Real politics

Heard a piece on radio about our current political scene. It seems that Republicans blame all of our current economic woes (though our recession has officially ended) on Obama. They say he is a socialist. They say he is a Muslim. The Tea Party folks say the same things and add several other false claims (lies). There are some things we know for sure. We know that during Bush's (pick one) administration spending went through the roof, the richest got the largest tax cuts, and our deficit doubled at least. And now, not quite 2 years of the Obama term, they are saying it is all his fault?

We also know that since Obama took office, the working class has actually paid less taxes. We know that Obama is undeniably not a Muslim. We know that Obama is far from being a socialist (when people in other countries hear this claim they laugh!). But it does not matter what the facts are. People believe these lies and so fear, hatred, and paranoia abounds. It is absolutely scary.

And there are double standards based on race. When the Tea Party gun lovers marched in Washington (in front of the White House even) with guns out in open, with signs of hatred, and camo garb, nothing happened. If a group of people of color (Middle Easterners, say) had done this, there would have been a fire storm of response and maybe even violent counter attacks.

Our current political scene is a big mess. Truthfully both sides have their serious problems. But if we allow the lies of many of the right wing to take control, we will see another Bush-era state of affairs. This means we will have more deficits, more ill will in the world toward the U.S.A., Wall Street running amok, and the upper rich brackets will continue to rule the day. I don't know how we can maintain civility, but I'm hoping that more Dems step up and speak truth. I know some are, but we need more. But then again, what do I care: I consider myself more aligned with the Green Party (i.e. if it still even exists!). God help us all!

Broadway Baptist

Another Baptist church in Texas has taken a big step. Broadway Baptist in Fort Worth severed ties to the Baptist General Convention of Texas over its continued support, acceptance, and welcoming of gay members. Truth is, this church has had this element for many years (and as rumor has it, including a somewhat prominent member). I suspect it was one of the things about this congregation that most everyone knew but chose not to talk about it. Nowadays, it is easier--for various reasons, good reasons--to talk openly about sexual orientation. And this has become easier for churches as well. This church has been a high-profile congregation for various reasons. Several of their former pastors have gone on to bigger things (Cecil Sherman, John Claypool, Weldon Gaddy, just to name a few). They have had women clergy and women deacons for decades. Further, when fundamentalism began its takeover of the SBC, Broadway was always aligned with the 'moderate' voice in that fight.

So it should come as no huge surprise that Broadway would now take this stance regarding welcoming persons in the GLBT community. It follows suit after Royal Lane Baptist Church in Dallas did the same thing and over the same issue. It is a new day in Texas Baptist life: Baptists are welcoming gays! But it is also a sign that some Baptist congregations are being Baptist again; they are being autonomous. This aspect of historic Baptist principles had been all but nullified when the fundamentalists took over, issued edicts, and changed language of the Baptist Faith and Message about women's issues and homosexuality. It became a climate of "either you believe as we do, or you're not a part of us" and local and state groups began "dis-associating" with dissenting congregations. This un-Baptist practice became commonplace for the new fundamentalist SBC. As a result, splinter Baptist groups emerged and the SBC did housecleaning on all its seminaries making them bastions of fundamentalism (e.g. prior to the takeover, no SBC seminaries espoused dispensationalism; now I would guess all of them do).

This "trend" has already begun in other states and especially among other Baptist groups (American Baptists), this has been taking place for years. Things take a little longer in the South. I only hope that our own denomination will grow up as well and we Methodists can begin to take similar stances towards our GLBT sisters and brothers. At the risk of stereotyping, if our Baptist friends can do this, certainly we can, too! We all need to take these positions on this and other issues that deal with social justice, peace and inclusion.

Quran-burning idiots

With news of this guy in Florida who will lead his "church" in a Quran-burning event, this got my mind to thinking on how to respond to such people. It reminds me that some people who get into this profession (or as it should be, 'calling) are just a bit crazy. As one of my clergy friends reminds me, the church seems to draw quite a few neurotics (and sometimes psychotics). My primal inclination is to want to fly to Florida (I could use the miles!) and deck him. I've seen pictures of him and I'm pretty sure I could take him down easily. But I know this would only be a temporary fix and inappropriate. So how do we respond?

One way is to talk to people. I will bring this up in small groups where I live. I will apologize to my Muslim acquaintance in the locker room at the Y. And I will write about it in venues like this blog. I couldn't get on to this guy's church website but, (it kept responding with 'server not found' . . . maybe he forgot to pay his internet fees) my suspicion is that he is an end-times, fundamentalist, dispensationalist, right-wing, uneducated preacher. Now mind you, I don't lump all of these categories as all-encompassing. One could be any one of those and not be a crazy, right-winger like Terry Jones. But he is obviously uneducated. He is ignorant--or in denial--about Christianity's own texts that are laced with violent language and imagery (Psalm 137:9 comes to mind . . . "Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!"). And what is more problematic, this language assumes that it is Yahweh-endorsed. Not to mention, Christian history continues to try and live down its own violent, imperialistic, oppressive past (at certain points, Christians did more than burn sacred texts, they burned people!).

If this guy follows through with his show of ignorance, the ripple effect will likely be wide. International attention will be detrimental. One thing to remember is that Terry Jones does not represent all of Christianity. In fact, I would say he is not even Christian. Likewise, we know that extremists of any ilk do not represent a consensus of any one group. Herein lies our hope: Maybe people of all faiths can remember that we each have our own lunatic fringe. In the meantime, perhaps we can do a better job of getting together and talking and learning from each other so we can always offer alternative voices. Also in the meantime, I wish Terry Jones would contract food poisoning or diarrhea (the two are often closely related) so that by Saturday he will be too weak and too sick to follow through with this insane act. I usually do not wish diarrhea on anyone, but in this case I will make an exception.

Hauerwas, war, and nonviolence

I need to go and get Stanley Hauerwas's new memoirs, Hannah's Child. I don't agree with all of what Hauerwas writes or says, but he is ever the theological provocateur that the Church needs. I especially like his views about violence and war: He is a staunch pacifist. He says that being a pacifist and being a xian are intrinsically tied together; because one is xian then it follows that one is pacifist.

This week's text from Luke is one that Hauerwas has preached on (I heard one such occasion many moons ago in Fort Worth). From his title, you can guess which text it is: "Hating Mothers as the Way to Peace." Again, I don't agree with all of it, but to challenge our long-held views about protecting family--even to the point of killing--is something he unpacks in this commentary. If we say we can kill to protect our loved ones, then we betray a part of our xian faith, i.e., the ethics of peace and not killing. I like it when he says that in war time, what soldiers ultimately become committed to is not a jingoist national pride. Rather, soldiers learn to kill to protect others in their ranks (and w/ whom they have come to know; the Speilberg film, Saving Private Ryan, I think, illustrated this brilliantly; the soldiers in that unit were very close, and what caused tension was when they went on a mission to find and save an "outsider"--Private Ryan--who was not even one of their own).

In our culture of violence and war, Hauerwas is a much needed voice. I heard him say once in a lecture to a group of preachers, "When was the last time you preached against war in the pulpit?" This was in the early stages of the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Too many preachers have become war mongers and at the same time, call it faithful xianity. Balderdash! Hauerwas reminds us that if we truly follow the radical ethics of xian discipleship, we cannot avoid the nonviolence of Jesus. I agree. We have been conditioned by many sources--TV, movies, children's cartoons, comics, etc--to accept redemptive violence that we cannot see any other way of interpreting our own xian redemption. Too many xians blindly accept the violent, bloody images of atonement as the only way to talk about our salvation (I disagree on this point with Hauerwas; he accepts the violent atonement but says it ends all other violence; it is untenable for me and for many).

I could prate on about such things, but suffice it to say: Stanley Hauerwas is a much needed voice for peace, nonviolence, and anti-war. Our nation is involved in 2 wars (one of them clearly an illegal war-Iraq) and the other a no-win situation (Afghanistan-3 other empires besides the U.S. empire has failed historically in this region; we cannot win there w/ conventional warfare). As xians being people of peace and nonviolence are and should be a part of our ethic and not seen as anti-American or left-wing radical. The gospel itself is radical. Hauerwas reminds us of that and of the cost of following.