The Dilemma of Christianity in America, continued.

The last time I blogged I mentioned that a significant portion of the crisis we have in American Christianity is how we approach the Bible. There is a lot more to this subject.

Much is made about being Biblical. Being Biblical is a phase in need of a definition.

Being Biblical is most often defined by something, frankly, it is not.

It has become fashionable to carve out positions on politics, ethics, different aspects of faith, and find Scripture texts to back up one’s opinions.

Do you remember the uproar over the Harry Potter books and movies? Much of that uproar came from people who chose to cite Leviticus 19. Leviticus 19 contains a listing of ‘do nots’ for people. Many of them are in regards to the 10 Commandments and have little controversy behind them. But it also states this in verse 31:

Do not turn to mediums or wizards; do not seek them out, to be defiled by them: I am the Lord your God.

In the second half of verse 26 it states:

You shall not practice augury or witchcraft.

Pretty clear and this teaching is imposed by some on many. Now, there is much wonderful in Leviticus 19 that makes a great deal of sense. However, here is my question. Are the people who are yelping loudly about Harry Potter keeping all the commands of Leviticus? I wonder.

Back to verse 26. The first half of the verse states:

You shall not eat anything with its blood.

It strikes me that if you are taking the whole passage into account one ought to eat all of one’s beef cooked to be well done. Rare, medium rare, medium, and medium well all have a chance of some blood. In some of the finer steak restaurants they often make the claim that they will not guarantee the quality of well done beef. Ironically, these ‘sinners’ who are encouraging people to break the law of the first half of verse 26 are never targeted for pickets and never have editorials against them proclaiming them to be godless heathens.

Verse 19 contains :

you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed;

The agricultural community has been cross breeding all kind of fruits and vegetables for years and have had great success. We buy many of these products in the grocery stores and I have yet to see a protester decreeing the grocery chains and the farmers to be godless heathens.

And then, of course, a continuation of verse 19 reads:

nor shall you put on a garment made of two different materials.

Yep. If you’re sitting here in clothing made from a cotton polyester blend, you are hereby decreed to be a heathen.

As a person who generally orders beef rare or medium rare, as a person who has enjoyed crossbred produce, and as a person sitting in a chair typing this while wearing clothing that are made from blending polyester and cotton, I am here as a heathen.

Or maybe not. Being Biblical has to be more than finding Biblical quotes to validate positions. Somehow I suspect that if Jesus walked into a room and found people preaching about Harry Potter and how terrible those books and movies were, he’d walk back out wondering why the preacher was wasting his/her time on such nonsense.

I’m realizing that there is much to say on this topic about the crisis of Christianity in America. Bear with me as I try to explore this.

The Dilemma of Christianity in America

I think that there is a major dilemma in Christianity in America right now. It has actually been brewing for quite a long time. Many of the people in the baby boomer generation have either dropped out of church, and as a result, the following generation has never been part of church tradition. Additionally, many of the people who are finding themselves in churches are in churches that have Worship that bears little resemblance to historic Christian Worship and often have a theological vantage point that is actually rather new in a 2000 year old institution.

Part of the problem has been the Christian Church itself. Christianity seems hell-bent on fighting within itself with massive theological and ideological debates that generally succeed in tearing apart the fabric of the movement. Most of the debate is often projected as a liberal/conservative debate. Some interesting points about that.

If you read the Bible, the words 'liberal' and 'conservative' are nowhere to be found. Presuming that there is divine intervention in the Bible, and presuming that God uses the Bible to share what God sees as important, the idea of being 'liberal' or 'conservative' don't rank high on God's hit parade.

Second point in this. If you read church history and theology and go back a bit (recognizing that people of different eras had some profound insights), you'll note that the words 'liberal' and 'conservative' are not part of theological works until the latter part of the 19th century, beginning part of the 20th century. The words are political words, not theological words, and Christianity, it seems, swallowed these words whole.

There are some root issues.

The first root issue is how we approach the Bible. A classic perspective on the Bible that came to root mostly in the Middle Ages and has been a part of the theological scene is this. The Bible is inspired by God and totally correct on all matters of salvation history. Salvation history is simply stating that the Bible is totally accurate in teaching us the nature of God, the nature of human beings, the nature of the relationship of people with God, and on the subject of salvation.

This generally views the Bible in sweeping terms. The Book of Genesis'
creation story is not viewed as a literal, scientific perspective on how God created the universe in 7 days. This narrative would make the earth and universe 6000 years old and have dinosaurs and people living together. It's something of the Flintstone model.

Science, obviously, has taught us that the earth and universe are far older than this and that people and dinosaurs lived at nowhere near the same time.

Classic theology has no major issue with evolution. There's a theological viewpoint of God as a creator, and as a creator God created a universe in motion, in process, and in evolutionary terms. The French Philosopher/Theologian Pierre Teilhard de Chardin wrote that to think of God other than a Creator who created an evolving creation to to diminish the Creator into little more than a cartoon character.

The problem right now is this. People are teaching that Genesis is a scientific fact. Other people are teaching that Genesis is a fairy tale with no meaning.

Sadly, right now, the major push is that the only way to approach Genesis is from either polemic, with no attempt to begin at the middle. There in lies the genesis of the dilemma of Christianity in America.

A Clueless Wingnut

Years ago when I was teaching High School in New Jersey I had the kids do oral reports in a theology class. I was teaching in a Roman Catholic High School. One of the kids gave his report on Allah and he said, at one point, "Allah is inscrutable." I asked the young man what the word inscrutable meant as he was using the word in his report. I was met with a blank stare. I had the young man sit down and told me that he could do his presentation tomorrow when he knew the definition of inscrutable.

The next day he did his talk. He came upon the phrase, "Allah is inscrutable," I asked and he answered. He came upon another word in the report and I asked him what that word meant. He smiled and gave me a perfect definition with a, "I knew you were going to ask me that!"

I felt good that day. Some education actually did happen. I hope that this person, who would now be in his 40's, never uses words that he doesn't know.

And then there is Kevin James. Kevin James does a radio talk show on KRLA in Los Angeles. His background is as a prosecutor and and entertainment attorney. From what I gather, he does a conservative talk show and usually refers to legal issues.

But Kevin James appeared on "Hardball" with Chris Matthews. Chris Matthews is a person some people really like and some people really don't. There are two things about Chris Matthews that are pretty obvious. First, he's a smart guy. He knows what's going on and who is doing it. Secondly, Matthews does not suffer fools gladly. A clueless wingnut on his show is going to be called out.

Kevin James demonstrated, on national television, that he is a clueless wingnut. He decided to defend President Bush's inane use of the word "appeaser' and James really wanted it applied to Obama. Fair enough. He then likened Obama to Neville Chamberlain. At this juncture, Matthews, who had a hunch that he was dealing with a loud blow hard in an empty suit asked Kevin James a very simple history question. What was it that Neville Chamberlain did that was wrong.

Matthews repeated the question between 24-28 times to James who blustered away and finally answered:

The things that Neville Chamberlain supported energized, legitimized, and made it easier for Hitler to advance in the ways that he advanced."

It was, obviously, the wrong answer. Matthews was looking to see if James knew the difference between negotiating, (talking) and appeasement, (giving something away) like Chamberlain had given away a chunk of Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany. James did not. He was using a word that he did not know the definition of. I suspect that his high school teachers, his college and law school professors looked on in horror to realize that a student who they had taught was little more than an ignorant blow hard on national television.

Something one learns in preaching class is that you do not use examples or stories about things you don't know about. The thing is, at some point, a person might actually ask you a question about something that you spoke about and if you don't know the answer you will be seen, properly, as a moron.

I respect that people have different opinions. I have little regard for clueless wingnuts who loves to speak and know little about that which they speak. I do have a character flaw. Like Chris Matthews I do not suffer fools gladly.

It would be nice if Kevin James' radio show vanishes because people realize that he has nothing to offer them. Sadly, I suspect, he'll be a national star, seen as a victim to 'liberalism' and filling the airways with nonsense.

If ignorance truly is bliss, I am always amazed how many happy people there are.

I Am Angry.

I am angry.

First off, for an American President to stand before a foreign governing body in a foreign land, as President Bush did with the Israeli Knesset, and bash any American political opponent is beyond belief. That, in and of itself was disgraceful and he owes the American people an apology for doing such a thing. Our political debates are here, not in other lands. It was putrid behavior on his part. Putrid. I use the word very deliberately.

This is not to mention how inane his remarks were:

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,"

"We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

The speech does explain a great deal about the situation we are currently in. President Bush does not seem to know, or grasp the difference between negotiation and appeasement. He further cites an isolationist Republican Senator from Idaho, William Borah who lamented in a rather bizarre fashion that he had wished he could have spoken to Hitler before the Nazis invaded Poland. The ultimate act of appeasement before World War II was by Neville Chamberlain of England who appeased Hitler and the Nazis in a fruitless effort to win ‘peace in our time.’ The appeasement came when Chamberlain negotiated away the Sudetenland area of Czechoslovakia, forcing the Czechs into giving away part of their country to Nazi Germany.

American Presidents, before President Bush, have all negotiated with other countries with varying degrees of success. We maintained diplomatic relations with Japan right up to December 7, 1941. No one called those relations with Japan appeasement and upon the attack on Pearl Harbor, we went to war.

It had become obvious that there was a threat with the Soviet Union that loomed greatly at the end of World War II. American Presidents, one and all, Democrat and Republican maintained and kept diplomatic negotiations with the Soviets. No one called it appeasement. In fact, many fans of Ronald Reagan credit Reagan for his willingness to go one on one with the Soviets. To his credit, his willingness to remain at the table, and even be tough at the table, proved to be beneficial. No one called this appeasement. No one ever called Richard Nixon an appeaser after he opened diplomatic relations with China.

President George H. W. Bush was often referred to as a ‘wimp’ from people in his own party for his deft ability to interact effectively with world leaders of every ilk. (It is interesting that the very people who inferred that George H. W. Bush was wimpy never served in the military and were very much chicken-hawks, whereas Bush was a decorated war hero.)

George W. Bush, not to be confused with his father, was inferring, quite obviously, that electing Barack Obama would be to elect an appeaser because Obama wants to open or maintain diplomatic relations with even our enemies. Again, the President, does not have a clue that there is a difference between negotiation and appeasement. Obama wants to ‘talk’ and he has given no indication that he has any desire to appease. He is actually simply looking to do what many of his predecessors have done.

Some might criticize him that he’s willing to talk without pre-conditions. Maybe he shouldn’t----or maybe he should.

The philosopher Dallas Willard has a great line. “The system we have now is perfectly designed to produce the results we are now getting.”

Our current method of foreign policy has gotten us where?

Our military is still fighting in Afghanistan. The soldiers in Afghanistan are too few in number and are under-equipped to be able to do their job properly because of the war in Iraq. We invaded Iraq because of weapons of mass-destruction that United Nations inspectors said did not exist (and who were eviscerated by the Bush administration) and we found that the United Nations inspectors were, in fact, correct.

We invaded Iraq to ‘fight the war on terror.’ Of course, the nations that were harboring terrorists at that time were Iran and Syria. So, we invaded Iraq. This kind of logic makes me think that if George W. Bush had been the Prime Minister in England in 1939, observing Germany and Italy, he’d have invaded Italy and proclaimed that getting ‘Mussolini’ was going to solve the world’s problems. Meanwhile, the real threat would have remained.

As a result, our military has been placed in the precarious position of fighting two insurgent wars at the same time. Historical precedence for fighting insurgencies with great success is rather limited, I’m afraid.

Meanwhile our relationships with other countries goes like this.

Most of Europe holds us in contempt. Tony Blair’s career was destroyed by siding with the United States. France and Germany, in hindsight, look brilliant.

Saudi Arabia, George W. Bush’s one true friend, laughed in his face when he asked them to please increase oil production. This is his second visit this year asking his friends to please help.

Under George W. Bush, our current foreign policy reminds me of a game we boys used to play in the 6th grade. We’d line up in the boys’ room and see who could urinate the furthest. We all learned that one kid was the champion so the game soon ended. We also got a bit more mature and realized the stupidity of this game. But this, now, is how the Bush administration conducts its foreign policy.

The system we have now is perfectly designed to produce the results we are now getting.

Barack Obama was simply stating that what we are doing now is not working so perhaps a change of tactics might be in order.

George W. Bush, who doesn’t know the difference between appeasement and negotiation decides to protest this to leaders of another country.

His speech was mindless, historically inaccurate, and putrid.

And I’m still angry.

Recognizing what is really important...

Sometimes recognizing what is really important is difficult. In the midst of a debate on the gas tax, on Barack and Hillary, the John McCain story, a cyclone hit Myanmar. The estimates are that over 100,000 people have been killed and that over 1,000,000 people have been left homeless. The United States, the United Nations, and much of the world has responded with great generosity and compassion and a large amount of aid has been directed towards Myanmar.

The aid is being blocked and what precious little has gotten into the country has been seized by the government of Myanmar.

Things, of course, are going to get worse. Hunger and disease are on the horizon and aid is being blocked.

Deliver us from evil....

Some Almost Post Primary Observations

I write this as someone who really admires Hillary Clinton and believes that she would have made a very fine President. It is looking like she is not going to be the nominee for the Democrats----but one never knows what will happen between now and November. As a result, I'm writing this from the perspective that it's hitting the two minute warning, she does not have the ball, does not have any time outs, and is behind by two scores. Lest someone say I'm premature, that's my starting point.

I think that she ran into some things that she might have not been expecting.

First, in an ironic twist of fate, George W. Bush helped pull her down. Bush has an incredibly low approval rating and the nation's perspective is that we are heading in the wrong direction----rapidly. It is always impossible to say at the time, but I deeply suspect that this administration will rank very low on effective Presidencies.

What happened to her was that there is a strong sense of anti-incumbency and anti-Bush. She might not be the incumbent President, but she was, as First Lady, there before, and people just want to clean the house out, lock, stock, and barrel. Oddly enough, the dislike of the current President has worn off on her.

Secondly there is the war. Tapes of speeches that Hillary Clinton made previous to the invasion of Iraq demonstrated that she had plenty to drink at the Bush Kool-Aid stand. Many of the words she used were his exact words. The fact that she pronounced them correctly and used them in proper grammatical order made her a bit different from Bush, but not much. He long, convoluted explanations on this did not help her. A simply "I believed him, I voted for the war, and I believed his lies," would have been enough. They weren't.

Thirdly, the gas tax proposal at the last minute looked like a cheap political stunt and it looked so cheaply political that people didn't seem to buy into it very much.

Fourthly, Hillary gets 'cute' with her answers some times. When asked, some time back, if Obama was Muslim, her answer was, "From what I have heard, I don't believe that he might be." It was something along that line when 'no' would have been a more direct answer. You can't milk political advantage out of EVERY question.

Lastly, Obama ran a better campaign. She did not foresee the importance of the caucuses, she did not have an effective fund-raising mechanism, she ignored smaller states, and she had no Post-Super-Tuesday strategy. Hillary's negativity tended towards personal, and Obama's negativity tended towards policy. John Yarmuth beat Ann Northup the same way.

This was an amazing and historic primary process. We'll see how that translates in November.

Hillary Clinton in New Albany

I have not seen anything posted by anyone, but Senator Hillary Clinton is speaking in New Albany tonight at the firehouse on E. Spring Street, right next to the St. Marks parking lot on 3rd Street. There doesn't seem to be much publicity, but I thought I'd share this for anyone interested.

Join Hillary Clinton for a “Standing Up For Jobs” Rally in New Albany

When

Monday, May 5, 2008 at 6:00 PM - 8:00 PM

Where

New Albany Fire Department
316 East Spring Street
New Albany, IN 47150
General Area:

Description

Join Hillary as she shares with Hoosier voters her plans to jumpstart the economy, create new, high wage jobs and strengthen the middle class.

Host

Indiana For Hillary

Cheap Gestures or Substance

I feel something like a grinch writing this and I certainly love receiving checks in the mail and paying lower prices, but I've been wondering.

We are soon going to be getting our checks from the government to help boost the economy. Two of the Presidential Candidates are proposing eliminating the federal sales tax off of gasoline for the summer to lower prices on gas for people to travel.

Again, it's not that I don't love getting money and paying lower prices, but I'm troubled that these just might be cheap gestures and have no real substance to them.

And why do people seem to delight in what I perceive to be cheap gestures?

Randomness

I'm tired of being serious so I decided to just list some random things.

Paula Abdul critiqued the second song from one of the performers and she did not like his performance of that second song. Thing is, he only sang one song. Turns out she read the wrong script or something. I do not understand why people watch that show.

If the Federal Reserve cuts interest rates much more soon we will be paying the banks to hold our money for us.

I delight in people telling us that the marketplace solves the problems. Leave it to the marketplace!!! Gas is now $3.75 a gallon. Guess what the number 1 issue for the election in November will be? Gas is $3.75 a gallon. Hard to fathom...

President Bush wants to fight global warming. He has announced his plans to attack the sun. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have announced that they are in opposition to this invasion. John McCain has not made any public statements but he has been inquiring about asbestos suits... Faux News is supportive of the invasion and their science experts have suggested that all flights to the sun be done during the day so that it can be easily found...

Sports Illustrated has ranked baseball stadiums. Shea Stadium, in New York is near the bottom. Both Yankee Stadium and Shea Stadium ranked very low on 'hospitality.' You just have to love the New York Metro area...

Which reminds me. The official state bird for New Jersey, at least when I was growing up, was the eastern goldfinch. I have actually never actually seen an eastern goldfinch. In New Jersey we saw a lot of robins and blue jays, and if you lived near the ocean there were lots of sea gulls, but I've never known anyone from NJ who has actually ever actually seen an eastern goldfinch. The truth is, everyone from New Jersey and who has ever driven there, actually knows what the real state 'bird' actually is.

Tuesday is the big primary election in Indiana. Who'd have thunk it?

You know what I think is not patriotic? When people change their party affiliation during primaries to vote for a candidate of the other party to create chaos ala Rush Limbaugh. It is a denial of the freedom of the people of a party to choose who they want to run for office. It is about as unAmerican as you can get to deny people the right to choose their candidate. We should only vote in the primaries for the person we will choose to be the next President in November. Rush Limbaugh thinks that voting is a big joke and that is pathetic. He'd of course, deny it, but when you treat a primary election like this and chortle about creating chaos, you're making a joke out of a right that was bought and paid for by so many people by their heroism in so many wars. Shame on him and double shame on the people who do this.

The following is an excerpt, out of context, from a satirical essay. It is not really from the Reagan Diaries, but it is funny. I couldn't resist:

A moment I've been dreading. George brought his n'er-do-well son
around this morning and asked me to find the kid a job. Not the political one who lives in Florida ; the one who hangs around here all the time looking shiftless. This so-called kid is already almost 40 and
has never had a real job. Maybe I'll call Kinsley over at The NewRepublic and see if they'll hire him as a contributing editor or something. That looks like easy work."

The origins of this are found here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/kinsley.asp

The two major Kentucky quarterbacks both had disappointing draft days.

Brian Brohm, who marvelously stayed at U of L for this senior year, and was rewarded with a dismal team performance. Instead of going early in the 1st round, as he would have a year ago, he was drafted in the second round by the Packers who were good enough to make it to the NFC Championship Game that they lost to the World Champion New York Giants. (I really good have ended this sentence with "Game." but I had to add the rest. It was gratuitous on my part.) He comes into camp in second place behind highly regarded Aaron Rodgers. I do hope Brohm gets to play. I'm frightened that he might have have the opportunity to do so. What baffles me is that the Bears really think that Rex Grossman is better than Brian Brohm will be? They passed him twice.

Andre Woodson, of UK lingered until the 6th round where he was picked up by the World Champion New York Giants. (equally gratuitous). Woodson will be a backup to Eli Manning who has only played four seasons. Woodson, I think, may be a real talent. What baffles me is that the Bears really think that Rex Grossman is better than Woodson. Woodson went in the 6th round. Lovie Smith will not last long as a Head Coach in the NFL because he is too loyal to an obviously poor player and does not seem to realize that you need a capable quarterback to win championships.

I was feeling better having ranted away today, but I do need gas and gas is $3.75 a gallon....

Sadly...

Sadly, over the last few days, it has appeared that Jeremiah Wright has done something I would have never expected. He appears to have thrown Barack Obama under the bus. I write this as a person who has defended him. I write this as a person who appreciated the interview with Bill Moyers and was angry with him being taken out of context. I feel that I have extended a great deal of good will towards Jeremiah Wright and that he deserved it for his many years of faithful service, etc.

His attitudes and words over the last few days have, sadly, made me great angry.

Wright is rhetorical expert, well trained in language and speech patterns. He is educated in it and can pretty much do any accent across the nation and do them well. Using this to mock John Kennedy, however, was, frankly, tasteless. His point was not all bad, but his way of making his point was, well, as I said, tasteless.

I also feel that his belief that all the attacks on him are attacks on the "Black Church" is not fair or remotely accurate.

Within the United Church of Christ we live with certain realities. Sometimes people will speak of a typical UCC congregation. Most people who have lived within the denomination can pretty much tell you that there is no such thing as a typical UCC congregation. I have heard the expression that a particular church was the most UCC that people knew of. That is, pretty much by design, an oxymoron. What makes the United Church of Christ particularly unique is that we are all particularly unique. Most people who make broad generalizations about the denomination or even congregations are people who don't know much about it or need to remove their shoes and socks in order to count to 11.

This, I know, seems like a digression, but I'm doing it to make a point. To make a claim that an attack against him is an attack against "Black Churches" is saying likewise. I don't believe that there are typical African American churches any more than there are typical African Americans. People and congregations are unique and that is an amazing and wonderful thing. I can't imagine any one saying that they are representative of the whole.

Barack Obama, to his credit, has not embraced much of what Jeremiah Wright is saying. In his book, "An Audacity of Hope," Obama exudes great generosity towards all people and is very sensitive to avoiding stereotypes. He is, however, being lumped together with his former pastor with some issues that I cannot imagine he wants to be lumped together with.

I can't imagine what is going on. Is Wright mad that Obama didn't jump up and down with support and express his love enough? Is Wright angry that a member of his church is now very famous? I truly do not know the answer.

I have always admired Jeremiah Wright a great deal. I have met him and I enjoyed hearing him preach on several occasions. When he was interviewed by Bill Moyers, the man I admired was sitting at the table with Moyers and I felt that many people saw a portrait of a man I had admired.

Sadly, what I've witness over the last few days had greatly began to change my opinion. Even worse, I think that we are witnessing the destruction of a long relationship of a pastor with a church member who so admired him that he named a book after a sermon title.

Not much to celebrate with all of this, to be sure.

Miley Cyrus

Miley Cyrus, her parents, and Disney are outraged at the pictures of Miley, aka Hannah Montana, that are appearing in Vanity Fair magazine. The pictures were taken by famed photographer Annie Leibovitz. Evidently the pictures of 15 year old Miley Cyrus are very sexy and provocative with one of them showing her topless with a sheet around her showing her bare back. Evidently another one (I have not seen these pictures and and just reiterating what I have read) has her showing her bra while pulling her blouse down a bit.

They do sound like sexy pictures taken of a 15 year old girl.

I don't even know where to begin to scream on this one.

First off, why does Vanity Fair need provocative pictures of a 15 year old girl in its magazine?

Secondly, Annie Leibovitz is a famed, artistic photographer who has taken provocative and sexy pictures in her career. She also took pictures of Queen Elizabeth and the queen did not pose for anything very provocative and remained completely clothed for the entire session. Feel free to add your own 'smart' comment to this.

But....

Okay, the parents. Where the heck were the parents and what were they thinking?

And, Miley. I have two daughters. They are both well past 15 but at age 15 they both knew the difference between topless and wearing a top. One can question the judgment of adolescents at times and the questioning can be quite justified. I have never met a teenaged girl who didn't know the difference between clothed and naked. I have never met a teenaged girl who was ignorant of what a camera in the room and their naked, or partially naked body meant. Miley took her shirt off and pictures were being taken. Miley seems to be a smart girl----so she's outraged that she was fooled? Huh?

This entire story is pretty pathetic. Annie Leibovitz should not have taken the pictures. Vanity Fair should be be publishing the pictures. The Cyrus parents are pathetic for consenting to this shoot. And Miley ought to stop feigning outrage at how she was used and come to grips with her own complicity in this. She is old enough to know better.

Wright Contextually

When I watched the Wright statements via sound bite form, like most people, I was taken aback by the G-D America and the ‘chickens come home to roost,’ statement. The first sounded, obviously, like a “I hate America,” statement ( and was vulgar), and the second made it sound like 9/11 was something we totally deserved, which, honestly, on context, might not have changed a great deal.

In context here is what I heard. The G-D America sermon was contextually a Torah sermon about blessings of God and curses of God. Something devoid in the Torah was the concept of grace and blessings were earned, and were not gifts from God. Wright was talking, rightly at this juncture, that governments fail and God does not. He made the move that governments (and people) ought not expect the blessings of God when they choose unrighteous paths. His overall point seemed to be that we have no right to expect the blessings of God when we deserve the curses of God for our behavior. My sense was that he observing that blind nationalism was not something people should put their faith into. Big picture I would agree with him on this.

Does this mean that I was with him on everything in this? No, not at all. For one, I didn’t appreciate the vulgarity. I don’t want to get caught up in that, but it was hard to miss, obviously.

That is what I saw in context. Issues I would have with Wright on this also stand out.

First, I think that his focus seems to be on the United States as a whole not noting or acknowledging that as a society we are a mixture of good and bad, of righteous and unrighteous. I believe that his focus is more on what he perceives the Bush Administration to be and to be about and not acknowledging that there is more to the country than this.

Secondly, I’m not a particular espouser of Liberation Theology. It’s roots are very Latin American and came to fruition at a time when oppression was the order of the day in the regions where it grew. Not unlike Wright’s sermon, it is very Old Testament in its approach and seems to lose sight of redemption as a greater good. I found him making some distinctions between black America and white America that I found disquieting.

The other sermon was interesting. I have always found Psalm 137 to be a remarkable Psalm. Its words were made quite famous in ‘Godspell” with that haunting beautiful song, “On the Willows.” (In the play it’s the crucifixion song and is used in an amazing out of context form!!!)

In any case, the Jews are captives of the Babylonians and they are being mocked by their captors. “Sing is one of the songs of Zion.” One can picture the captors on the sideline mocking them. Their response is “How can we sing the Lord’s song in a foreign land.” The psalm ends dreadfully when the captives are longing for the day when they can rise up and defeat the captives and even crush the heads of the babies against the rocks. It is pretty dreadful.

Wright’s sermon was that when people are angry, really angry, that in their response they can and will resort to violence and kill everything, even the innocent. Even the children. It was a horrible image and he presented it as such.

I believe that his point was something of a question as to why are we surprised that someone has done this to us? He did make an indictment that our hands (American hands) are not without blood in our history and we have done likewise.

The big question I have on this one is wondering if he was justifying the attack in 9/11 or not. I find great ambiguity of this as he seems to be leaning in this direction and that makes me incredibly uncomfortable, if not angry.

I don’t want to belabor this, but this is where I’m coming from. Here are my final thoughts.

First, I found more to Wright and his comments in context than out of context. Does this make Wright right? (I couldn’t resist that.) It does not make him correct and his words are not comforting or assuring by any stretch of the imagination. Frankly, they are way too Old Testament for me and, frankly, seem to segregate responsibility from one portion of America to another----without making many distinctions on “America.’ I honestly think that he made some good points but went over the top on these. Was this hyperbole on his part of his genuine thoughts? That I cannot answer.

Secondly, my starting premise in this was that I was and am angry at the news media for not doing much of a story about this. It is interesting to note that they are doing the same thing to John Hagee about the Roman Catholic Church and not looking at the larger point he was making in his book. Again, whether you like Hagee or not, he is entitled to be taken in context of his entire thought. I don’t think that we have a liberal or conservative news media in our country, but we have a lazy news media that enjoys playing ‘gotcha!’ more than doing good research.

Thirdly, I’m not sure any of this makes much of a difference. People’s opinions about Wright are pretty much set already. People who wanted to like Wright enjoyed the Moyers’ interview and people who don’t like Wright didn’t enjoy it. I’m not sure it changed much on the landscape.

NFL Draft

Well, lest I get to taking myself of my blog too seriously about theology and politics, it's time to get down to serious business. The NFL draft was this weekend.

Several thoughts.

The first thought is this. Any judgments made by anyone after the draft are subject to being seen as totally insane. The reality is that no one is truly a 'can't miss' prospect. The NFL is littered with a lot of players drafted in the high rounds who did nothing. Tom Brady and Joe Montana were not drafted early....nuff said on that.

It's also interesting to note that it's always difficult to see how a season plays out. In the 2004 draft the Chargers drafted Eli Manning (who would not play for them) and traded him to the Giants for Phillip Rivers. During the season people were making the judgment that Rivers might have been better than Manning. The Steelers drafted Ben Roethlisberger and he made it to the Super Bowl (on a great team) and his team won, but Big Ben had a dreadful game. Everyone decried that the Giants choice of Manning was a bad one. Of course, of all the quarterbacks drafted that year, Manning is the one with a Super Bowl MVP. On the first week of December he looked like a flop and then was a hero. Who can figure?

The Dolphins and the Rams both took linemen which is amazing. Smart, but amazing. Most teams like to go for the more sexy positions, so these were bold moves. The Falcons drafting Matt Ryan made a strong statement that they are not waiting for Michael Vick to come back. Vick was exciting, to be sure, but I, like many, wondered if he was coachable and would be a great NFL player. He hadn't proven himself to be.

The Giants drafted Kenny Phillips from Miami and many people said that he was the best safety in the draft. They chose Terrell Thomas a cornerback from USC. I think that their secondary was the part of the team that had the most questions and so if these players play well, it will be a good draft.

Interesting to note, people didn't think much of their draft last year and after the Super Bowl they were touted as one of the teams that drafted the most intelligently. As I said, who can figure.

My postscript on this is simple. I never get myself overly excited. I still remember the Giants drafting Rocky Thompson. Thompson was fast and a running back in college but the Giants drafted him as a wide receiver. Thompson, however, was about as bright as an unlit lightbulb and couldn't learn to run routes... Sigh.

This Interview Made Me Angry

Last night I watched Bill Moyers (the only person I would have trusted to do this interview) actually sit down and interview Jeremiah Wright. It was a one member of the United Church of Christ (Moyers) interviewing a UCC minister and it was an excellent interview.

This interview made me angry. Not at Moyers or Wright but at the insidious job that the news media did in reporting this story. Moyers showed longer excerpts from Wright's 'sound bite' sermons and what we have been seeing is SO amazingly out of context that it will practically make your hair stand up. Wright also used the words I attributed to him (different is not deficient.)

If you missed it, here is the link: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04252008/watch.html

Wright did something interesting. He was preaching from the Bible. He got his cues from the Bible instead of making the Bible validate his opinions. Amazing. Watch the video. You'll be amazed at what you didn't see before.

Dining Out Pet Peeves

We eat out a great deal and, over the years, I've developed a lot of pet peeves with dining out. They might not apply to you, but they annoy me. Feel free to add any additions to my list!

1. Serving margarine instead of butter. Margarine is good for one thing and when I determine what that one thing is, I will be sure to pass it on. When you give me bread and want me to 'butter' it, give me butter. I'm also semi-annoyed by the 'olive oil' craze that is sweeping the nation. I grew up in a classic Italian American family in New Jersey and guess what we put on our bread growing up? BUTTER!

2. Restaurants that make you a nice salad and give you an envelope with real fake dressing inside of it. Of course, to make these $#% envelopes strong enough to not leak, they wrap them in industrial strength aluminum to make them difficult to tear open. They truly are Manzo proof and, frankly, don't taste like anything I'm interested in eating.

3. You to to a restaurant, they give you water and you are thirsty and drink the water down very quickly. Someone comes by and asks, "Would you like a refill?" DUH!!!!!!!!

4. You order a steak, and chains are notorious for this, and they put some sort of weird seasoning all over the steak. Instead of a beef taste you taste a weird combination of salt, chili powder, pepper, and secret spices all of which I could have done without.

5. Asian food on a buffet. I love Asian food and really good Chinese food as few peers. The stir frying technique makes the vegetables mostly especially hot, cooked, and crunchy. If you go to a buffet this marvelous cooking technique gets afflicted to a steam table which renders what started out as wonderful into yuch. Asian buffet restaurants should be avoided at all costs.

6. Boiled unto death hot dogs. Yuch. Grilled all beef franks and the puffy, colorless things that people take out of a vat of hot water and place on a bun have little semblance to each other.

7. Corned beef or pastrami with lettuce, tomato, and mayonnaise. Anyone who really has a comprehension of what 'deli food' is can tell you that this is truly a mockery of food. It is like putting ketchup on filet mignon. Anyone who can count to 11 and keep his/her shoes on should know better than this.

8. Not saying, in the menu, what is actually in the dish. I cannot eat onions very well. I do not feel great after eating them. I will always read the menu to see if onion is a big part of dishes and I often ask and will order things without the onions. All too often I have read the description of a food item and I receive something fairly accurately described---except they used a copious amount of onions and didn't mention it. A friend ordered something and what she received had curry flavoring that wasn't mentioned. Since she didn't like curry flavoring...

9. McDonalds. I'd rather eat dirt.

10. Fish on the menu without telling me what kind of fish it is. Most places do not simply say "Meat sandwich" on the menu and let you hope you like the choice of meat. Maybe it's because I'm a northeastern elitist who grew up and learned that not all fish were the same or tasted the same. Before I bite into the fish, I'd like to know what kind it is.

Barack Obama Comes to New Albany

It definitely was exciting. I went to see Barack Obama with a group of people from St. Marks. We all had tickets but we want to make sure we got in and got close enough to see and hear it all. We arrived at IUS a bit after 8:00AM, had chairs, and waited on line. A good friend made a mad dash down from Columbus when we called him and told me that we had one extra ticket. He made it just it time for us to go in at 10:00AM.

The place was packed and people were definitely excited. When Senator Obama walked in the room people were incredibly enthusiastic. He spoke for a while then answered some questions.

Some things did strike me.

First, he is amazingly bright and articulate, and maintains his intelligence, and his speaking ability with a sense of humor and surprising warmth. I actually was taken aback by his warmth and approachability. He was at great ease taking questions.

Secondly, I had a different sense of this race. The positions of Obama and Clinton are, when you look at them, remarkably similar. He did make this point quite well; and when you contrast the positions with McCain, wow. This next election can't be about 'who' but 'what.' The 'who's' are important because of 'what' they are about. I have a sense that either the Senator from Illinois or New York will have comparable approaches.

Lastly, I'm realizing more and more that there is a higher level of racism that I could even grasp. The word 'elite' is being used about Barack Obama more and more. This morning they were criticizing how he is dressed. The reason for this is that he is dressed well. He was wearing a crisp white shirt and a dark suit.

Barack Obama dresses well and his is criticized. He uses big words demonstrating that he has received a good education and can read and write and is criticized for this. The word 'elite' is used about him almost more than anyone else.

The word 'elite' has replaced the phrase 'uppity n...."

A friend said that there is a thinly veiled use of racism towards him. I disagree. I don't think the veil is that thin.

The event was interesting. He was a person of intelligence, of great insight, well-spoken, and humble enough to say that he often relies on the wisdom of others to help him learn about things and make decisions.

He would be a definite change in the White House, that is for sure.

John McCain’s North Carolina Dilemma

John McCain is opposing the state GOP in North Carolina which is running commercials linking Barack Obama with state officials. They are using the association of Barack Obama and his retired pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. They are using the 30 second sound bites everyone has seen 1001 times before.

Senator McCain is opposing this. He doesn’t want to run this kind of campaign and that’s great. He ought to oppose this. If you watch the commercial, it’s a not very thinly veiled use of racism and McCain, frankly, does not want to be associated with this. All of this is good.

But John McCain has another problem. In an ironic twist of fate, the two leading Democratic candidates are more church affiliated people than John McCain is. Both Obama and Clinton are more deeply invested, church wise, than Senator McCain is, and they are both more politically aware of religious leaders, who they are, and what they stand for.

Senator McCain was having a problem with Evangelicals so he courted John Hagee, a mega-church pastor from Texas. The only problem was the Hagee was probably not the best person to chose from. John Hagee is one of the people who proclaimed Katrina to be God’s vengeance on the city of New Orleans. John Hagee is one who aligned the Roman Catholic Church with rampant anti-semitism and has referred to it as the ‘great whore’ in the book of Revelation. Oh yes, and on women: Do you know the difference between a woman with PMS and a snarling Doberman pinscher? The answer is lipstick.”

If John McCain’s campaign uses commercials linking Barack Obama to Jeremiah Wright then John McCain runs the risk of commercials being run linking him to John Hagee.

The argument is going to be made that Obama sat in Wright’s church for 20 years. True enough. But, the more people look into Jeremiah Wright, the more substance they are going to find that he is really an incredible individual and more and more people will understand why Obama sat in that church. The more they look into John Hagee they will wonder what John McCain was thinking when he sought this endorsement.

Senator McCain has, to his credit, looked to take the high road here. It demonstrates good character on his part, but also an insight that there are some gutters one does not want to play in. His North Carolina dilemma is real and offers nothing good for anyone.

Random Musings

Despite myself I keep following the Mets. Grr.

The Giants should trade Shockey. If you don't know what I'm talking about, don't worry about it. I'm just saying it.

I found it interesting that the Pope was bid farewell by Darth Vader himself. I'm not sure Lord Vader realized it, but the Pope eviscerated US foreign policy during his UN speech.

Well, the earthquake the other day was my first experience with an earthquake. Hard to believe; it was not something I expected to take up to. I'd like not to repeat the experience.

Eli Manning got married in Mexico over the weekend. I know one person whom I love dearly who is not a happy camper about this.

I ate at the new fish restaurant in New Albany the other day and had an excellent fish sandwich. Good for downtown!!!

A very hand site to have if you live around here is this:

http://www.louisvillehotbytes.com/

Robin Garr runs a first class site and it has the best information on dining out in the Louisville metro area.

I am really vexed between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. I truly am.

Lastly, I am weary of barking dogs in my subdivision. Why do people get dogs and keep them outside barking at all hours. Cruel to the dogs and the neighbors!!!!

Hmm...

I was watching MSNBC on the coverage of the Pope’s visit to the United States. I found this trip to be entirely fascinating. In any case, I thought that the coverage was mostly pretty good other than the constant chatter over some very fine music.

In any case, MSNBC had a commentator who was a priest from the Diocese of Erie, Pennsylvania and he made a very foolish statement. He observed that Roman Catholic churches, now, are the safest place for children in the world. This was, obviously, in response to the whole crisis that the Roman Catholic church had with pedophiles.

It would be a nice thought, but it was an incredibly foolish and arrogant statement to make. It is that kind of foolishness and arrogance that got the Roman Catholic church in trouble in the first place, and the kind of foolishness and arrogance that all places that serve children can be vulnerable to.

Children should be safe. It is up to churches and any place that has children to assure that. It requires some due diligence in who children are with, the environment that they are in, accessibility to others, etc.

The problem the Roman Catholic church had was that they weren’t diligent in the past. I was never sexually abused or approached in any way, shape, or form and I did spend time with priests. I was fortunate, however, that the priests with whom I associated were not predators. Safeguards were not in place and parents readily dropped their children off for altar boy practice, etc. After all, what would be safer than having children spend time with clergy? Actually, nothing should be safe, but, sadly, we’ve found out that not all clergy ought to be alone with children. We found it out sadly and tragically.

I hope that this guy is right that the children are safer in churches than ever before. I do wish, however, he’d be a bit more cautious in that and remind all of us that diligence and safety are not innate, but worked at.

On the Flip side...

I have said some really nice things about the current Pope. One would get the impression from reading my blog of late that I am a huge fan of Pope Benedict. I’m really not. I see some good qualities about him that I do admire. I am not, however, moved to the point that I long to be Roman Catholic again.

His background was as a theologian and a seminary professor. Under the reign of Pope John Paul II he was the theological point person to enforce John Paul’s rigid views of theology. John Paul was elected when I was still in the seminary (and was Roman Catholic) and found myself very inspired to become Protestant.

I am not an admirer of John Paul. People now like to call him John Paul the great and many have said that he needs to be on the fast track towards becoming a saint. How a person who turned a blind eye, an intentional blind eye on sexual abuse within his church to be called ‘great’ or a ‘saint’ is beyond my comprehension. But, oh well. When Paul VI was the Pope there was a great deal of theological diversity and open discussion within the Roman Catholic church. John Paul ended that. Frankly, he was an international superstar, but an ecclesiastical nightmare to many. Me included.

The current Pope is as rigid as John Paul, probably more theological astute than John Paul, and unlike John Paul, may actually have a heart. John Paul demonstrated an almost callous indifference to abuse victims and people who disagreed with him. Benedict his showing a heart. Good thing.

But here are some points I don’t like.

First, I think that his concept of “truth” is way too narrowly defined to a very old brand of Roman Catholicism. There is much depth to much in Roman Catholic theology, but, sometimes, in practice, there is an almost superstitious silliness. His conceptualization on being ‘too’ Roman Catholic is that he really has diminished ecumenical exchanges.

Secondly, he is at least acknowledging the sexual abuse scandal. He has finally grasped that it is real and vile. (While a Cardinal under John Paul II he called this a media creation)

His acknowledgment is a good thing and a major step forward. The problem, however, is that there is a systemic problem within Roman Catholicism that no one will confront. Many have been trying to state that celibacy is not the problem-----but they are whistling in the dark on this one. They truly are. Additionally, the lack of women in the priesthood has also helped perpetuate the problem. It is not to say that denominations with married clergy and female clergy don’t have problems, they do. But you do not see the level of this kind of activity.

Thirdly, Pope Benedict has made all sorts of statements about gay priests being defective and, frankly, he probably was making reference to a staggering percentage of priests. He put them down and they really didn’t deserve this. Many of them have served God and served God’s Church very, very well and his words came as a dreadful shock to them. Part of the dilemma that the Roman Catholic church has faced is that they do have a large number of gay priests and, in their formation programs, do not provide the formation to enable these men to grapple with celibacy, etc.

Fourthly, he had a conference with all the Bishops a couple of years ago in Roman about Holy Communion. There was great excitement through many Christian circles because the Roman Catholic church and Holy Communion is a big deal. The Roman Catholic church has a closed table (which to me is a sin) and they close it off to other Christians who are not Roman Catholic, but also close it off to people who have been divorced and remarried. It’s interesting to note that NOTHING blocks a person from the table at my church, including a Roman Catholic who was divorced and remarried, but they are blocked from the table in their own church.

But I digress. Problems have tentacles. In any case, he convened this huge event and they talked about distribution of the wafers, how people held their hands in receiving, Holy Communion, etc. Nonsensical stuff.

I could go on, but I won’t. The more I see, the more I observe, the more delighted I am to be a part of the United Church of Christ.