious voice in 2006 and mitigating the effect of the right-wing Patriot Pastors network. If you're interested in the futures of faith in American public life, check out his words here:

First, I would say, the term “liberal” is over used and outdated. We are sometimes referred to as progressive people of faith. But, like Thomas Paine over 200 years ago, I feel like we are people of faith and conscience with “Common Sense.” It is common sense to care for the common good of all your state’s citizens.

We have been silent too long in the mainline traditions of Protestantism, Catholicism, Islam, and Judaism. We are folks who believe in the goodness of humanity and quietly go about living in the pathway of faith. However, we have given away the media and various mediums of communications to those who are hi-jacking our faith and abusing it in the process. We need to stand up, speak out, and be a prophetic witness for Christ - and our various traditions of faith in a growing and diverse religious America.

Mother Jones' recent article "Hillary's Prayer" on Sen. Clinton's "Fellowship faith" has stirred up some controversy. Pastor Dan sees her at best a "useful idiot" and wonders why she is hanging around "creeps." But over at Faithful Democrats, Eric Sapp writes, "This article demonstrates how the fear of the unknown can lead to accusations that are nothing short of surreal. It shows how completely clueless some on the left are about people of faith...and it shows how badly damaged we have allowed the witness of the Church to become where the mere mention of Christ's name can generate such fear."

I usually enjoy a Jeff Sharlet article and appreciate the nuance he brings to reporting on the often-strange cultures of religion. But this piece came across as reaching too hard for a hook and ended up hinting at a vast bible study conspiracy. Faith in Public Life's Dan critiqued the article pessimism toward "common ground issues" and Sharlet defended his skepticism, stating: "There have been instances where liberals have maintained their liberalism, and instances where conservatives who were also bigots have abandoned certain bigotries, but none where conservatives have moved leftward on any philosophical or political issue."

My contention is that the article stirs up worries that by praying with "those people," Sen. Clinton is compromising. That above all else she is a true believer in her own ability to triangulate. And while there's little doubt about her not being the most liberal senator and candidate for president, the article would prove stronger not by pulling a half "Colson" and hinting at her compromises with the Hill faithful, but rather by showing that this mixing has led to significant (i.e., beyond flag burning) policy moves rightward. I guess that I'm less worried about whispers about how, and who with, a politico prays and I am more interested in what my representative does, and for whom. As a believer, I actually compare what a politician does, to my moral convictions, not who they sometimes pray around.

The Rev. Deb Haffner shares her sex and religion perspective regarding Sen. Craig's closeted homosexuality:

Because in the world that I am working for he would be able to affirm his sexual orientation whatever it is, have meaningful intimate relationships, and engage in moral, ethical sexual behavior. The values he espoused about sexuality would be the values he lived.

God's Politics has a back-to-school reading list.

Islamicate on Bush and torture.

Thank you notes from New Orleans

A series of benefactors
Posted by Johnny Jackson, Jr. August 29, 2007 2:16AM

My first encounter with an angel who happen to be members of a fishing club from the Baton Rouge area. I was caught in the flood waters of hurricane Katrine with my 81 years old mother, my mentally and physically challenged brother and my fragile nephew at my mothers two story home in the Press Park community of the upper 9th ward.

They rescued us in the dark of early morning and risk their lives trying to get her and my brother in the small boat. Even after two failed efforts, they stayed until all of us were safe in the small boat. After two day of not seeing anyone coming to provide any assistance, truly they were Angels to us.


When works bring faith
Posted by Barbara Evans August 29, 2007 2:14AM

I am a single mom with 2 children. My house was badly damaged by Katrina. It got flooded and had significant roof damage which caused major destruction upstairs and down. Super Bowl Sunday I was introduced to a guy, interested in seeing my house.

After seeing the devastation, he said he wanted to help me, calling himself a real "handy man."

I thought his offer would only last a short time. He lived 1 1/2 hours away from my house. He worked on my house approximately 4-5 days a week for 9 months. He repaired my whole house; construction, electrical, plumbing,and painting.He did all this in his spare time; he had a full time job 8:00 to 5:00.

He would work long hours, sometimes till 2 a.m. and then still have to drive home.

He was determined to get us out of the FEMA trailer as soon as possible. He never accepted money; he just wanted to do his part to help. I don't know why I was chosen, but I don't think I could have done it without him. This man was my guardian angel and I will forever be grateful.

A gathering of angels
Posted by Bill Sanchez August 29, 2007 1:54AM

Touched by an angel? How about touched by 15 Angels? The capitalization on the term Angels was no accident. The group of teenagers that sacrificed not only their summer, but exposed themselves to untold hazards to come here and gut houses after Hurricane Katrina restored my faith in the future of this country.

One,in fact, had to be taken to the hospital with a severe infection of a minor cut. These heaven sent young volunteers not only gutted our house, they did it with grace and dignity, asking that one of us be present to preserve whatever of value (monetarily or sentimentally) they uncovered. There were more sentimental items than valuables left, I assure you.

Perhaps the most moving jesture they made was a purely personal one. As they cleaned out my office, they noted the loss of several Bibles and study references I had. These wonderful kids autographed and anotated a Bible they had been given to use for group devotions and presented it to my wife. I will never forget this act because it hepled me reach deep down inside and open up the door of my own faith that had almost closed. They provided me with the slogan that brought me through this mess, "I lost everything but my faith".

Therefore, shamelessly do I solicit everyone to contribute to "Samaritan's Purse", the organization that sponsored these Angels on their mission of mercy. They themselves would accept nothing in return, not even a warm home cooked meal my wife offered.

I have no affiliation with that organization other than a warm spot in my heart that not even the Artic Circle could freeze over. I will cherish that Bible the rest of my life.

August 28, 2007

Poverty in America

The Census Bureau’s annual social and economic data report on income, poverty and health insurance came out today, bringing mixed news about Americans’ unmet needs. On the plus side, the poverty rate fell from 12.6 percent to 12.3 percent -- 490,000 fewer people living in poverty. On the minus side, the poverty rate was still 12.3 percent, or 36,460,000 people.

One thing that often gets lost when we talk about poverty is the human face of it. Poverty is not a percentage. It’s a little girl who goes to school when she’s sick because she needs the free lunch. It’s a father who knocks on a neighbor’s door to ask for food for his children. It’s a family of four living in a tiny, noxious FEMA trailer that bakes in the sun and trembles in the wind. It’s a daily state of privation and insecurity endured by 36.5 million Americans, and the fact that we accept it is a serious moral issue. The decline in poverty is good news for 490,000 people, but that is dwarfed by the bad news of 36.5 million people still unable to meet their needs. We need to remember that when we order our political priorities.

PS, the adequacy of the Census Bureau’s poverty threshold isn’t something to be taken as valid on its face, but that’s a topic for another post.

Re-remembering the Gulf Coast: After two visits this summer

By Kristine G

In June I traveled to New Orleans and Long Beach, Miss., with The Beatitudes Society as a part of the annual Service Learning Trip. I had read that the trip's purpose was to make prophetic witnesses of those who chose to participate. I read that a prophetic witness is one who "sees what's wrong in society and dares to speak up and act for change, dares to dream God's dream of justice on earth." I also read that it would be a life transforming opportunity, but I had no idea just how life transforming it would be.

What I saw and heard that week outraged me. I could not believe that two years after the hurricane, piles of debris still sat on the side of the road. I could not believe that insurance companies could tell people that they wouldn't be able to rebuild their homes because their policies only had wind coverage and flooding had destroyed their homes. I could not believe that hospitals were closed and strip malls were open. I could not believe that people were still living in trailers. And what shocked me the most was that I had no idea any of this was still going on.

My ignorance embarrassed me. I knew what was going on in Iraq, and Africa, and Israel/Palestine. I knew about global warming and fair trade and immigration. And yet somehow the Gulf Coast went unnoticed and unrecognized. Two years after the storm, the Gulf Coast holds barely any resemblance to what it was pre-Katrina. Life is not back to normal. Children that went to schools that were destroyed attend now-overcrowded schools that survived; families of four live in tiny, cramped trailers; affordable housing has disappeared; homes are still gutted and empty; and people have yet to rebuild their lives. When you look into the faces of the people who are suffering, you realize that you cannot forget them any longer.

I resolved that week not to forget. I left promising to tell the stories, to tell of what I saw and heard and felt. But I also left with a distinct calling to go back. So I did.
__________

In August I returned to Camp Coast Care in Mississippi to help rebuild houses for another week. And when I came back home, I knew that I would return again. The Gulf Coast changed my life, just as my reading predicted. I now plan on doing mental health disaster relief work -- I've just started a master's program in mental health counseling in order to do so, because I want to help people rebuild their lives after disasters like Katrina and I want to be a part of making sure they are not overlooked or forgotten.

As we approach the two year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, we must again resolve not to forget. We must dare to speak up and act for change. We must become prophetic witnesses of God's dream for justice on earth, and in the Gulf Coast.

Kristine Galli is a graduate student at Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California.

August 27, 2007

"The question that simply won't go away"

Yesterday I appeared on Air America's State of Belief with Welton Gaddy to discuss the news media's handling of questions about presidential candidates' religious faiths, which I blogged about last week.

Rev. Gaddy did a good job of pushing me to explain why I was glad last week's Iowa debate featured a question on the candidates' beliefs about the power of prayer. In defense of the validity of asking personal questions about candidates' faiths, I said

People aren't electing platforms, they're electing other human beings, and they really want to get a sense of who these human beings are. Identity is a very significant component of political campaigns, and this is one manifestation of that.

I stand by that, but at this early stage of the presidential campaign, the media and the electorate haven't quite defined the role of religion and the proper way in which to discuss it, and you don't have to look very hard for divergent opinions.

In Saturday's Boston Herald, Scripps Howard columnist Bonnie Erbe said

If the Democrats are going to make “running against Bush” a hallmark of the ’08 campaign, they must promise to rebuild the now-wrecked wall between church and state. They must also pledge to keep their own religious beliefs out of government policy-making.
Dismayingly, Sunday’s debate showed some Democratic front-runners still feel the need to cater to the religious right.[emphasis added]

Erbe then critiques the candidates' responses to the question about whether they believed prayer could prevent natural disasters. She had kind words only for Edwards and Richardson, calling Edwards "a deeply religious man, so confident in the power of his convictions that he can separate them from his role as a government official," and Richardson courageous and "surprisingly impressive."

But Richardson said his sense of social justice is rooted in his Roman Catholic faith. So does Erbe not believe Richardson should allow his sense of social justice to influence his policy positions? I'd think not and hope not. She probably didn't mean to say that, but it's a clear implication.

Erbe's column is important because it's a great example of the consequences of the religious right's polarization of America. After seven years of an administration guided by a messianic foreign policy and a fundamentalist-influenced domestic agenda, she says that "a national leader’s belief that his (or her) policies are underwritten by God should be viewed in the same ominous light as a cross on fire." The problem is her unspoken assumption that because religious motivation lay behind the Bush administration's destructive policies, religiously motivated policies are inherently bad.

The negative results of Bush's conservative religious convictions does not preclude the possibility that a future president's progressive religious beliefs could inspire him or her to advance an agenda for the common good that leaves our nation and our world a better place. It's tragic that Erbe sees "running against Bush" not as running against war, division, and pollution, but as running away from faith. It doesn't have to be that way, and we need to talk about faith in order to reclaim it.

View God's Christian Warriors

In case you missed it, feel free to watch Christiane Amanpour's CNN documentary, God's Christian Warriors below:

God's Compromised Warriors

Soon I'll have the full installment of CNN's God's Christian Warriors up, but I wanted to point out -- in a quick montage below -- a theme that ties all three the Jewish, Muslim and Christian right together: the repeated compromise of morality for MORALITY.

Of course compromise is the mechanism of democratic politics and leads to the natural dilution of power among interest groups. But on the religious right among the three monotheistic religions, the desire to not compromise like the rest of the "world" leads to an interesting pattern of internal compromises of personal theology over personal morality. Lying to build settlements, blowing up people to stop the violence, advocating war while believing in the Prince of Peace.

This is classic ends-over-means morality.

And, of course, this sort of ethical compromise is not news to anyone who's followed the rise of the religious right, but now the question is: how do we turn the rubberneck of the media away from this religious wreckage and back to the growing movement of Jews, Muslims and Christians who know how to get to the voting booth without c(r)ashing in their values?

In this eight minute montage, the news is not that the violent rhetoric of fundamentalism leads to both state-sponsored violence (Iraq war and '67) and terrorism, but how, in political acts, True Believers can lose their morality to their theology. See for instance, the early juxtaposition of Sunday-school teaching Jimmy Carter with barely church-attending Ronald Reagan. From there onward, the rhetoric of war, of no compromise, leads repeatedly to an Abramoff-esque morality of saving and then selling out souls for personal gain.

August 24, 2007

Common Ground Isn't Always on the Right

A recent Mother Jones article (not yet online) about Hillary Clinton’s membership in the secretive Fellowship prayer group and the relationship between her faith and her politics makes some fair observations, but it is also laden with misunderstanding and insinuation.

A conspicuous example is the contention that when the Fellowship “convinces politicians they can transcend left and right with an ecumenical faith that rises above politics...the politics always move rightward.”

By its very nature, a politics that transcends left and right requires an ideological flexibility and innovative mindset that enables us to find common ground. This can incorporate several dynamics: liberals moving right, conservatives moving left, finding original solutions, recognizing shared ideals, or any combination of these. To say that among Senate coreligionists the politics always moves rightward ignores not only these other possibilities, but also the recent record of distinctly leftward shifts.

Take health care. Conservatives will always stick to their rhetorical guns about health savings accounts, consumer choice and such, but look at their votes. Shortly before the August recess, 18 Republicans voted for a Democratic program to spend $35 billion to cover 9 million uninsured children, not with tax credits or subsidized health savings accounts, but at the full expense of federal and state governments. That is a leftward swing, even if it’s not universal healthcare.

Take global warming. While we don’t yet have greenhouse gas emission caps or a carbon tax, religious groups and scientific consensus are pressing Republican Senators leftward into the realm of reality. James Inhofe is a stalwart of climate change denial, but only a few years ago his was considered a mainstream conservative position. Talk is cheap, but it’s hard to say there’s been a rightward swing when their entire frame on the most pressing and financially consequential issue of our era has been discredited.

It is certainly possible for a shadowy religious group to exert rightward pressure on liberal members who seek common ground solutions. The Mother Jones article even provides a couple of examples. However, to say that these liberals bridge builders always become more conservative is to ignore the fact that the common ground isn’t always found on the right.

August 22, 2007

God's Jewish Warriors and the problem with pragmatism

Like many Americans, my heart's an idealist and my head's a pragmatist on things religious and political. I often search for ways to split the difference between these two all too often separate states of being. However, last night Christiane Amanpour showed the danger that occurs when religious idealism and political pragmatism substitute soul above everything else. It's clear in the people that she interviews who participate in the Israeli occupation that when a humans lie, preemptively attack, and occupy, they lose their head and their heart in the process.

She set it up with this contrast of two warriors on the same side in 1967. . .

But it goes beyond the personal, to explore the last four decade of Jewish history that these individuals influenced -- in part -- through their Godly warring. During the interviews with the settlers, one cannot miss the struggle in the faithful as they admit that they lied and killed in a pragmatic pact with their ideals. As the Times noted, the most interesting aspect of this is the footage of the fund raising in America that support this cultural war. The mix of money and religio-political strategy should give folks of any faith -- liberal or conservative -- pause at the cost to morality and dignity that comes with the territory.

As evangelical blogger Peace and Piety writes: "Watching this, I found myself engulfed in disbelief, awe and amazement at what faith can accomplish. When faith is used to try and transform the masses, it destroys civilizations, neighborhoods, homes, cities, kills children and demolishes peace- to say the very least."

Yale student Baptist Like Me notes that as a part of the God's Warriors documentary Madeline Albright gave an interview, titled here as On Religion in Politics: Ignore It "At Our Peril.' She adds, "I'm not really a partisan person, and even though I would never have voted for her Baptist boss and I long for a compelling, ethical pro-life voice to emerge in her party, I didn't boycott or picket Madeleine Albright when she came to Yale a few years ago. I really admire the Secratary (sic) for many reasons, and I think this new interview, part of CNN's "God's Warriors" series, is a very good read."

Methodist seminarian Facilitating Paradox found the topics covered to be evocative of other less prime time work on the Middle East, writing:

her documentary reminded me of the similar reporting of Bill Moyers and others on the subject. I've heard of AIPAC before, heard of its power, and knew that illegal settlements were the persistent problem in any Middle East peace process. I've read and heard enough Rabbi Michael Lerner to know that Israelis are just as much in the wrong as any Palestinian. I have a good deal of respect for President Jimmy Carter and his analysis of the situation. But how many other people are already aware of these things? This was the surprise to me: that I was watching this on CNN on primetime. How many people would have their eyes opened? How many people saw these things and heard these stories for the first time? Hopefully millions.

The Two State Peace Plan promotin' OneVoice blog got to

"thinking about how many people there are in the world NOT engaged in violence and enmeshed in “holy wars,” but are actually working to make things better.Extremists make a lot of noise and carry out their initiatives with a kind of unmatched zeal, dedication, and persistence. They make so much noise, in fact, that they very easily drown out the voices of those calling for tolerance, moderation, nonviolence, and pragmatic steps toward a less conflict-driven and conflict-ridden world.

Thus, we come back to pragmatism. But perhaps a different kind, not the sort where the ends justify the means, rather the ideal of a pragmatism deployed which finds hope in ethnic and metaphysical difference and always negotiates to keep heads cool and hearts beating on. Because as that old Federalist "blogger" James Madison wrote in famous paper number ten:

"Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time, must be prevented; or the majority, having such co-existent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together. . . ."

Although the embed has been disabled, you can still watch the whole first night: God's Jewish Warriors here.

And if you're watching tonight's installment, let us know what you think of God's Warriors and the issues raised.

August 21, 2007

Candidates probed on the power of prayer at debate

On Sunday's edition of ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos the Democratic candidates answered a viewer's emailed question about their faith: "My question is to understand each candidate's view of a personal God. Do they believe that, through the power of prayer, disasters like Hurricane Katrina or the Minnesota bridge collapse could have been prevented or lessened?"

Interesting that the viewer -- and the moderator -- chose to ask this question. It's not about how faith informs policy or civic values. Instead it concerns what I would consider a more private aspect of faith (I am not an evangelical). This was not the first time the Democratic candidates have been asked such a personal, audience-submitted question. It reflects a desire to know not just what the candidates would do in trying situations, but also who they are.

Notice how all the candidates (well, at least the ones who actually answered the question) essentially answered "no." I'd like to think the American people want a president who will make sure the levees are manned instead of only praying while a hurricane is bearing down.

But even if the questioner wanted to hear otherwise, I'm glad sure he asked the question. Are you? Do questions like this help give you a better idea of WHO these candidates who are bidding to be your president ARE? Or is this kind of information irrelevant to your vote?

God's Warriors Today

Reflecting on this week's six-hour prime time series, God's Warriors, CNN's Christiane Amanpour says, "I did come away with a sense that we -- or those people who don't want to see religion in politics and culture -- if we don't look into it and see what is going on, we're in danger of missing it and not be able to react to it properly."

Last night I attended a dinner party, packed mostly with graduate students in religion. One student mentioned an article that he was writing on the recent spate of New Atheism. A budding scholar of the Early Modern period, the question he seeks to answer is, why now? Atheists have been around to a louder or softer degree for centuries. And the title of the article hints at his answer: Religion after 9/11.

As has happened in other times of national, even international crises, the metaphysical battle lines between good and bad become more political than pious. (See the Lisbon earthquake, the Spanish Armada, the Thirty Years War.) Karen Armstrong's The Battle for God: A History of Fundamentalism gets at this human habit to see in times of trouble a Time of Trouble. If there's one thing that al Qaeda, Likud, and the Patriot Pastors of Ohio agree upon, it's that they are on the good side of a Big War.

Christiane Amanpour sets out to explore this religious warrior mentality and examine “ the intersection between religion and politics and the effects of Christianity, Islam and Judaism on politics, culture and public life.” In this preview, Amanpour talks with the late Rev. Jerry Falwell shortly before his passing, about his fight against abortion and confronts him on his disgusting claim that 9/11 was caused by America’s tolerance of homosexuals. It also looks at other Christian zealots who have bombed abortion clinics and murder doctors who perform them in the name of religion."

The documentaries will air beginning Tuesday, August 21 through Thursday, August 23, at 9 p.m. ET.

Oh, and the dinner? Some pro-life Catholics argued over the Supreme Court with some pro-choice Protestants and everyone declared that the desert brownies were divine.

August 20, 2007

Elvira Arellano: mother, activist, deportee

On Sunday the U.S. government deported Elvira Arellano, 32-year-old undocumented immigrant, separating her from 8-year-old son Saul, who is a U.S. citizen. He's now staying with his family's pastor in Chicago.

Elvira is an iconic advocate of immigrant parents' rights who had taken sanctuary openly in a Chicago Methodist church for the past year. Last week she held a news conference to announce that she was leaving the church that had granted her safe harbor, and on Sunday she spoke at a rally in Los Angeles before Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers took her to Tijuana.

She was forceful enough and brave enough to stand up and demand notice. That's the only reason her deportation was newsworthy. The uncounted masses of families pulled apart by deportation don't makes headlines and are invisible to most of us. Perhaps that's why we tolerate it.

Saul Arellano is a U.S. citizen, and his government took his mom away, even though she had worked hard, supported her young son, stolen nothing, and hurt no one. This is the status quo, and it is intolerable. Failing to establish a pathway to inclusion for America's 12 million undocumented immigrants is endorsing the breakup of millions of families. This is an essential fact of immigration policy, and no amount of rhetoric will change it. I don't know Saul, but I know he wants his mom back. And I know he deserves her.

What's really behind creation care?

This post on creation care is also up on The Huffington Post. I wrote it after listening to "God is Green," Mars Hill Church's five-part July sermon series. Go to the Huffington Post entry if you want to listen to the audio clips from the sermons.

Wednesday's Washington Post featured an article about evangelical Christians' growing concern with global warming and, more generally, environmentalism. The article explained the development mostly in terms of political maneuvering amongst leaders, mainly "a years-long international campaign by British bishops and leaders of major U.S. environmental groups to bridge a long-standing divide between global-warming activists and American evangelicals."

But there's more to evangelicals' commitment to environmental stewardship, also known as creation care, than power-brokering elites. It's rooted in a deep sense of duty to live up to God's mandate to live in proper relation to the earth. In one installment of the recent "God is green" sermon series at Mars Hill Church, an evangelical megachurch in a converted shopping mall outside Grand Rapids, Mich., Pastor Rob Bell said:

We aren't treating the earth well, would you agree? This grieves the heart of God...we produce more and more and more, and we're doing it in such a way that earth simply can't sustain it. And I would argue we do not first and foremost care for the earth because of the latest scientific studies -- which verify that we are destroying the earth -- or because of the latest fad. We do it because God said to.

Listen to his description of the mandate for proper relations with the earth; his voice teeters on the trembling, and you can almost see him concentrating on keeping his eyes dry.

But did God really say so? Over the course of the July "God is Green" series, which is available online as an MP3, Bell and other Mars Hill speakers preach from the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Job, 2 Chronicles, Psalms, Proverbs, Matthew, Luke, John, Ephesians, Romans and Revelations. (Note to the unchurched: that's about 1/5 of the Bible.) And they're not just poaching a spare verse here and there. In the first installment, Matt Krick notes that:

No less than eight times in Genesis chapter 9 God says 'My covenant is with you and all creation, my covenant is with you and all creatures, my covenant is with you and all the earth.' God is clearly stating his concern and his love for his creation that He created good - to sustain it, to see it thrive, to see it flourish. This is the heart of God for creation, and we see the heart of God continue through the entire biblical narrative.

Listen to his explanation of God's vision of our proper relation to the earth, even though it only scratches the surface of creation care's theological underpinnings.

I first learned about creation care in a 2004 sermon series at Kairos, a Christian community for young adults in northern Virginia. This wasn't some hippie granola church; I shared pews not only with fellow liberals, but with Heritage Foundation staffers fresh from their stints with the Coalition Provisional Authority. The specific details have faded, but I remember hearing that the earth is a sacred trust rather than a resource to be exploited. In other words, creation care is not just a platform, it's an orientation. While pundits concerned themselves with the Kyoto protocols, Clear Skies, and Healthy Forests, we were reexamining the very way in which we conceived of the planet.

At Mars Hill, which draws upwards of 10,000 people to its Sunday services in conservative western Michigan, you could hear uncharacteristically liberal-sounding messages about working against "systems of exploitation" and even a hint of what a conservative opportunist would call class warfare: "If somebody actually wants to argue with you that we're not doing some terrible things to our earth, this is somebody whose wealth and ignorance have simply isolated them from how serious it is."

They even reject the sanctity of private property. Citing Leviticus 25:23-4 -- "the land must not be sold permanently because you are but aliens and my tenants. Throughout the country that you hold as a possession, you must provide for the redemption of the land" - Bell calls man's claim of total dominion over the land a symptom of our "deep sinful bend of entitlement, in which we start to believe that what belongs to God belongs to us."

An encouraging feature of the four-plus hours of God is Green was the repeated confession of our failure to honor God's covenant with humankind and creation. We flout the notion of sustainability; we fail to live simply; we are addicted to exploitation; we don't sacrifice.

The most inspiring part of any good sermon is the call to action. In the final moments of the final installment of God is Green, Bell leads his thousands-strong congregation in a fervent, applause-interrupted prayer that Christians will no longer lag behind others who better model sustainable living, that they will heed God's call to go green. The only excerpt I will take from it is to say "amen." Please listen to the three-minute prayer.

While conflict over global warming and environmentalism exists within the diverse community of American Christians, it's important to note that the argument is no mere political concern. The theological energy behind creation care and "going green" ensures that what we're talking about is no mere squabble, but a movement.

August 16, 2007

Punctuating Liberal Christianity

A guest post by the Rev. Jim Gertmenian

Today, Religion News Service (via beliefnet) reports:

the departures of Edgar from the NCC, Hough from Union Seminary and the Rev. Jim Forbes from Riverside are leaving three venerable -- some might say vulnerable -- icons of liberal Protestantism with "Help Wanted" signs on their doors.

Then they quote conservative Institute of Religion and Democracy president Tonkowich, who concedes

that high-profile Christian progressives like author Jim Wallis "may be having their day in the sun" with greater media visibility. But he argues that declining denominations, and an embrace of "deal-buster" issues like gay marriage and abortion, make liberal churches barely discernible from liberal politics.

"People are willing to go out on a limb for an exclamation point," he said, "but no one is willing to go out on a limb for a question mark."

I tend to agree with Joe Hough that this can be seen positively as an opportunity for a new generation to take the reins of the progressive movement. However, it puts tremendous pressure on all three institutions to make creative and solid choices at a time when the resurgence of the movement is still in a formative period. And the remnant of the "old guard" will have to be courageous and gracious in letting these important institutions continue to evolve and change. Gary Dorrien's suggestion, made elsewhere, that liberal theology has remained alive and well, albeit under the radar, will be tested in the next twenty years, and some of that testing will happen as these changes are made. The other question, though, is whether the movement will produce visible and widely known "champions" (like Hough, Forbes, and Edgar, not to mention Coffin, et. al) or whether it will take a more diffuse and de-centralized form.

The most provocative line in the article belongs to Tonkowich when he says "People are willing to go out on a limb for an exclamation point, but no one is willing to go out on a limb for a question mark." (He's basically paraphrasing Paul who asked, "If the trumpet gives an indistinct sound, who will prepare for the battle?") Can progressive religion produce an "exclamation point?" or is it, by nature, always going to come across as a "question mark?" The argument is a bit reductionist, of course; real life doesn't parse that neatly and it is the interaction of exclamation points and question marks that defines our age.

I take this work to be an act of faith, not optimism . . . an act of conviction, not certainty. I am, with advancing age, more and more willing to put it into God's hands . . . not that I am willing to be a passive observer of the Holy One's actions, but that I understand myself, with more and more clarity, to be a speck on a large and constantly surging sea whose tides are well beyond my understanding and ever further beyond my control.

Jim is the Senior Minister of the Plymouth Congregational Church, Minneapolis, MN and creator of the Emerging Leaders Conference, a project of the Plymouth Center for Progressive Christianity.

FRC salutes Rove for "loyalty to the White House"

Much has been written about the Family Research Council putting partisanship before faith, but every once in a while, their own words really just speak best for themselves. From Tony Perkins' August 14 "Washington Update" email:

Rove Leaves White House On August 31, the Bush administration will say goodbye to a valuable asset, presidential advisor Karl Rove. While much will be written about his influence, we salute him for his loyalty to the White House and for recognizing the importance that social conservatives play in the political process. He will be missed.

As people of faith, should loyalty to the White House -- or Congress, or a party, or any political entity for that matter -- really be what we look to honor foremost in our leaders?

August 15, 2007

Washington Post's dueling visions of religion in politics

Two columnists, two candidates, two visions of religion in the 2008 campaign.

In yesterday's Washington Post, Richard Cohen bemoans the publicity of presidential candidates' religions and commends Rudy Giuliani for telling reporters that his standing as a "good or not so good catholic" was between him and the priests. The column is called "Giuliani's JFK Moment" and praises Kennedy's 1960 campaign declaration that his Catholicism would not dictate his decisions. Cohen marvels that

Kennedy made two other points in that speech that bear repeating. The first was that "far more critical issues" faced the country than a presidential candidate's religion. The same, of course, is true today. Just for starters, there's an agonizing war in Iraq that needs to end in a fashion that will not turn a mistake into a debacle -- for Iraq, for the region and for the security of Americans here in the United States.

But second, and to my mind just as important, Kennedy's speech was an affirmation of rational thought -- a promise to deal with the great issues of state in a secular manner. Nowhere in the speech did JFK renounce his Catholicism or say it didn't matter to him. But he did make clear that as president he would make decisions in "accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest." In other words, he would use his noodle.


Cohen implies that to think rationally and to consult one's conscience are distinct from and even incompatible with using one's faith as a moral compass. Personally, I'd like to know if a Catholic candidate accepted the Catholic stance on the war, and if a Southern Baptist accepted that church's position. If they disagree, I'd like to know how they reconcile dissent and faith. That might be a pretty clear window into a candidate's conscience and "how he would use his noodle."

Contrast this with Post columnist Michael Gerson's understanding of the role of faith in political decision making (from an August 3 column):

American political leaders have generally not talked about soteriology -- how the individual soul is saved. In Christian theology, these choices are fundamentally private, and government attempts to influence them are both doomed and tyrannical. American leaders have also wisely avoided the topic of eschatology -- inherently speculative theories about the end or culmination of history.

But religious convictions on the topic of anthropology-- the nature and value of men and women -- have profoundly and positively influenced American history. Many of the greatest advances toward the protection of minority rights, from the abolition of slavery to the civil rights movement, came in part because people of faith pushed for them. And religious men and women made those efforts because they were convinced that all human beings -- not just all believers -- are created in God's image.

The difference between Cohen's simplistic, ahistoric vision of faith in the political arena and Gerson's nuanced, historical understanding is obvious and fundamental. Every day I scour the political headlines while putting together Faith In Public Life's daily news (click here to subscribe!), and from what I see, it's clear that Gerson's view is gaining traction as Cohen's fades into the pages of history.

August 14, 2007

Remembering how Rove treated Christians

Amidst all the analysis of Rove's legacy, a few writers have remembered how Karl Rove manipulated American Christianity.

And at Street Prophets, the Rev. Deb Haffner riffs on his reason, that he's "leaving for family." She writes:

You know, that Karl Rove resigned yesterday to spend more time with his family...of course. Not because of continuing controversies around Valerie Plame, the dismissed US attorneys, the plummeting esteem of the administration, and so on, but because after 35 years working for Mr. Bush, he realized he had neglected his family and it was time to come home. Oh, and that he had to make up his mind by Labor Day. For resigning members of the Bush administration, family is like the "dog ate my homework" excuse.

Matthew Yglesias notes the Atlantic Monthly's, Joshua Green shows off his long-form skillz on how Rove wasn't that smart after all, just willing to wangle the religious more than most in his party.

Salon's Lou Dubose (h/t Dan) writes:

The "guns, God, and gays" campaigns that defined Texas politics and the politics of the South became the model for Republican Party campaigns across the country. It was Rove who was responsible for the whispering campaign that characterized Democratic Gov. Ann Richards, Bush's opponent in the 1994 governor's race, as a closet lesbian, in a successful attempt to peel away conservative Christian votes in East Texas.

Perhaps the most recent example of a successful social-issues campaign was in Ohio during the 2004 election, which provided critical electoral votes to secure George Bush's second term. With Bush in peril of losing to John Kerry, the Republican National Committee looked to David Barton to go into Ohio and turn out the base. Barton is a former vice chairman of the Texas Republican Party and one of the founders of the WallBuilders, a Christian advocacy group working to restore God to His central position in American history, and in the history and social studies curricula of the nation's public schools.

August 13, 2007

Game not over: Left Behind returns in Iraq

You may remember the media attention created a couple of months ago by several progressive Christian groups who kicked up a ruckus when the rapture/fundamentalist folks behind Left Behind released their video game.

CrossWalk America's The Rev. Eric Elnes writes: Just when you thought the Left Behind Games people had backed down - after negative publicity CrossWalk America helped create resulted in the firing of their senior VP and Left Behind Games stock plunging from $7.44 to $0.25 (and now at just over $.05/share), a new effort is underway to promote their horrific “convert or kill” theology.

The Nation's Max Blumenthal points out:

Actor Stephen Baldwin, the youngest member of the famous Baldwin brothers, is no longer playing Pauly Shore's sidekick in comedy masterpieces like Biodome. He has a much more serious calling these days. Baldwin became a right-wing, born-again Christian after the 9/11 attacks, and now is the star of Operation Straight Up (OSU), an evangelical entertainment troupe that actively proselytizes among active-duty members of the US military. As an official arm of the Defense Department's America Supports You program, OSU plans to mail copies of the controversial apocalyptic video game, Left Behind: Eternal Forces to soldiers serving in Iraq. OSU is also scheduled to embark on a "Military Crusade in Iraq" in the near future.

Of course, it's perfect for Christian soldiers because it is "so young, so hip, so cool." Jesus Christ, it's like totally killer. . .

August 10, 2007

ONE-derful news from New Hampshire

The ONE Campaign just released some exciting polling numbers on the values of New Hampshire voters coming into the 2008 elections. The bottom line: Democrats and Republicans support candidates who make fighting poverty a priority.

The full polling memo can be found here.

Especially interesting is the values language that resonated with voters across the political spectrum:

Democrats and Republicans agree that America has a moral obligation as a compassionate nation to help the world’s poorest people through foreign assistance. More than nine in ten Democrats (93%) and 84% of Republicans agree that when millions of children around the world are dying from preventable diseases and hunger, we have a moral obligation to do what we can to help. Similarly, Democrats (90%) and Republicans (85%) agree that it is in keeping with the country’s values and our history of compassion to lead an effort to solve some of the most serious problems facing the world’s poorest people.

This is more evidence of a trend FPL has been tracking for some time: the "values voter" isn't necessarily the anti-abortion anti-gay marriage activist we heard so much about in 2004, but someone who is concerned about "compassion issues" such as poverty.

Organizations like ONE Vote will be working hard to make sure these issues--and creative approaches to addressing them-- take center stage in campaign 2008. Clearly, the citizens of New Hampshire are willing to speak out on this issue; lets all hope that the candidates listen.

August 9, 2007

At Aspen, E.O. Wilson seeks common ground with evangelical pastors

American biologist (Myrmecology, a branch of entomology), researcher (sociobiology, biodiversity), theorist (consilience, biophilia), and naturalist (conservationism) E. O. Wilson shares a letter to a Christian pastor, an appeal for common cause on caring for creation.

Wilson is known for his career as a scientist, his advocacy for environmentalism, and his scientific humanist ideas concerned with religious, moral, and ethical matters. As of 2007, he was the Pellegrino Research Professor in Entomology for the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University and a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. He is a Humanist Laureate of the International Academy of Humanism.

On Jul 8th, 2006, at the Aspen Ideas Festival, Wilson shared some progressive thoughts on saving creation. He calls this century, the century of the environment.

August 8, 2007

What's new in the neighborhood? Questions edition?

What the. . .religion at YearlyKos? Yep, Street Prophets helps out the concern trolls (Washington Times and Get Religion) who reported not finding much conflict over religion. Pastor Dan ponders:

So again, I'm not really sure what his point is. It's like he and the Washington Times are pointing to the Interfaith Service and the apparent lack of conflict over religious issues and saying "a-ha!"

A-ha what? A-ha we're a diverse but inclusive bunch of people? A-ha religion wasn't a major focus of the conference? A-ha we're liberals? Seriously, I don't get it.

Any questions? Mik over at JSpot reflection on the Faith or No panel discussion at YearlyKos as well as a way beyond the spats of late.

CrossLeft wonders what's really the difference in thinking between liberal and moderate Christians?

Progressive/Liberals think that things can be better for our society. They see that many who are individually oppressed are oppressed because of certain structures in society that keep them in their place. Conservatives want to change the individual, but often think the social structures are just fine. Progressives/Liberals often think too much of the social structures, and not enough about the individual. Might there be a balance?

City of Brass launched a new information site called Talk Islam. It deals with humdrum questions such as:

Do muslims condemn terror?, Was Islam spread by sword point conversions?, Is there a "Just War" theory in Islam? Does Osama bin Laden have authority to issue fatwa for jihad?
Does the Qur'an call Jews "apes and pigs" ?

Progressive Islam wonders, What is it with all these articles about Pakistan? As I do this roundup, the news is breaking that Mr. Musharraf may declare a state of emergency. Not sure if that's an answer, but it does raise some questions.

Remember that Hindu guy who got shouted at during his Senate prayer service? It looks like Christian fundamentalists weren't the only ones mad. Faithfully Progressive notes an emerging and strange coalition. Religious extremists and New Atheists Attack Freedom of Conscience. This essay is part of a series that he is going documenting the rise of this new challenge to religious tolerance. The intro is here.

August 6, 2007

Mad, Mitt articulates a moderate role for faith in poilitics

Faced with introducing not only himself, but also his religion to the American public, some have said that Mitt Romney needs to have a JFK moment, where he neutralizes his Mormonism by giving a big speech about it the way JFK did about his Catholicism. Especially to those who agree with his social positions on the right, it's Mitt's Mormonism, or smooth persona, or CPAC accusations of flip-flopping that are keeping him in single digits.

But this weekend, all three of these factors of Romney's impacting candidacy converged to reveal more, not just about Romney, but about the role of religion in American politics.

You may have caught this in the blogosphere. During a campaign interview on a local Iowa radio station, Mitt Romney was asked about abortion and constitutional originalism by a DJ who has clearly drunk deeply of the religious right rhetoric. It's pretty clear from the video that Mitt wanted to talk about himself, not overthrowing the Supreme Court (see 4:20ff in the clip).
_________________

During a station break, they start arguing about how Mitt's religion relates to his positions on abortion (see 8:00ff). When they go back on air it's all smiles, but then -- at about 8:45 into the clip-- they launch into a heated conversation on the role of faith in public life. Of course, Mitt didn't know that a camera was recording the whole exchange. From 10:45, they really start swinging.

DJ: I think that it's a big mistake to distance yourself from your faith. Romney: I'm not distancing myself; I'm proud of my faith.

Then the DJ argues that it's a problem to "bifurcate" religion and politics. To which Romney points out that, along with abortion, his church opposes sex outside of marriage and drinking. With a hint of sarcasm he asks the DJ: should we make a law banning these as well, just because it's my church's teaching?

The station later put the video up on its website and bloggers have been framing it as "Mitt getting tough" or "Mitt throwing a fit."

However, what's been missing in the commentary is a conversation about their actual conversation, which was a lot better -- entertaining and honest -- than most of what comes along during an election year. Mitt lets loose on defining a role for his personal faith in his policy -- and it's clear that he has thought about the difference between universal and personal values.

The DJ attacks Romney by suggesting that he is not doctrinally "Mormon enough" on the issue of abortion. But Romney swings back, pointing out that there are Latter Day Saint politicians and church leaders who are pro-choice and in good standing (10:55).

On the other hand, the old culture war DJ just seems to want Romney to express pride in his faith -- which I think merits attention. Most Americans of faith appreciate candidates who don't use their religion either to win votes or to dodge tough legislative choices.

It's been clear in recent memory, from at least JFK onward, that serious questions about faith in American public life lie deep, buried by single issues and talking points. From the Sojourners + CNN forum to the faith questions on YouTube in the recent CNN debate to this YouTube video (do you detect a pattern?), as media options increase, and public conversations grow, something has changed. The old days of single issue values voters and brokering religion with Dallas pastors is fading. As a Orlando Sentinel religion journalist, Mark Pinsky recently noted, as the old evangelical taps out, the next couple years will involve "bare knuckles, sharp elbows and hip-checks" -- and hopefully more open (Mitts off?) conversations about faith in public life.

August 3, 2007

The 'netroots' need common ground to grow

Re: the kos/pastordan panel discussion on Faith or No: Building a Secular-Religious Coalition.

Many in the netroots crowd -- especially those who have been around the political block -- may have less faith than hope in a progressive future. Fair enough.

But let's consider American pragmatism -- from William James through Dewey and Richard Rorty. While each of these progressive thinkers provided helpful critiques of organized religion, they often articulated a bright American future that gets beyond the current 'No" critique of the so-called "bright" crowd of Dennett, Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris.

Toward the end of their non-religious lives, both Rorty and Derrida found themselves more anti-clerical than anti-religious and worked very hard at calling socio-political theory back to redescribing social hope, a future rooted in activist solidarity, irony, tolerance.

As evidenced recently over at Faith in Public Life, a lot of fair-minded folks worry that too much faith means atavistic social policies, brought on by a DNC compromising progressive principles for power.
_______________________

I'm not so sure. Just like the wingnut talking point that the '06 election brought in moderate, not progressive Dems, a Bob Casey win and a Sojourners values and politics debate fits a MSM ratings meme. While the stats show that increasing numbers of regular church attendees feel more comfortable with Democratic candidates, the actual issues -- poverty, Darfur, creation care -- the that are pulling over skew toward progressive social concern.

It is easy to sneer at a Godly politics, or candidates stumping that they believe in both Jesus and single-payer health care yet will legislate one but not the other.

But where do the snickering really get us, except a purer ideology? We are in a generational transition. Compare polls results on marriage equality among teens from twenty years ago to today.

What we need now is a little patience through this sorting period. Sure, some folks won't be comfortable in our hopeful netroots community, but let's give 'em a chance to catch see what tolerance, irony, solidarity really accomplishes first.

Somewhere between the strategic and the Utopian and the faithful and the not-so, there's solid common ground for us because we share more than we don't, and believe -- sometimes against great odds -- in a better American and global future. So what does patience mean right now? Perhaps when the faithful read lefty atheist they should think, "that person has social hope" and when lefty atheists read faithful progressive they think, "that person becoming socially hopeful," because more social change means more social changers and as the netroots grows we'll need some good, solid common ground.

August 2, 2007

*UPDATED* Faith in Public LIVE: Progressives and Evangelicals Together Speak Out

There's been a lot of buzz in the media this year about the broadening of the evangelical agenda, and attempts by some (non-evangelical)* progressives to reach out to evangelicals and vice versa. Evangelicals who have sought to broaden the agenda to include issues like poverty, global AIDS, human rights and torture, immigration and global warming have been fiercely attacked by some conservatives who claim they are distracting attention away from issues like abortion and gay marriage. On the other hand, some progressives have dismissed the efforts of religious progressives to reach out to evangelicals around these issues, accusing them of seeking meaningless common ground and ignoring core progressive issues, or of attempting to build a conservative religious coalition within the Democratic party. This week, we are asking evangelicals who are reaching out to progressives and progressives who are reaching out to evangelicals to speak for themselves.

Robby Jones a religion scholar and consultant to national progressive organizations; Randy Brinson and Pastor Bill Devlin of Redeem the Vote; Shaun Casey of Wesley Theological Seminary and Center for American Progress; Rev. Susan Thistlethwaite of Chicago Theological Seminary; and Rev. Rich Killmer of National Religious Campaign Against Torture weigh in... UPDATES FROM CONTRIBUTORS TODAY POSTED IN COMMENTS!

*I add "non-evangelical" as a point of clarification, so as not to imply that there are not progressive evangelicals-- there certainly are.

Round 2 (August 1):

Shaun Casey
The increased participation of Evangelicals in progressive causes is sending shock waves through the traditional leaders of the Religious Right as Mark Tooley's hand wringing quotes attest in the article cited today in the comments section below. The truth of the matter is that this new political activity is not being fed by the chattering classes in the traditional media and it is not going to be stopped by secular progressives or by nervous right wing power brokers.

Many evangelicals are tired of being painted as ignorant huckleberries who follow the dictums of preachers with bad hair. They are tired of being painted with the labels "dominionists" and "theocrats." They are tired of the war, they are troubled by poverty, and they are tired of being taken for granted politically. They are looking for partners in solving these problems as Randy rightly observed.

One hard truth that is being exposed is that the Evangelical world is very complex and highly decentralized. Once the illusion that Evangelicals only care about abortion and same sex marriage is disabused, the realization is sinking in that reaching out to Evangelical communities is hard, sort of like herding feral cats.

Randy Brinson
I think it is important to note that there is a majority of Americans, particularly those that are motivated by their religious convictions, to come together to solve problems... We must be careful to note that this coming together is not to give a political advantage to a particular ideology but to actually solve serious social problems that face our country.

Regardless of your political identification, we can promote values that are coming from our shared belief in Jesus Christ and what he has called us to do on this earth. What are those things that we can solve ?

1. We can promote strong families and responsible fatherhood... look at what groups like Promise Keepers is doing to encourage men taking responsibility for their families as well as the leadership that Sen Evan Bayh has done to promote fatherhood.

2. We can seek to promote self esteem and self worth and the unique spiritual gifts and talents of our children, which is the best deterrent to sexual promiscuity and teen pregnancy.

3. We can encourage mentoring on a broader scale.

4. We can promote smart planning for our cities such that the environmental impact is minimized and that land use is in the best interest of municipalities, not developers.

5. We can work together to protect children from sexual predators and amend our laws that fail to adequately protect women from domestic violence and sexual assault.

6. We can instruct children and students about the proper role of sex and the benefits of monogamous relationships within marriage.

7. We can to promote healthy nutrition and lifestyles, in order to reduce the future burden that diabetes, hypertension and obesity create for our health care system, rather than focusing on health care access alone.

Research has shown that there is a close relationship to self esteem, education, marital stability, and security of women and the development of anxiety, depression, eating disorders and other social ills. We must be proactive to help address the fundamental causes of the social ills that government ultimately has to care for. These are not conservative or progressive ideals, they are common sense ideas that have a deep Biblical historical basis.

Where these ideals intersect within the entire evangelical community is a good place to start the dialogue.

Randy

Round 1 (July 31):
Evangelicals and Progressives: Finding the Faith to Build a Meaningful Politics
Robert P. Jones, Ph.D.
Robby is a religion scholar and consultant for a number of progressive organizations, including the Third Way, Progressive Christians Uniting, and People for the American Way Foundation; he is also an affiliated scholar at the Center for American Progress.

“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1, RSV).

More and more people across the country are realizing that the recent levels of polarization of politics and politicization of religion has been bad for both, and that the continuation of the conversations between Evangelicals and progressives might be a key step in recalling a more prophetic religion and a more meaningful politics.

As someone who grew up Southern Baptist and whose commitments to progressive politics were formed in the crucible of the Deep South, I have had a somewhat unique vantage point as I’ve worked at this intersection both as a scholar studying the role of religion in public debates, and as a consultant on specific projects, such as a current effort to bring together progressives and Evangelicals on cultural issues with The Third Way and Redeem the Vote.

I want to focus here on one of the deepest obstacle to progress: a sense of defensiveness, particularly the ideological malady that thinks that giving an inch is opening the floodgates to disaster. For example, in Evangelicals circles, it is well-known that James Dobson and the Christian Coalition have both strongly resisted efforts to broaden the evangelical agenda to issues like poverty and global warming, claiming these are not core issues. In progressive circles, I personally encountered a similar defensiveness after giving a presentation of public opinion data that showed the promise of common ground between progressives and Evangelicals. The first comment came from an agitated prominent progressive blogger, who, on the bases of his own biases alone, proceeded to tell us not only that any outreach strategy was a waste of time but went on to seriously propose that a more prudent strategy would be to find ways to simply suppress the Evangelical vote.

The great twentieth century theological H. Richard Niebuhr identified a sense of defensiveness at the heart of what can go wrong not only with religious groups but all human groups and called for a movement from an ethics of defensiveness (which he noted resulted ultimately in an ethics of death) to an ethics of faithfulness and responsibility. The key to this move was to articulate (“to confess” in religious terms) our own positions as honestly as possible while embracing our human finitude, which requires the modest notion that we might be wrong. That simple acknowledgment gives life to a humility that opens up space for new conversations and breaks down old orthodoxies.

It is worth noting that at least three significant things can happen as we move from defensiveness to faithfulness, a process Niebuhr thought had to be ongoing:
1. Space opens up for creativity on issues that seemed completely intractable. For example, as I noted on my blog last week, Democrats in the House recently made a quiet but significant step toward healing one of America's deepest divides by passing the "Reducing the Need for Abortions Initiative" as part of the 2008 Labor-HHS Appropriations bill for 2008.
2. Opponents are humanized and become more complex. For example, in a recent meeting, a prominent Catholic leader told a largely surprised group of progressives that he had hosted visitors in his home to pro-life protests and anti-war protests on back to back weekends and that in his theological framework, these were perfectly consistent things to do.
3. The possibility of mutual critique emerges as the excesses of one ideology become more visible viewed in the light of the other. For example, progressives begin to think more about the importance of changed hearts and Evangelicals more about transformed institutions.

Although these are modest steps, they are significant. Thankfully, we are beginning to see a new day and the emergence of a meaningful national politics that requires less fear and more faith—both in our fellow citizens and in our own abilities to hold our principles while listening to others and looking for the common good.

We Must Pull Together
Randy Brinson, MD
Randy is Chair of Redeem the Vote

It has been tremendously challenging as well as rewarding as Redeem the Vote has worked to help define and give voice and life to those of us in the evangelical community to move away from the vitriol and polarization that has characterized so much of the political debate. In fact, as I speak to Christians across the country, many have been terribly demoralized by the fact that much of our spiritual message has been muted by the political debate that frequently divide dedicated, devout people of faith along "artificial" fault lines that never existed prior to the co-opting of the Christian evangelical message.

As someone involved with the conservative political movement for the past 30 years, I have come to appreciate the views and opinions of the entire evangelical community, not just a chosen few. I have also realized that it is important that the ends don’t justify the means in achieving the goals of the conservative movement, particularly if it means vilifying dedicated men and women, who share our common bond in our belief and trust in Jesus Christ as Lord.

Many conservative Christians see the need to promote responsibility along with rights. If that is true, then wouldn't it make sense that we are responsible for others as well? We are responsible to show them love and respect and protect them.

That is why the situation is so tragic in Darfur, where millions of Christians have been killed or displaced, where women are being systematically raped and tortured and sold into slavery, while we sit idly by. It also means that we are responsible for the implementation and monitoring of basic human rights, in areas where we can exert that influence. We must not sacrifice basic human rights in order to preserve a "favorable trade status" with another foreign country. We must never sacrifice our standards of human decency and embrace human torture, regardless of the circumstances.

It means we are responsible to care for our environment. We must protect our coastal waterways and natural forests from destruction. We must curb our environmental pollutants so we can protect our atmosphere from the growing threat of human induced global warming.

Finally, we are responsible for those caught in the cycle of poverty, to devise policies that will lift them out of poverty. This will require all of us to involve ourselves in the lives of those less fortunate. My challenge is to have every Christian home invest in one family that is mired in poverty. To provide mentoring, financial counseling, job skills, educational assistance, that will make them productive and restore their self esteem. In the end, conservatives Christians can also find that the investment in those in poverty can help them to be productive as well, to become contributors to the American experience.

However, all too often, the issues raised by our progressive friends fall on deaf ears, with many of us to busy with our own lives to care. These issues are important and need to be addressed by the entire body of Christ.

I personally applaud the efforts of the Democratic Party and progressives within evangelical political circles on the left, that have taken the opportunity to reach out and listen to those of us that have deeply held, spiritual convictions regarding issues ranging from abortion, gay rights, same sex marriage, and religious expression. I am appreciative of the fact that the majority of evangelicals, both conservative and progressive, support the fact that everyone deserves the basic tenet of human dignity, that women and children need to be protected from violence both physical and emotional, and that there is a need to promote fatherhood and the family unit, and reduce the need for abortion on demand. It is my prayer that the Republican Party will do the same and affirm these same principles that are the definition of who were are as people of faith, moving beyond rhetoric alone. We have had dialogue with a diverse group of individuals ranging from Common Cause, Third Way, Faith in Public Life, and Democrats for Life, looking for the consensus that can be found among people of faith and those seeking common goals.

If the progressive community is willing to define these areas of consensus, then it behooves those of us that ascribe to more conservative political views to be equally objective. We need to realize that just because someone pronounces certain Biblical beliefs may not necessarily live these truths in their daily lives (as we have seen recently in the lives of several previous members of Congress). We must be willing to reexamine our views on tax policy, particularly if these positions may be outdated or impractical and that the tax code represent fairness to all and that all contribute to the American common experience. We must be willing to look at environmental policy that may sacrifice our national resources to benefit one segment of the corporate world. Finally, we must examine our judiciary such that the policies and decisions of our judiciary demonstrates true balance and respect for all Americans, not just those able to afford it. We must look to protect women in a more substantial ways ranging from child abuse, sexual assault, and domestic violence, rather than be dismissive of women's needs as many in the conservative movement have done.

I could go on and on, the bottom line is that we must pull together, conservative and progressives of faith to defend those that cannot defend themselves, ranging from the unborn to the elderly and everyone in between. We need to treat them with love, respect, and dignity that all of us in America may be able to experience the "American Dream"

If you agree with us, join us and Redeem the Vote to make a difference, be a mentor, teach a child, love someone that is alone, and vote and make a difference in your community and country.

Progressive-Evangelical Alliances: Something New Is Brewing… and There’s a Lot to Gain
Shaun Casey
Shaun Casey teaches Christian Ethics at Wesley Theological Seminary and he is a Visiting Fellow at the Center for American Progress

In the last two years I have spent a fair amount of time in different evangelical communities listening to people talk theology and politics and I am hearing things there that I have never heard before. First of all, there is a profound unhappiness with the direction the country is going. From the war in Iraq, to post-Katrina New Orleans, to the recognition of the reality of global warming, more evangelicals are questioning the sufficiency of the narrow agenda of the Religious Right. Second, a lot of this discontent emanates from Christian college campuses. Something new is brewing in these schools and no one has a comprehensive view of the full scope of the changes this generation is leading. Finally, progressive organizations of many different types are building relationships with various evangelical tribes for the mutual benefit of the country. Progressives who are nervous about these developments need to take a hard look at what they are gaining in these alliances: more opponents of the war, more advocates for solving domestic and global poverty, and more advocates of stopping global warming.

It is hard to predict just where these alliances are heading, but their political implications are going to be hard to miss. The upshot is that the stereotypical boxes the media and the Religious Right tend to put people and causes into are in need of serious revision.

Some of My Best Friends…
Rev. Susan Thistlethwaite
Susan is President of, and Professor of Theology at, Chicago Theological Seminary

Some of my best friends are evangelicals; some in the teaching and learning community at Chicago Theological Seminary would self-describe as evangelicals. They are attracted to CTS because of our mission to “transform the world toward greater justice and mercy.” These evangelicals and the progressives in our community differ on biblical interpretation and an array of theological doctrines, but they unite around the idea that faith must include a core commitment to social justice.

There are at least 70 million evangelicals in the United States, about 25 percent of the population and they are a very diverse group as their numbers would suggest. There are those who attend megachurches and worship a gospel of prosperity, there are fundamentalists who believe in a literal interpretation of scripture and want the book of Genesis taught as science in schools, there are the “dominionists” who want to pass a Constitutional amendment defining America as a “Christian Nation” and to establish a theocracy in this country, there are the “old style” evangelicals in the Billy Graham mold who are intent on “saving souls”, and “new style” evangelicals who have acquired tremendous political and social clout through radio and television ministries and direct political work such as James Dobson, and there are “left-wing” evangelicals such as Jim Wallis’ Sojourner movement or Ron Sider’s Evangelicals for Social Action. And there are many others along this continuum from right to left.

My best friends who are evangelicals I know from decades of work in the peace movement. You can hardly do better when you want a colleague who will work tirelessly for peace than to pick someone who takes the Sermon on the Mount literally. No Just War drivel there, just solid, biblically based peacemaking. Today I encounter the same kind of solid folks in those evangelicals who are actively engaging the environmental movement. I welcome their energy and the kind of serious commitment of energy and time I have found consistently characteristic of socially engaged evangelicals in the peace movement.

At the same time, I have enormous concerns given the wide sweep of evangelicalism represented above. While it can seem very attractive to “move beyond” the so-called wedge issues of homophobia or abortion for the sake of widening the discussions, I believe it is crucial to the future of this nation to directly challenge the militant core of evangelicals (especially the dominionists) who are hostile to democratic pluralism, who champion the “totalitarian politics such as denying homosexuals the same rights as other Americans” (Chris Hedges, American Fascists) and who would legislate what women can or cannot do with their reproductive lives. I grew up pre Roe v. Wade and there’s no way I will not resist with all my strength a return to back-street abortions that maimed and killed so many women.

So I sometimes feel torn because in principle bridge-building with those who have different religious perspectives is a core value for me, while at the same time my faith requires that I stand up for freedom of religion, personal conscience and universal human dignity. I think that we progressives should take the increased opportunities for dialogue with evangelicals with utmost seriousness, but I also believe fundamental issues of religious freedom are at stake in our times and I must and will speak out decisively in defense of that freedom. Both things have to happen.

Ask anyone who knows me. I can be an exceptionally trying person to have as a friend, though I try to be as interesting as possible.

Evangelicals – Broadening and Leavening Peacemaking and Justice in the Religious Community
Rev. Richard Killmer
Rich is Executive Director of the National Religious Campaign Against Torture. NRCAT founded Evangelicals for Human Rights, which authored the “Declaration Against Torture”

Those of us committed to the tasks of peacemaking and justice within the religious community are always working to broaden the base. Societal change often occurs when a large number of people representing the diversity of the U.S. share a common goal. People of faith help to produce that majority when they are committed to broaden the base within their own denomination or faith group to accomplish that goal.

Those of us with commitments to peacemaking and justice therefore need to reach out to people in a variety of religions. It requires sitting down with people of other faiths to present our concerns and our goals. It means taking these individuals and their faith seriously – viewing the conversation not just as a means to an end, but as an opportunity to honor the importance and integrity of their beliefs even if those beliefs are not our own.

Those in the interfaith community have always had to deal with differences of opinions as we work on specific issues. To successfully broaden our coalition requires working with people with whom we may disagree on other unrelated issues and concerns. We are simply not going to have a very broad base if we are only going to work with people with whom we agree on most major justice issues.

This "Faith in Public Life LIVE" blog exchange is about evangelicals, progressive Christians and others in the faith community working together. Though people in these communities have different opinions about a variety of issues, I believe that it is very important that people of all faiths encourage a significant evangelical presence in most interfaith campaigns. I say that for several reasons:

• Evangelicals are growing quickly and already represent a large portion of the U.S. population. According to John C. Green of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics, University of Akron, a leading researcher on evangelical engagement in politics, at least 25% of the American population are evangelical. There are sixty denominations affiliated with the National Association of Evangelicals, along with a host of schools, parachurch organizations, ministries, mission organizations and commissions.
• They have a rich heritage of concern about social justice in the United States. Among the causes taken up by evangelicals were the abolition of slavery in the 1800s, the fight against child labor in the early 1900s, ending the nuclear weapons arms race in the 1980s, ending hunger and poverty in America and around the world, and the need for government action against global warming.
• Evangelicals are receiving a great deal of attention by the press, the Congress and the White House.
• Evangelicals bring a great deal of energy and fervor to their discipleship.

Evangelicals broaden and leaven many efforts in peacemaking and justice. They need to be welcomed and encouraged to join in providing leadership to these issues.

The Risk Driven Life? Losing Yourself while Loving Others
Pastor Bill Devlin

Bill is president of Redeem The Vote www.redeemthevote.com

Followers of Jesus of Nazareth who attempt to jump into the 'common ground' fray may soon find themselves ground up in the process of aligning with those who they have not previously aligned with. Operating outside the box is something folk do not do in real life-too risky (what will my friends say?); and within religious circles, does the word 'heretic' conjure up warm and fuzzy vibes within one’s soul? Some would say that those of us who actually seek relationships with folk who working on 'other issues' have sold out to the cause and have abandoned the faith. As one who has practiced reaching out since 1989, it is like the man who went to the doctor and was told, "I have good news for you; and I have bad news for you." The patient shuddered, "Doc give me the good news first!" The doctor replied, "You only have 24 hours to live." "That's the good news the man decried and then exclaimed, "Give me the bad news…" The doctor stated sadly, "I wasn't able to reach you yesterday." To those who are adventurous and willing to live the risk driven life, I do have good news and bad news for you. Jesus has called us to work with those we do not agree with-that’s the good news; the bad news is, Jesus has called you to accomplish this task, however difficult. Since the Carter administration, the polarization of right and left has only grown colder. In discussions surrounding public policy between evangelical left and evangelical right, there is no such thing as global warming; rather, it would be described as global colding, each side growing further apart over the years and it may get worse. And as for me and my house, as we have for the past many years, we shall work with those with whom we disagree. And we know that we will be accused by some of abandoning principle. Yet the Gospel compels us to work together to bind up the broken-hearted in our culture.

Three months ago, as an orthodox evangelical and long term national pro-family leader, I received a phone call from a long term friend and proud unbeliever who works as a top aide to Philadelphia’s mayor John Street. "Devlin, you're one of those born again guys; do you care about the poor?" "Lance' I said, I've lived amongst the poor for twenty years." “Then Devlin you need to work with Governor Ed Rendell on his commitment to reform health care in Pennsylvania."

“Who do I call ” I asked. Now three months later, I chair the Faith Coalition of Governor Ed Rendell’s Task Force for Health Care Reform. Outside the box: yes. Inside the Gospel: of course. For the poor, the disenfranchised, the dispossessed, the broken, the orphan, the widow: do I find myself sitting on the premises or standing on the promises? Am I cold and frozen or called and chosen to accomplish being ground up finding common ground. Following Jesus means dying to self, giving up one’s self in pursuit of serving others-no matter the high degree of risk or loss of one’s own reputation. He must increase: I must decrease. Grinders: start your grinding. I look forward to losing myself while loving others.

What's new in the neighborhood?

In keeping with the FPL series of posts from evangelical and progressives speaking out together, Theology visits a large, evangelical church, formerly First Baptist, now known as Autumn Ridge Church.

This is the very kind of church that liberal Christians bewail. They're all Republicans, right? And they care only about saving souls. Or maybe they are involved in the Big Two social issues: ending abortion and a gay marriage ban.

Right?

Wrong.

Xpatriated Texan notes Sen. Obama recent answer on gay marriage and concludes:


This stands in contrast to John Edwards abominable answer. Note that the outcome isn’t different - Obama doesn’t think that marriage should be “push[ed] front and center” (which means no “gay marriage laws” under President Obama). But the stance is vastly different. Under Obama’s “Christian ethos” there is “no contradiction with embracing same-sex couples”. John Edwards actually sees a problem with granting equality, but he wouldn’t stand in the way of it. One has an alignment between personal belief and public stance while the other says he would advocate for something he doesn’t believe in.

Pam's House Blend posts about a HRC interview with that lesbian couple from the CNN+YouTube debate.

Velveteen Rabbi reads the four candidates' -- Biden, Edwards, Obama, Richardson -- responses to the Jewish Funds for Justice presidential questionnaire. And she writes:

It's easy to grouse that all we hear from our Presidential candidates are soundbytes. Reading their responses to our questions is a good way to begin getting a more nuanced picture of who these men are and what they have to say about the issues we care about. Thanks for making this happen, JFSJ, and three cheers for the J-blogosphere.

August 1, 2007

Kathleen Kennedy Townsend talks faith and politics on The Colbert Report

Last night, Faith in Public Life advisory board member Kathleen Kennedy Townsend appeared as a guest on The Colbert Report to discuss her new book, Failing America's Faithful: How Today's Churches Are Mixing God with Politics and Losing Their Way. Kathleen explained how the Right has tried to "shrink God" by reducing religious focus to a narrow platform of same-sex marriage, abortion and stem cell research and how we must instead pursue the common good. Her rapid run-down of the names of all 10 of her brothers and sister ain't bad either -- nearly matching the speed at which Colbert does the same for his own 10 Catholic siblings.

Have a look:


 
design & development by Original Gravity Media