Yes, for you culturally literate souls out there, that title is a reference to a VERY funny scene from an extraordinarily dim-witted, yet remarkably funny, movie. The reference should be come clear in a moment.

On Monday, we mentioned the forthcoming “Evangelical Manifesto.” Well, it was published yesterday. Leading Godblogger Justin Taylor has the skinny, and an interview with one of the authors. Reuters covered its release as well. Reuters reflects what is bound to be the MSM narrative on the document:

A group of U.S. evangelical leaders called on Wednesday for a pullback from party politics so that followers would not become “useful idiots” exploited for partisan gain.

But the document is far, far more than that. This is primarily a religious document, designed to save Evangelicalism from the enormous pressures that are pressing on it from political and other circles. Taylor, in his summary of the implications of the definition of Evangelical that the document lays out puts the key political statement this way:

Evangelicalism must be defined theologically and not politically; confessionally and not culturally.

Put that way, I think most will agree. This is a document with much the same goals I had in starting this blog, Evangelicalism is at risk when politics overrides other concerns. Hugh Hewitt is unimpressed and says, “don’t expect much beyond today’s press release.” (Hence the movie reference in the title.) I think Hugh is missing the point of the document and reacting to a title that I agree is a bit over-reaching. Hugh’s point seems to be that Evangelicals are diverse, and that, frankly is one of the primary points of the document as well, at least political diversity, and a fair breadth of theological diversity as well. But Hugh is also right, I am not sure this will get us anywhere.

K-Lo was making some of the same points as the manifesto in The Corner yesterday.

Taylor’s summary also contains these interesting implications, interesting at least for my Mormon friends:

• Evangelical belief and devotion is expressed as much in our worship and in our deeds as in our creeds.
• Evangelicals are followers of Jesus in a way that is not limited to certain churches or contained by a definable movement.

I am forced to wonder if they thought that one through completely? That’s a hole big enough for Mormons to drive through, wonder what would happen if you all tried?

Lowell, interjecting: We won’t try, of course. We certainly won’t call ourselves “Evangelicals,” because the essence of our faith is that we are not orthodox Christians, but believe in restored Christianity. We might call ourselves “latter-day Christians,” which is a much more accurate description of our members than “Mormon,” which began as an epithet and refers only to a book of scripture that we hold dear.

Still, there is a lot to like in what John has quoted from this Manifesto. The language quoted just above suggests recognition of the Biblical teaching that “by their fruits ye shall know them.” Also, it is part and parcel of Mormon teaching and culture that we do more for the United States by bringing souls to Christ than by anything we might accomplish politically. From the Book of Mormon:

Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, who hath been manifested by the things which we have written.

We Mormons think of passages like that and scratch our heads when we hear others say we are not Christians.

Finally, I appreciate the way this Manifesto humanizes Evangelicals and makes clear that group’s diversity. I think the more politically active among the Evangelical movement have given the rest of you a bad name. It seems to me very healthy for influential and widely-respected Evangelicals to come forward and say, “No, we are not all about politics, we are about being followers of Jesus in a micro, not macro, sense.”

The Real Opponent…

Damon Linker is famous round these parts for his expressed anti-Mormon bigotry. Turns out he does not like religiously convicted right-wingers in general. Ramesh Ponnuru takes him to task.

McCain…

…is starting to make some of the correct noises to reach out to the religious base in the party - on foreign policy, judges and other things.

Finally…

Religion political food for thought from a Godblogging friend of mine regarding some leading Christians pastors:

They are counter-cultural in that they live in the power-centers and refuse to make power-grabs.

Think about it!
Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Reading List | 1 Comment » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

We have been reading a lot lately about how the Evangelical vote is shifting/realigning/losing momentum. Here’s yet another in that line of stories. Why does it matter? The Evangelical vote has never been quite as powerful as the press would have it be (more on that in a moment), but Matt Lewis hit the nail on the head writing at Politico yesterday:

John McCain may be the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, but a struggle to determine who will carry the conservative mantle into the future rages just below the surface of his success. The contestants’ faces will look familiar: former Govs. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, also-rans from the 2008 GOP primary scrum.

During the nominating race, obloquy was understandable. The other Republican candidates personally liked working-class son Huckabee, and they seemed to resent the wealthy and handsome Romney. And because they were both attempting to establish themselves as the conservative alternative to McCain, it’s not surprising that they sometimes clashed over turf.

What’s more, by staying in the race when McCain began to surge, Huckabee arguably split the conservative vote in states like South Carolina, presumably siphoning off votes from Romney and handing the nomination to the Arizona senator. (Huckabee would argue it was Romney who siphoned off his votes.)

While this environment was ripe for a Romney/Huckabee feud during the campaign, the stakes are just as high now, as both see the 71-year-old McCain — who still faces a tough general election — as merely keeping the seat warm for them. Based on their performance in the primary campaign, each believes he has earned the right to be the conservative heir apparent. Romney chose the symbolically significant Conservative Political Action Conference as his venue to graciously withdraw from the race. Meanwhile, Huckabee, a former Baptist preacher, is similarly charismatic, and he can point to the fact that he outlasted the other Republican candidates, save Texas Rep. Ron Paul.

This seems natural - the question is, will it be a fair fight? Frankly, this will be where we find out if Huck is a smart as well as a charismatic politician. THE QUESTION got Huck to this position, but as Lewis notes, it was also his limiting factor:

While Huckabee’s social conservative bona fides are strong, he was attacked by fiscal conservatives for raising taxes as governor. During the nominating race, he attempted to minimize this by championing the Fair Tax. But this has also likely influenced the direction of his “post-campaign” campaign. For example, while many conservatives hoped Huckabee would found a group to fill the void that has been left by the once powerful, but now moribund, Christian Coalition, he instead launched “Huck PAC.” Huck PAC’s website lists its mission as supporting “Republican candidates who are passionate advocates for tax reform, a strong national defense, real border security, life, the family, less government and individual liberty.” While this is all consistent with conservative thought, one might expect Huckabee to put social issues at the forefront. Instead, he appears to be highlighting his fiscal positions.

This is a good description of the first of Huck’s two overwhelming tasks. The second will be to get his supporters to toe-the-line when it comes to religion, especially when Romney is being discussed. Huck seemed to figure out right after Iowa that The Question was going to backfire out there in the wider nation, but his supporters just kept hammering.

Usually, you dance with who you came with. Romney came with a broad base of strong political support. Huckabee came with Evangelicals. Romney just has to grow his base. Huckabee has to reeducate his base, a much more difficult task. Romney built his coalition the old-fashioned way. Huckabee played the media-face game. That fact makes the battle between them very much a battle for the future of the Republican party. Romney would keep it substantive - Huckabee would take us in the direction of the Clintons. I think the party is, in general, smarter than a Huckabee candidacy would indicate, but only time will tell.

But one thing is for sure. It was not Romney that limited Huckabee’s support - it was his and his supporters’ use of The Question. They have a lot of backpedaling to do before they can become genuine contenders.

Just A Minute Ago…

…I said we would return to the media and Evangelicals. With golden boy Obama now clearly smeared by his pastor, the left-leaning MSM is trotting out the old “Evangelicals are bigoted, etc.” story that has become their trademark. (It fascinates me that they have not used Huck’s behavior as ammunition for that charge, but then they are probably saving it for the maximal strategic impact.) The latest form is trying to parallel Hagee/McCain to Wright/Obama.

Look, Haggee is as repugnant as Wright, but the parallel stops there. There simply is no relationship between Hagee and McCain other than Hagee’s endorsement. By all appearances, the Wright/Obama relationship is a different thing altogether.

Sounding Familiar…

“Out of Ur” is a blog of the Leadership journal published by Christianity Today. Pastor John Ortberg writes there on a theme that sounds very familiar.

We ought to be engaged in the political process. We ought to vote, be educated, be involved. We should do it in a way that is civil and respectful and redemptive. (I saw a cartoon recently where a guy showed up at the pearly gates to hear St. Peter say: “You were a believer, yes. But you skipped the not-being-a-jerk-about-it part.”) But we should also remember that the church is not called to be one more political interest group.

The human race needs an administration of another kind. There is one possibility. Someone needs to be in a position to say: “The kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe the Good News.” Scholars like N.T. Wright remind us that these words were politically loaded. They deliberately echo or parody the claims of Rome—that Caesar was Savior, that his kingdom was Good News.

The church needs saving from politics . . . .
Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Reading List | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

That is the question I had to ask myself when I was reading the news yesterday. We noted yesterday that there was a debate within evangelical circles as to the how politics and religion are supposed to intersect. That fact notwithstanding, Henry Brinton notes in a USAToday Op-Ed that the religious right is far from dead.

These reports are at the very least premature, and in all likelihood dead wrong. High-profile leaders will come and go, but the strength and commitment of conservative Christians on the front lines of parish life are as strong as ever.

I think he is right and he raises an interesting point, it’s not about Falwell, or Dobson, or Huckabee, it is about us. Although, it appears that some of that leadership is on the verge of political, and perhaps ecclesiastical suicide.

“The pastors need to speak more clearly about it,” Cureton said. “I’ll tell you that we are working with the Alliance Defense Fund on a series of sermons this fall for pastors to preach, so that they educate their people on the issues. We’re going to be talking about the value of life, the value of family and the value of freedom–basically talking about abortion and stem-cell research and then also about the gay agenda and then finally about our Christian heritage and how it’s being stripped from every corner of our society. And finally we’re going to be doing a candidate-comparison message that is going to ask pastors to cross the line.”

“Really?” a surprised-sounding Folger replied. “What do you mean cross the line? Are you going to be suggesting who they vote for?”

“Well we’re going to go to pastors and say to them that we really believe that they need to challenge some of the thinking that we have going on in our society, which is that separation of church and state doctrine, that we really need to preach the Bible on these issues and apply them to the things that are going on in the culture today,” Cureton said.

Rob Boston of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State said the line being crossed might be a legal one. The Internal Revenue Service forbids certain non-profit organizations from involvement in political campaigns. While churches may speak out on political issues, they must refrain from participating or intervening in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to political candidates. The IRS recently sent out a reminder that crossing that line could jeopardize a non-profit’s tax-exempt status.

Folger indicated she hopes the ban, which has been in effect for 50 years, will eventually be overturned, but in the meantime she speculated about what might happen if large numbers of pastors would ignore it as a matter of civil disobedience.

Now, I am no lawyer, but I wonder in general about IRS regulation as effective regulation of speech in churches so the civil disobedience aspect of this is not all bad on a legal theory basis. But having said that, I think it would be suicide for the churches that picked up this mantle. They would risk both members who disagreed politically, and they would risk the real spiritual work that is their calling.

In other words, I think pastors should be free to engage in political speech from the pulpit, but I think they would be less-than-intelligent to exercise that freedom.

This all raises and interesting question - Jeremiah Wright has not been able to successfully hide behind religious speech in recent weeks because there seems to be universal agreement that he was engaged in purely political speech. So why has the IRS not been all over him and Trinity Church? That inconsistent enforcement, more than almost anything else speaks to the need to have the freedom ensured . . .

Meanwhile, On The Left . . .

They keep reaching for religious voters. The NYTimes reports on some of Clinton’s efforts. And The Christian Post looks at “Progressive Christians.” The second story says:

In October, the progressive ecumenical group Faith in Public Life helped bring together Christian and secular leaders to try to end the cultural war on issues such as abortion, gay rights, and the role of religion in public life. [Emphasis added.]

Ecumenism is something of a bad word in conservative Christians circles because too often it means compromising theology. In the ’70’s there were huge efforts to try and join many Christian churches under a single umbrella and that would have made most of them devoid of meaning (my dad played a key role in keeping the PC(USA) out of those efforts, but that is a story for another time). However, this is about purely political issues, not church polity or theology.

That said, the idea of working across religious lines for political action may, in the end allow the left to co-op the religious voter because on the right we seem to be pretty bad at it.

But Then . . .

The left is far more willing to be reduced to a voting bloc than the right is. This Orlando Sentinel piece points out that the latest hot religious bloc is Hispanic Evangelicals. My only comment is, it is scary to read about a group being manipulated this way. It reduces us somehow. This is why we should be politically smart - then we control politics instead of it controlling us.
Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Reading List | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

. . . Between Mormons and Evangelicals

The Phoenix area’s East Valley Tribune reports on a “debate” between the Rev. Gregory Johnson (Baptist) and Robert Millet (Mormon):

“Once in a while, we need to ask ourselves the hard question, ‘Am I sometimes too proud, maybe even arrogant, to suppose that someone of another faith can actually teach me something - that I can learn something from him?’ ” asked Millet.

Often, he said, when people have contrasting religious beliefs and disagreements, “we say, ‘flight or fight,’ ” Johnson said. It is manifested by family pledges to not discuss religion at Thanksgiving meals, for example. He recounted how often families have been “split right down the middle” when, for example, someone has left an evangelical church or the Mormon church and joined the other.

“It has severely tested marriages, it has put children opposite their parents, it has broken some families up,” Johnson said. “That breaks our hearts to think there are people, in the context of loving family relationships,” who let religious choices break bonds among loved ones. It runs counter to Christ’s purpose on earth, he said. “Jesus died on the cross because he loved a lost world.”

It’s split political coalitions too!

. . . Between Catholics and Mormons

Catholic Online looks at the debate between Mormons and Catholics with regards to birth records. Here, from our perspective, are the key graphs:

The Catholic Church will eventually open a dialogue with the Mormons about the rebaptism issue, Father Massa said, “but we are at the beginning of the beginning of a new relationship with the LDS. The first step in any dialogue is to establish trust and to seek friendship.”

The two faiths share intrinsic viewpoints on key issues the United States is facing, particularly the pro-life position on abortion and an opposition to same-sex marriage.

However, theological differences have cropped up between Mormons and Catholics in the past.

Note how easy is is to distinguish political and theological issues, to cooperate on one and disagree on the other.

. . . Amongst Evangelicals

Reports the Examiner:

Conservative Christian leaders who believe the word “evangelical” has lost its religious meaning plan to release a starkly self-critical document saying the movement has become too political and has diminished the Gospel through its approach to the culture wars.

The statement, called “An Evangelical Manifesto,” condemns Christians on the right and left for “using faith” to express political views without regard to the truth of the Bible, according to a draft of the document obtained Friday by The Associated Press.

“That way faith loses its independence, Christians become `useful idiots’ for one political party or another, and the Christian faith becomes an ideology,” according to the draft.

At first blush, because the story does not immediately cite who the “conservative Christians” are and because when it does it is quick to note that the likes of Richard Land and James Dobson are not involved, one is tempted to think this is another leftie attempt to hijack religious voters, a lá Jim Wallis.

However, the people involved are Richard Mouw, President of Fuller Theological Seminary (alma mater of yours truly) and Oz Guiness, noted Christian thinker and writer with whom it has been my pleasure to study and dine. These are intelligent, bright people, committed to their work and their God. While both men are more moderate politically than probably me, and certainly Land or Dobson, both can quite legitimately lay claim to the label “conservative.”

They also have a heck of a point. One very similar to the one I made on Friday.

And Still . . .

. . . some don’t get it. Since when does different beliefs translate into deception? Even differently defining words is not deceptive, presuming one is clear on the definitions. That is, unless, of course, you lack the native intelligence to ask, “Now what do you mean when you say. . . ?”

Speaking of not getting it, some continue to work to paste a “Muslim” label on Barack Obama. Obama has given us precious little substantively to debate with in his candidacy, but to respond in kind, and particularly with religious labeling, is just begging for trouble down the line.

EXTRAORDINARILY WELL DESERVED!

This year the Becket Fund is honored to bestow Governor and Mrs. Mitt Romney with its highest honor, the Canterbury Medal, for their role in expanding the free expression of religious faith in the public square. Each year the Becket Fund awards the Canterbury Medal to someone who has “resolutely refused to render unto Caesar that which is God’s.”

The governor’s extraordinary speech on the role of religion in political life was an important contribution to religious liberty and the national political discourse during this election season. Both Governor and Mrs. Romney have demonstrated exemplary poise and dignity in the face of all manner of provocations aimed at their faith. For these reasons and more, The Becket Fund is delighted to present the Romneys with the Canterbury Medal at this year’s dinner.

(HT: Committed To Romney)

By the way - if you are at all a student of religion and politics and are unfamiliar with the story of Thomas á Becket, Henry II of England and how Canterbury Cathedral became a place of pilgrimage (with a bunch of help from Chaucer), you need to learn. Knowing the story will help you understand the references in this award to the Romneys, and its deep significance. At a minimum, see the movie - Richard Burton and Peter O’Toole!

Lowell adds: Amen to all John has said, especially his encouragement to study Becket’s life. For those of a literary bent, T.S Eliot’s Murder in the Cathedral is a challenging and uplifting read - for me, as a college student, it was transformative. You can have it for only $9.00 here.

Also, a note of explanation: having suffered a severe attack of employment, I have been less present here than I want to be. Thanks to John for carrying the load. I will be back!
Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Reading List | 1 Comment » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

I have mentioned on several occasions what may come as a shock to some - there is a whole world out there of “God-bloggers.” These are people that write about religion all the time. The “Godblogosphere” can be broken down, much like the church, into denominational/philosophical segments. There is a large Roman Catholic contingent, a fascinating Orthodox contingent, a Protestant contingent - there is even a Mormon contingent, but like most things religious in the nation, the biggest players are the Evangelicals, who cut across many of the other lines I have just drawn.

Two of the biggest players in the evangelical portion of the Godblogosphere are “Evangelical Outpost” (this is Joe Carter of Family Research Council and Huckabee campaign fame, at least to regular readers of this blog) and “Pyromaniacs,” a group blog led by Phil Johnson, who runs the broadcast arm of John MacArthur’s ministry.

These two are debating about Evangelical political action.

It started when Phil said:

Personally, I think the tendency to seek legislative remedies for every social ill is one of the absolute worst tendencies of contemporary secular society, and it disturbs me greatly to see Christians more or less follow that pattern blindly.

We need to remember that political clout has nothing whatsoever to do with spiritual power.

These statements drew enough reaction that Phil expanded his comments in a new post:

I thank God for Christians whose vocation is to serve faithfully in our government—from people like my third son (who is a police officer) to those elected officials who are devoted Christians. I also have no objection to Christian bloggers who deal with political subjects. I read some of those blogs myself, and I often benefit from their insights.

But let’s be clear, here: The church as a body has no calling to organize and protest in the political realm. Moreover, government service and political campaigning are different vocations from the calling of a pastor. It’s well-nigh impossible to be a good pastor full time if you also fancy yourself a political lobbyist.

Phil’s expanded comments drew a number of factual corrections from Joe Carter. Joe makes a number of points, but his essential thesis is:

Contrary to what many secularists claim–and many Christians believe–we evangelicals are not all that politically involved. Sure, like most Americans we talk a lot about politics, especially in an election season. But the claim that we are involved in actual political activities–lobbying, organizing, campaigning, etc.–would be difficult to support with actual evidence.

In some cases these two are arguing past each other. Phil is primarily a pastor and he is making pastoral points. Joe, on the other hand, a guy whose job it is is to get as many Evangelicals politically active as possible, is frustrated by something that is a fact of life with almost any demographic group.

It is difficult to know where to put a stake into all of this and start to comment. While Joe is right in some of the factual corrections he makes about Phil’s post, he almost entirely misses Phil’s primary point which is a terribly important one, and one that I agree with fully.

There are some important points that have not come up in all of this. I would love to see a word association poll about Evangelicals. I am willing to bet that on a national basis, most people would associate first and foremost “conservative politics” with the word “evangelical.” (In Utah, the primary association is likely to be highly uncomplimentary, but I think that is somewhat understandable.)

In point of fact, the African-American church (as we have seen vividly in recent weeks - word association - “civil rights”) and Evangelicals are virtually the only religious groups that undertake direct political activism of any sort, or to any extent in the U.S. The remaining groups, an admitted minority, take a view very similar to that we looked at from Roman Catholic Bishop Charles Chaput yesterday:

It is the job of Catholic laypeople to change the thinking of their political party and their political leaders with the tools of their Catholic faith. But it is the job of priests to give people those tools—to form Catholic laypeople to think and act as disciples of Jesus Christ, in a manner guided by the teaching of the Church. Just as Catholic laypeople should be the leaven of Jesus Christ in the public square, so we priests need to be the leaven of Jesus Christ in lives of our people. [Emphasis added.]

Simply put, the church’s job is to shape people who then do politics.

It should also be mentioned that there are two ways to end abortion. One is to overturn Roe v. Wade. The other is to sufficiently evangelize the country so that demand for abortion simply ceases. And the fact of the matter is, as long as a majority of Americans want abortion in some form, Roe v. Wade will stand. Thus doing evangelism, which is the only effective way I can think of to reduce the demand for abortion, is necessary for political effectiveness to ever exist when it comes to the specific issue they discuss. This is not an either/or, but a both/and question.

This also creates a very strange situation with regards to “other” religions. If, as an Evangelical, my goal is to end abortion, then I should want even Mormon conversions because Mormons abhor abortion as much as we do. A conversion to Mormonism will lessen the demand for abortion and, perhaps, depending on the individual, create another politically active voice against the same. But of course when I view this in purely religious terms, from my viewpoint, a Mormon conversion is a “soul lost” (although God has a lot of time left to redeem us), as I am sure Mormons feel vice versa.

The separation of church and state makes both institutions better. It helps the church concentrate on its task, which is changing people and their desires, which are often expressed politically. It helps the state best represent the nation as a whole without the inherent oppression created by the sanctioned state churches of Europe.

This is why there is a division of labor in the church. If you are a layperson who does politics, do it well, and be willing to make alliances with the other. If your ministry is spiritual, then by all means compete, hard, with the other. For most Evangelicals, and certainly for Mormons who lack a clergy, each individual plays each role some of the time. We just need to remember when we have each hat on, and understand that in a nation like America one does not wear both hats at the same time..

If we don’t we will become the very thing this nation was founded, in part, to escape.

Lowell adds: I am reluctant to add anything, because I think John’s post is superb and I agree fully.  I will simply point out that this is the Mormon view of the world and religion as well.  As a former President of the Church, Ezra Taft Benson (who also was Secretary of Agriculture in the Eisenhower Administration) said:

The Lord works from the inside out. The world works from the outside in. The world would take people out of the slums. Christ takes the slums out of people, and then they take themselves out of the slums. The world would mold men by changing their environment. Christ changes men, who then change their environment. The world would shape human behavior, but Christ can change human nature.

It is hard to find any daylight at all between President Benson’s teaching and Bishop Chaput’s statement.
Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Doctrinal Obedience, Miscellany | 4 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

How Catholics Think . . .

Charles Chaput, a great thinker on church and politics, talks about things Roman Catholic, because he is a priest, but he offers great advice for religious people and politics generally:

Catholic leadership in the secular world belongs to laypeople, not to clergy or religious. The visible role of the priest in public affairs—if by public affairs we mean political affairs—should normally be pretty small.

It’s very dangerous for the Church to identify with one political party. It’s not my business to tell people to vote for John McCain or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. And while I worked for Jimmy Carter’s presidential campaign as a volunteer when I was a young, I don’t think any Catholic should feel comfortable today in either major political party—Democrat or Republican.

But that doesn’t really get us off the hook, does it? The problem is that the Church teaches moral truth, and truth has obligations for human behavior—including the social, economic, and political kind. The Church is never mainly a political organism, but her witness for justice always has political consequences.

[…]

It is the job of Catholic laypeople to change the thinking of their political party and their political leaders with the tools of their Catholic faith. But it is the job of priests to give people those tools—to form Catholic laypeople to think and act as disciples of Jesus Christ, in a manner guided by the teaching of the Church. Just as Catholic laypeople should be the leaven of Jesus Christ in the public square, so we priests need to be the leaven of Jesus Christ in lives of our people. [Emphasis added.]

Read the whole thing.

Trying To Change The Subject…

James Taranto takes to task a blogger that wishes Romney was still in the race because The Question would provide cover for the Obama/Wright fiasco.

Were Romney the nominee, his foes might well try to suggest that his LDS membership somehow puts him in league with the FLDS. But they would be arguing in bad faith.

Yep, one big difference between The Question and this current mess is that many of the accusations around Romney were misconceptions, but Jeremiah Wright said for all the world to hear that he thinks the US government might be behind AIDS! I may not believe what Mormons believe, but I know they live on this actual planet.

It Won’t Go Away

The National Day of Prayer mess continues to resonate through sects everywhere.

The National Day of Prayer “has been hijacked,” says Jane Hunter, codirector of Jews on First. “Only Christian clergy are invited to participate…. And they encourage their coordinators to enlist elected officials or stage their observances on public property.” This undermines the First Amendment’s prohibition against any establishment of religion, she says.

On the National Day of Prayer Official Website, the task force requires that volunteer coordinators agree to a lengthy belief statement that begins: “I believe that the Holy Bible is the inerrant Word of the Living God. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the only One by which I can obtain salvation….” The coordinators are to ensure that only Christians conduct the events, although anyone may attend them.

Congress is going to HAVE to take its imprint off this, or else they are going to have a huge problem on their hands.

Diversity…

It is an issue in church governance too. But, unlike the US, churches have to be defined by something ideological, although not necessarily racial. But then regional differences in church membership can be extraordinary. Consider the Anglican Convention. The US church ordains homosexuals, but the Nigerian church would have walked had the US church not been put in the penalty box. It gets tricky, doesn’t it?
Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Reading List | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post