Salt

If you wanted to be a good priest

in an average size parish, you would be expected to

be a housekeeper (Father, the windowsills are dusty!)
day-care-center teacher, (Can you teach the three year olds about baptism?)
cook (Father is preparing his fabulous Jerk Chicken for the barbecue!)
computer operator (Father, have you updated our web-page?  And we aren't getting your emails.)
facilities manager (Father, can we have our baptismal party?  Can we bring beer?  No Balloons?)
van driver (Edna needs a ride to the doctor, Father.  Are you free on Wednesday?)
CEO (we can't pay the bills, Father.  Can you wait on your reimbursement check?)
and psychologist (Father, I want to kill my husband).

Thus, in order to be a good Father, you should probably be a Mom.

And the pay sould be $134 grand. 

William Sloane Coffin

My grandmother was a regular reader and listener to Coffin's sermons.  Coffin was instrumental in my own faith journey - that one could be funny, political and smart.  After his son died in a car accident, He preached one of the most beautiful sermons I have ever heard.   I once sat opposite him during a wedding rehearsal dinner when I was just ordained, which was exhilarating - kind of like being next to a clergy rock star.   At the Clergy Leadership Conference, he gave some encouraging words via phone.   

 

MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP)

''Bill's voice was part of a chorus of conscience for a nation dealing with issues of poverty, war, disarmament, racism and bigotry,'' the Rev. Frederick J. Streets, Yale's current chaplain, said Wednesday. ''He distinguished himself by rising above and emerging out of his own background of privilege to speak on behalf of the poor.''

In awarding Coffin an honorary doctorate in 2002, Yale praised its former chaplain, saying, ''You changed the shape of college chaplaincy and inspired a generation of young people to challenge injustice.''

Americans Don't Believe in God

A comment about the recent studies on prayer, with a comparison to placebo. 

Muslims Converting To Christianity

I admit, I am inclined to applaud individuals who are the best representatives of their faith.  Granted, I think that the true faith, which may (or may not) be in most religions is one that recognizes the redemptive, healing, transformative power of Love.   My evaluation of other religions comes down to this.  I'm not a relativist, nor am I a universalist.  A religion can be based, for example, on the redemptive power of money.   So, as a matter of temperament, I'm not the sort who proselytizes, but the recent events in Afghanistan have helped me consider the incentives for Muslims to convert to Christianity.

I once baptized on person who grew up in an agnostic family in Turkey.  I hesitate to call her a Muslim.  She knew nothing about the Koran, and a little less about Christianity.  She knew, however, what Muslims think about Christians.  First, that we worship three Gods and second, that we are cannibals.  I said that the trinity was how we explain God's suffering, and Islam grew, in part, out of a dissatisfaction of having a God that shares in suffering.  I also remarked that the trinity affirmed that we knew God in our relationships.  As far as cannibalism, I remarked that all of society is based upon the cannibalizing, even metaphorically, of hidden victims.  Christianity attempts to reveal the hidden violence we avoid, with the hope that this will create peace. 

I baptized Alex in Korea.  He had lived in Kazakhastan, and had seen all the Russians leave.  He was concerned about the fundamentalism that was growing in Islam, and the hypocrisy he was witnessing.  He came, faithfully, to several bible studies.  When he was baptized we went to Tony Roma's ordered a big plate of ribs and he took out a fifth of whiskey.  He'd finally been liberated to eat pork and drink liquor.  I was sure that wasn't what I was teaching him, but he'd picked up a couple other messages, and perhaps the antinomian heresy, along the way. 

Of course, he was able to emigrate to Canada as a Christian from Kazakhastan, and I wonder if was made a bit easier by my writing letters to the Canadian embassy for him.

I think that if Christianity affirms its innate (although often ridiculed) non-violent urge, it will have a lot to offer people in countries where violence is normal.  I don't want to make the mistake of saying that Christians are more pacifistic than other people.  But peace is an intrinsic part of the teaching, in spite of the tribal impulses that lie at the heart of any cultural enterprise.  Alas, as long as we have invaded with weapons, our sin reveals us to be the hypocrites that our Lord has forgiven us for being. 

Dennett and Swineburne Exchange Views

A very interesting exchange in the British Prospect.  Swinburne affirms we should bet on God first - the world is such a wonderful place, and it doesn't have to be.  Why not God?  Dennett then asks, but what are the rules of the game, after all, infinity is infinity, so as an accident, the world is a wonderful place?  Swinburne replies that his answer is much simpler, and he is correct on this point.

Dennett then says, You and I have different ideas about what constitutes a good explanation, and what needs an explanation at all—and this fact itself needs to be acknowledged before we can engage in a constructive discussion.

....This leaves you with a stark choice: preach to the converted in your own flock and abdicate responsibility for convincing (not terrorising) the rest of the world to see it your way, or accept that you have to begin from the neutral position that presupposes no God and prove to us that you're right.

I'm all for the latter option, of course. And in the meantime, I note that on the matters of morality on which there is something approaching a global consensus, the evidence to date does not show that adherence to a religion—any religion—has a positive effect on the probability that a person behaves morally.

I've always enjoyed both these philosophers, but I think Dennett wins on this exchange.  Not sure what Swinburne means when he says prediction isn't important to science. 

In another review, Dennett does explain how changing - or explaining - the etiology of religion might help us draw some conclusions about the empirical use of religion.   Admittedly, it is etiology - an understanding of how, for example, biblical myth, levitical laws and church doctrine was created - that create justifications for reexamining doctrine. 

I admit, I don't think Dennett defines religion well enough (although he's gotten a lot more precise in this area over the last few years).  Religion is, in a sense, a form of communication about what is true.  It short-cuts information.   It is not primarily about morality, but about such matters as defining social roles, human limits, personal freedom and political authority.  Within the liturgy, the rite, social teaching and fellowship, "thick" messages are conveyed - ranging from none of us are Gods to we're all going to die to the Priest is supposed to bring everyone together and s/he's in charge.   The trinity is not a cosmic explanation about God in the physical universe as it is a claim that God works persuasively and cooperatively rather than coercively and cruelly.   It may not be a good scientific claim that God exists, but it has some ethical content.

It seems to me that Swinburne argues that because there are rules, God is.  And because the rules get broken, God is free.  But I think Dennett would argue that conflating God with the rules makes for a very wan God, and to say "God is free" means simply that we aren't thinking clearly enough.  I wonder if Dennett would find Marion's theology more appealing.

Sometimes its necessary to reconsider our closely held theologies - our short cuts, such as the trinity.  Sometimes the short-cuts are used with the wrong consequences.  But short-cuts aren't the problem.   I often wonder what would happen if scientists created their own myths, their own parables, so that they had their own "short cuts."  What sort of religion would be borne?

I wonder if it is simply a matter of personal practice or character.  I became religious once I realized I was a praying sort of person.  I need prayer. It is, perhaps, a useless activity.  But I do it.  The rest simply follows.  My father was not a praying person.  My mother was.  Perhaps its a genetic characteristic.

Muslim Madonna

Deeya is a pop star, busy irking Middle Eastern piety.  Ethnically Iranian, culturally Norwegian, she lives in Britain. 

Here's a webpage with a video of a recent pop song.

She seems thoroughly western to me.   I wonder if she is popular in Iran (I wouldn't be surprised, given the cultural divisions in that country).

Bishop John Chane: A Gospel of Intolerance

It's no secret that the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion are engaged in a bitter internal struggle over the role of gay and lesbian people within the church. But despite this struggle, the leaders of our global communion of 77 million members have consistently reiterated their pastoral concern for gays and lesbians. Meeting last February, the primates who lead our 38 member provinces issued a unanimous statement that said in part: "The victimization or diminishment of human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex is anathema to us."

We now have reason to doubt those words....

Have we become so cowed by the periodic eruptions about the decadent West that Archbishop Akinola and his allies issue that we are no longer willing to name an injustice when we see one?

I also feel compelled to ask the archbishop's many high-profile supporters in this country why they have not publicly dissociated themselves from his attack on the human rights of a vulnerable population. Is it because they support this sort of legislation, or because the rights of gay men and women are not worth the risk of tangling with an important alliance?

Read it all.

A couple random thoughts

Christians finds Olivia Newton-John in hot pants controversial.  What we need is more controversy, not less.  Like the Prince song.  Please, lets not be dull, fellow travelers. 

It's OK to kiss on stage.  Besides, its acting.  I mean, don't you want to know what to do...  after you get married? 

I just can’t believe all the things people say -- controversy
Am I black or white? am I straight or gay? -- controversy
Do I believe in god? do I believe in me? -- controversy

do you feel it? 

Ideological Traitor Death Match: Bob Barr vs. Christopher Hitchens. 

More Abramoff. "If we were to craft something oblique, any chance of slipping into the election reform bill?" Abramoff asked Volz. "I know we are loading that up, but I thought I'd ask."

Brian McLaren and the Question

Brian McLaren writes for the Leadership Blog on pastorally answering people's questions about homosexuality.  I like Brian a lot - he's pastoral, intelligent, brave, modern and orthodox.  He writes, as a pastor:

Frankly, many of us don't know what we should think about homosexuality. We've heard all sides but no position has yet won our confidence so that we can say "it seems good to the Holy Spirit and us." That alienates us from both the liberals and conservatives who seem to know exactly what we should think. Even if we are convinced that all homosexual behavior is always sinful, we still want to treat gay and lesbian people with more dignity, gentleness, and respect than our colleagues do. If we think that there may actually be a legitimate context for some homosexual relationships, we know that the biblical arguments are nuanced and multilayered, and the pastoral ramifications are staggeringly complex. We aren't sure if or where lines are to be drawn, nor do we know how to enforce with fairness whatever lines are drawn.

You would think this was a gentle, sensitive, accurate discription of what it is like to be a pastor.  But one of the 50 most influential Christian Leaders, Marc Driscoll, responds dramatically.   He says,

For me, the concern started when McLaren in the February 7, 2005 issue of Time Magazine said, “Asked at a conference last spring what he thought about gay marriage, Brian McLaren replied, ‘You know what, the thing that breaks my heart is that there's no way I can answer it without hurting someone on either side.’” Sadly, by failing to answer, McLaren was unwilling to say what the Bible says and in so doing really hurt God’s feelings and broke his heart.

"hurt God's feelings and broke his heart"?!  Let me translate:

"McLaren was unwilling to say what the Bible says and in so doing really hurt my feelings and broke my heart."   This is far more accurate.  If Marc can get a tape recorder someday, however, I'd be willing to change my mind.  And it can't be in his own voice.  Perhaps Salma's.  That's Salma Hayek.

Marc Driscoll is a very entertaining preacher.  I wish to God I could preach like that and not get faced with blank stares.  But I really enjoy listening to him speak.  If anything, he is a model for me in his preaching.

But not his thinking.

His ability to entertain doesn't lend much clarity to the problem.  He demonstrates that, in fact, he really doesn't understand the pastoral issue.  First he brings people in with his seductive, witty [well, witty in a 10th grade kind of way], "hey - I'm a male Lesbian," although this simply raises two questions.

First:  Does his wife know she's married to a lesbian in the wrong body?  Maybe they can do something about that.
Second:  Why not say that gay men are women who are built like men?  Or Lesbians are in fact men who  in women's bodies.  What if he fantasizes about men while he's givin' his wife some lovin'? 

He may be funny.  But it is clearly confused. 

Driscoll focuses on a request that Brian makes in his very soft-spoken way.  McLaren asks new Christians to step back;  Let's think about this; let's pray about what is happening; let's listen to the Holy Spirit.  It's a silly request in a world held by the powers, but in the community of Christians, perfectly reasonable.  But Driscoll says, Nope, can't do that. we simply can't wait.  Where Brian says, Let's not judge, Driscoll simply responds, you're breaking my heart.  I mean, God's heart. 

Driscoll then offers his slam dunk:  Just this week - he opens, for he has direct confirmation of what the problem is - some Christian - he could have put it in quotes - he wants anal sex for the orgasms.  I guess that's a problem in Mars Hill, but it wasn't, really, what Brian was talking about.  Any liberal can see how sexual greed is destructive.  That's a no brainer.  Marc, you'll get cheers from both sides of the aisle if that's what's bringing down the end of your world.  But we're addressing something different:  We're talking about two older men, or two women, holding hands, in love, claiming Christ as God.   

And this is where we probably differ from most "biblical" churches, if you want to call them that.  Where Driscoll gets his info from gay pron magazines, we're finding men and women who want to build a life together.   All Mark has done is prove to us that most people don't understand homosexuality. 

In fact, I doubt if they understand sexuality either:  the insistance on genitalizing sexual relationships and relationships seems closer to pron than fidelity. And for us progressives, marriage is about a relationship that creates abundance.   Its the quality of the relationships Christians should care about.  So lets talk about how to create loving, faithful, joyful relationships that give glory to God.  That seems very relevant.

But let's keep the pron under the bed.

Hat tip, Bob

Pope Benedict Sings Bacharach

Pope comes out with an encyclical.  Encyclical means "spiritual bicycle," which means that you can never forget how to ride one. 

Interestingly, this is not on stem cell research, or the promiscuity of young teens, (well, maybe a little) but on Love.  It's for everyone.  I suspect this pope is taking the high road - or the difficult road - by addressing some foundational church state issues head on.  I admit, he sounds very... Anglican.  Either that, or he is a romantic.  Not a sentimental one, as he says, but one that knows "love" as defined as Agape, rather than "luuv" or "luff."  Christians do not believe in the previous two.  Those are part of humanity but not really Christian charity.

He writes:  "the Church wishes to help form consciences in political life and to stimulate greater insight into the authentic requirements of justice as well as greater readiness to act accordingly, even when this might involve conflict with situations of personal interest.

"The church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the state. Yet at the same time, she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice. She has to play her part through rational argument and she has to reawaken the spiritual energy without which justice, which always demands sacrifice, cannot prevail and prosper. A just society must be the achievement of politics, not of the church. Yet the promotion of justice through efforts to bring about openness of mind and will to the demands of the common good is something which concerns the church deeply.

Well there goes libertarianism.  Looks like we should expect the state to actually do something!

Also: 

...  The Church's deepest nature is expressed in her three-fold responsibility: of proclaiming the word of God (kerygma-martyria), celebrating the sacraments (leitourgia), and exercising the ministry of charity (diakonia). These duties presuppose each other and are inseparable. For the Church, charity is not a kind of welfare activity which could equally well be left to others, but is a part of her nature, an indispensable expression of her very being.

...  Charity, furthermore, cannot be used as a means of engaging in what is nowadays considered proselytism. Love is free; it is not practised as a way of achieving other ends. But this does not mean that charitable activity must somehow leave God and Christ aside. For it is always concerned with the whole man. Often the deepest cause of suffering is the very absence of God.

The end is completed with a prayer, but I would have substituted this song, written by Burt Bacharach. 

What the world needs now is love, sweet love
It’s the only thing that there’s just too little of
What the world needs now is love, sweet love
No not just for some but for everyone

Lord we don’t need another mountain
There are mountains and hillsides
Enough to climb
There are oceans and rivers
Enough to cross. enough to last
’till the end of time

Notice the word "cross."  I await the pope, singing Burt. 

Amen!