http://socialredemption.tribe.net Tribe.net. Local Connections http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/83805c85-d191-4d3a-b65f-630c2ba49026#4f59a859-5ed8-4568-adb9-e5696676f123 Duck, Hunter Rev. Joel Hunter speaks out on broadening the evangelical agenda By David Roberts Grist 20 Dec 2006 In July, Rev. Joel Hunter was named president-elect of the Christian Coalition of America, the legendary political advocacy organization founded by Pat Robertson. Rev. Joel Hunter. Last month, just before he was to formally take office, he abruptly stepped down after a meeting with the coalition's board of directors. According to Hunter, it became clear that the organization was not ready to expand its focus beyond hot-button social issues like gay marriage and abortion. (Board director and acting president Roberta Combs says they simply wanted to move cautiously and poll their members first.) Both sides insist the split was amicable, but Hunter's departure casts a stark light on a growing split inside the conservative evangelical Christian movement. Long seen as monolithic and ascendant, the evangelical bloc is increasingly being pulled in two directions: one that would retain and consolidate gains based on culture-war concerns like abortion and homosexuality, and one that would open the agenda up to broader issues like global warming, AIDS, and poverty. The former faction has the advantage of decades of entrenched power and an enormous fundraising machine. The latter boasts the allegiance of a new generation of evangelicals weary of the divisiveness and naked political ambition of its forebears. Hunter -- spokesperson for the Evangelical Climate Initiative and author of a new book, Right Wing, Wrong Bird -- is squarely in the latter camp. I caught up with him by phone at the Orlando, Fla., church where he preaches, in the midst of what sounds like a media frenzy with no end in sight. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There's been some suspicion, both inside and outside the evangelical movement, that the much-ballyhooed green evangelical turn has more to do with a few high-profile leaders than any substantive change of heart at the base. Your encounter with the Christian Coalition seems to lend this notion some credence, doesn't it? There are two ways to look at it. One is, there's a very recent, alarming cache of information; the scientific evidence is pretty recent in our history. Like any new information or suddenly appearing issue, there's going to be a lot of skepticism at first. People don't want to change. And there's a lot of suspicion on the part of conservative Christianity about anything that the broad-based media touts. So there is going to be that kind of skepticism and pushback. From that standpoint, I would say that on a grassroots level this is not very deep, yet, in the evangelical community. Having said that, there are two factors that will take it fairly deep, fairly quickly. One is, like most good Christianity, this is simply a reprisal of a historic concern. Christianity was at the forefront of human rights, anti-slavery, civil rights, and so forth -- that's so deep in our history, a respect for human life and a respect for God's creation. So even though it hasn't been a front-burner issue recently, it goes way back into our roots and is easily recoverable. The other thing that's happening right now is that a number of us who have different networks are forming conversations that will have ripple effects across the church. Even the attention right now -- the [Sen. James] Inhofe-type attention, the Michael Crichton this-is-all-conspiracy kind of stuff -- isn't going to last very long in the milieu of the growing body of evidence. Conservative Christians are fairly intelligent people, believe it or not, and so over a period of time they will read the articles, read the books. We will. I don't know why I'm saying they. We will come to an accurate conclusion on global warming, and especially on the broader issue of environmental care. The elephant in the room is that social issues -- gay marriage, abortion, and so on -- are identified as Republican and environmental issues are identified as liberal or Democratic. So there are two things green evangelical leaders could hope for: Republicans adopt the climate-change issue, or the evangelical base shifts its voting behavior. Which of those do you think is more likely? Evangelicals are not primarily concerned with growing a political strategy. I do think there is a growing constituency -- the maturing of evangelicalism -- to go beyond the reactionary issues that were morally centered into the compassion issues that are well-being centered. As we do that, both parties are now going to be interested in what evangelicals are interested in. So I think there will be a little of each -- there will be a broadening of the Republican agenda, and the Democrats will be more interested in not just writing off the evangelical vote. They will see that we are interested in a number of issues, and perhaps they will find some more conciliatory language in order to try to interest the evangelical vote. I'm not sure exactly what's going to happen politically, but from a conservative Christian standpoint, you just want to do the right thing and vote the best way you can. Then let the chips fall where they may. As you know, Barack Obama was invited to speak to Rick Warren's group and there was immense backlash. So ... There will be a staunch, focused group of Christians that see the broadening of the agenda as a threatening dynamic for achieving the more traditional goals. There are those of us, though, who believe we will get more done on the traditional issues by becoming more Jesus-like -- concerned with other issues as well. So the real question here is, how big will this growing constituency be in comparison to the traditional group focused on narrow issues? That's the intriguing part of this. Some people might say the reason there's such enthusiasm around social issues like gay marriage and abortion and pornography is that people in the evangelical church are primarily called on to condemn other people. Once you bring in issues like poverty and global warming -- and more broadly, compassion for the least among you -- obligations turn on them. There's a little guilt. Is that too cynical? Not at all. Let's develop this conversation at a little deeper level. In Foreign Affairs, Walter Mead talked about the difference between fundamentalists and evangelicals. We make these differentiations in our own family of believers. Fundamentalists are always mad. They don't play well with others, and they feel tainted by any view other than the one they have. That is a pretty narrow segment, but a pretty attention-getting segment of Christianity. In terms of stereotype, that's what most people focus on when they see conservative Christianity. By the way, I don't say fundamentalists in the pejorative sense. I believe there is a legitimate reaction to what we would see as declining moral integrity in culture. But another reason it has been so popular is that anger is the greatest and most immediate way, not only to invoke a response and build an audience, but to raise money. We'll both be cynical here for a minute: One of the things fundamentalist churches have learned, have practiced, and continue to practice, is the best way to grow in influence and fundraising is to make people mad. And the best way to do that is to create an enemy. So from that standpoint you're right. But from another standpoint, a much larger portion of the church really does want to be more like Jesus. And that wasn't Jesus. Jesus didn't spend his time walking around yelling at people. His concern was for the vulnerable. As I often say, unless we start to care as much for the vulnerable outside the womb as we care for the vulnerable inside the womb, we won't have a picture of who Jesus was. There's a growing number of people who want to emphasize this. They're just not the people with a lot of money, or time to be self-righteous -- there are millions of us. Do you think the dynamic you just described was a large part of why the current leadership of the Christian Coalition shied away from what you're trying to do? Absolutely. Again: I like these people. They're doing what they believe is right. But it's very clear to everybody that if you don't come out aggressively against something, not only might you alienate your base, but you will certainly alienate your donors. And many of these hardened or narrow right organizations have been formed specifically to react against something. That's who brought them to the dance. So the attempt to broaden the agenda just didn't work. I thought maybe it would. They said they wanted to go into some of these other issues, but when it came time to do it, they were afraid of alienating their base. How did the concept of morality come to attach itself exclusively to issues of private, individual behavior? That is almost uniquely American. Our society focuses on the individual. If you go to church in the rest of the world, it is not this way. I can tell you this as a matter of fact, because we have partners all over the world. They are much more community minded and their sense of morality is much, much broader than simply personal behavior. You're absolutely right, from a biblical standpoint. It was never merely about how some individuals behave. It was always about community. It was always about what was good for the family, good for society -- what would best represent the God that loved the world. But even in some of your writing, you make the distinction between "moral" issues and the issues of "compassion." Why are those distinct? I simply do it for semantic advantage. When you talk about caring for the environment, that is a pro-life issue. When you talk about justice, that is certainly a moral issue. It's a continuing theme throughout the Bible. So when I use the word "moral," I use it in the sense of "moralistic." But these [broader] issues certainly are moral issues. Tell me how you came to be active on the subject of global warming. One of those other 86 [green evangelical leaders] called me and said, we've got this statement about Christians' responsibility to creation care, and we're looking for evangelical leaders who will sign it. I started to read books like [Tim] Flannery's The Weather Makers. At a National [Association of] Evangelicals board meeting, we had Sir John Houghton come in and talk to us. I became fascinated. The more I looked into it, I thought, oh my goodness, I missed something pretty significant here. I'm a more recent student, but a very convinced student. What could environmentalists do to better reach religious communities? Put educational materials into the hands of pastors. Just as all politics is local, all spiritual growth is local. The grassroots Christian looks to his or her pastor to understand what is important, to ask, What does God want me to do to become more like Jesus? I was in a convocation a couple of weeks ago with some of the secular humanists, E.O. Wilson and some of those guys from Harvard and Yale who are concerned about creation. What we agreed on was, the scientists had the facts evangelicals needed in order to be credible to their constituents on the subject, but they need us for the traction. As Wilson said, you can add up all the secular humanist organizations in the U.S. and you'll come up with around 5,000 people. You take one [National Association of Evangelicals] group and you've got 30 million. We need each other. The reason it hasn't reached the grassroots is because most pastors simply don't have the facts. They do almost always have one or two people in the congregation that have read Michael Crichton's State of Fear, or some other provocative, territorial thing. Unless they have the facts to answer that, they're going to be pretty quiet on the subject. Would you want the evangelical community to advocate for specific policies? I think our approach would be to educate people and give them a theological basis for taking care of the environment as a biblical and moral mandate. I don't think the place of the evangelical community is to come up with political strategies or solutions or policies. I do think that an educated evangelical constituency will respond positively to a growing number of solutions. Certainly many of us would be willing to vote for policies that involve the government as part of the solution. We don't think the government is all of the solution. A grassroots movement -- what we can do personally, what our churches can do, what businesses can do, market-based solutions -- is also important. But many of us do believe that government is part of the solution. I doubt that the evangelical church as a body will ever recommend policy. But I do think we will respond to recommended policy, and will vote our consciences. When do you predict the big organizations like the Christian Coalition and the National Association of Evangelicals are going to make the turn and come out vocally behind this broader agenda of yours? I'm on the board of directors at the National Association of Evangelicals, and we have already stated that it is part of our advocacy. On the signing of that particular statement on global warming, the president and the leaders at that time decided to make it more of a states' rights issue than it was a federal issue, so to speak, with the constituent bodies signing on if they wanted to. But there is already an emphasis on creation care, and that will continue to grow. Rich Cizik is a great leader of ours in that area. As for the other more narrow right organizations, I would say in a few years, everybody's going to see the light on this thing. Some of them may never come out to address anything environmentally, just because that's not why they were developed. But I will be surprised in a few years if most people are not convinced that we have some responsibility to do better by God's creation than we have. - - - - - - - - - - David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. Thu, 21 Dec 2006 16:03:09 GMT http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/83805c85-d191-4d3a-b65f-630c2ba49026#4f59a859-5ed8-4568-adb9-e5696676f123 Jimi 2006-12-21T16:03:09Z http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/2c06a512-707d-4417-a866-d8a03a47001d#f244755e-e3fb-4be5-9ee0-b5890c6bd84e This is sort of old news, but many who are not Episcopalians or part of the Diocese of California might not know about it. I personally think our new bishop rocks! California bishop arrested during San Francisco war protest By Mary Frances Schjonberg Friday, December 08, 2006 Bishop of California Marc Andrus protests the deaths caused by the Iraq war by blocking the entrance to the federal building in San Francisco December 7. [Episcopal News Service] Bishop Marc Handley Andrus of the Episcopal Diocese of California was arrested December 7 for blocking the front door of the San Francisco federal building to protest the deaths caused by the Iraq war. His participation in the protest and his arrest are "just one piece of a sustained effort" to work for peace, Andrus told ENS December 8. Other parts of the effort include other liturgical events, diocesan participation in the upcoming release of a documentary about four soldiers who sought conscientious objector status, and the possibility of having Episcopalians participate in a Fellowship of Reconciliation (FOR) trip to Iran. Andrus said that his protest sprang not just from his own convictions about the war but "from a base of considered opinion by the House of Bishops and the Episcopal Church about this war." "It's not a capricious act, but it is my conviction that while there's widespread opposition to this war, that the elected leaders need to know that we continue to want concerted and active moves towards peace," he said. Andrus, carrying his crosier and singing "Down by the Riverside,'' was among 250 protesters, including members of the Episcopal Peace Fellowship and people of other faiths, who had marched from Grace Cathedral, on Nob Hill, to join the monthly "die-in" on Golden Gate Avenue near City Hall. The protest was meant to "memorialize all who have died as a result of U.S. led hostilities in Iraq," according to a November 29 invitation to the protest posted on the diocese's website. The bishop celebrated a requiem Holy Eucharist at the plaza in front of the building. After they received communion about two dozen participants went one by one to lie down in front of the federal building's two main doors. Andrus was the first protestor to do so. Federal Protective Service officers began arresting protesters for lying down and blocking the building's two main doors. Officers placed Andrus in handcuffs–as one said, "How are you?'' and shook the bishop's hand—according to a December 7 article on the San Francisco Chronicle's website. Protesters applauded, cheered and sang as Andrus was photographed by another officer and led inside the building. He and 11 other protesters were detained in a room inside the federal building for about two hours, according to diocesan spokesman Sean McConnell. They were cited for unlawful assembly and told they could either pay the charge's $125 fine or appear in court at a later date. All 12 decided to appear in court, McConnell said. Andrus said the decision was made as a way for the group to continue its protest by pleading not guilty "because of our sense that international law and the unjust nature of this war required civil disobedience." In the November 29 invitation, Andrus wrote that "at the Eucharistic table we become aware of this divine reality, that while humans may forget the dead — and may indeed willfully forget them — God remembers them. In the Iraq war the numbers of those who have died mounts, and is staggering. While even the numbers of the dead are unknown to many of us, our faith teaches us that God does not forget them." A small group of protesters led by Quakers have gathered once a week outside the federal building to hold a silent vigil. Once a month the vigil is followed by the "die-in." Andrus has attended a number of the weekly vigils, but this was the first "die-in" he has been able to attend, according to McConnell. McConnell said "a handful of people were upset that the bishop was going to do this," after the invitation was issued for people to join the protest. Andrus said one man, a veteran of the Vietnam War, told him that the protest summoned up for him all the feelings he had about fighting in Vietnam while hearing of angry war protests at home. The bishop said he told the man that he believes that protests of the Iraq war can be and have been "completely respectful of all the soldiers." "The Bishop of California has been called to lead all the people in our diocese and beyond on the path of peace, and this was the first and visible step on that journey," McConnell said. "As we continue on this journey, we will invite all people of all faiths to join us." Andrus became the eighth Bishop of California in July. The Diocese of California comprises about 30,580 Episcopalians worshipping in 80 congregations in the greater San Francisco area. Sun, 17 Dec 2006 11:37:39 GMT http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/2c06a512-707d-4417-a866-d8a03a47001d#f244755e-e3fb-4be5-9ee0-b5890c6bd84e Jimi 2006-12-17T11:37:39Z http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/2b26085e-5298-48ab-a0da-bf6597e3dcc1#29173e26-2288-4651-9e9f-4e0f22786172 The "Primates" of the Anglican Communion should find a real issue to work on -- like poverty, hunger, AIDS, global warming, or speaking out against torture and wars of aggression. * * * * * Times Online June 27, 2006 Worldwide Anglican church facing split over gay bishop By Ruth Gledhill The Archbishop of Canterbury has outlined proposals that are expected to lead to the exclusion of The Episcopal Church of the United States from the Anglican Church as a consequence of consecrating a gay bishop. The US branch of Anglicanism faces losing its status of full membership of the Anglican Church in the wake of its consecration of the openly gay Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire, an act which has propelled the worldwide church to the brink of schism. Read the rest of this sad report here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2245849,00.html Wed, 28 Jun 2006 14:28:07 GMT http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/2b26085e-5298-48ab-a0da-bf6597e3dcc1#29173e26-2288-4651-9e9f-4e0f22786172 Jimi 2006-06-28T14:28:07Z http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/48fd800b-58e1-4c49-9beb-43ee2be54fc2#1f25dc17-714c-4845-aa9e-a5748615a7de More evidence of the sickness at the heart of evangelical fundamentalism in America . . . Suffer little children US evangelists are twisting the Bible to say that beating the young is a Christian doctrine Giles Fraser The Guardian Thursday June 8, 2006 Pretty much all I remember from my prep school are the beatings: that lonely wait outside the headmaster's study; the cane, the slipper, the table tennis bat. I remember my underpants filled with blood. I remember seething with frustration when they beat my brother. My mother had asked me to look after him. But there was nothing I could do as he was led towards the study in his little tartan dressing gown. That was 30 years ago, but in time measured out by the psyche it was yesterday. Thank God such things are now illegal. But there remain those determined to turn back the clock. "We are told that in England it is a crime to spank children," writes Debbi Pearl from No Greater Joy Ministries, following a row that has erupted over the distribution of their literature in the UK. "Therefore Christians are not able to openly obey God in regard to biblical chastisement. They are in danger of having the state steal their children." The Pearls are evangelical Christians who believe corporal punishment is "doing it God's way". With a mailing list of tens of thousands of parents, the Pearls say that the justification for their approach is in scripture: "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes" (Proverbs 13:24). Chastening begins early. "For the under-one-year-old, a little, 10- to 12-inch long, willowy branch (stripped of any knots that might break the skin) about one-eighth inch diameter is sufficient," writes Michael Pearl. With older children he advises: "After a short explanation about bad attitudes and the need to love, patiently and calmly apply the rod to his backside. Somehow, after eight or 10 licks, the poison is transformed into gushing love and contentment. The world becomes a beautiful place. A brand-new child emerges. It makes an adult stare at the rod in wonder, trying to see what magic is contained therein." It's incredible to me that books such as this are readily available on Amazon; it is little short of incitement to child abuse. What makes the whole thing doubly sick is that it's done in the name of God. Apparently, the "proper application of the rod is essential to the Christian world-view". Note "essential". Perhaps it shouldn't come as a surprise. For, as evangelicals, the Pearls believe that salvation only comes through punishment and pain. God punishes his Son with crucifixion so that humanity might not have to face the Father's anger. This image of God the father, for whom violence is an expression of tough love, is lodged deep in the evangelical imagination. And it twists a religion of forgiveness and compassion into something dark and cruel. It's terrifying how deep this teaching penetrates into a philosophy of child rearing. Just as divine anger is deemed to be provoked by the original sin of human disobedience, the beating of children is seen as punishment for rebellion. According to Ted Tripp, in his monstrous bestseller Shepherding a Child's Heart, even babies who struggle while having their nappy changed are deemed to be rebellious and need punishment. Last month Lynn Paddock of North Carolina was charged with the murder of her four-year-old son, Sean. She had apparently beaten him with a length of quarter-inch plumbing line - plastic tubing. Like many in her church, Paddock had turned to the Pearls' resources on Biblical parenting. The Pearls say chastisement with plumbing line is "a real attention getter". Sean Paddock's autopsy describes layers of bruises stretching from his bottom to his shoulder. What Jesus said about those who would harm children comes inevitably to mind: "It would be better for them if a millstone was hanged about their neck, and that they were drowned in the depth of the sea." Dr Giles Fraser is the vicar of Putney. giles.fraser@btinternet.com © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 Sun, 11 Jun 2006 16:04:54 GMT http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/48fd800b-58e1-4c49-9beb-43ee2be54fc2#1f25dc17-714c-4845-aa9e-a5748615a7de Jimi 2006-06-11T16:04:54Z http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/58dab37b-2ffd-431c-94a2-2dcb9670d5fb#597ebd54-0051-4a5f-a910-5230d55fd0f7 More evidence of the sickness at the heart of evangelical fundamentalism in America . . . Suffer little children US evangelists are twisting the Bible to say that beating the young is a Christian doctrine Giles Fraser The Guardian Thursday June 8, 2006 Pretty much all I remember from my prep school are the beatings: that lonely wait outside the headmaster's study; the cane, the slipper, the table tennis bat. I remember my underpants filled with blood. I remember seething with frustration when they beat my brother. My mother had asked me to look after him. But there was nothing I could do as he was led towards the study in his little tartan dressing gown. That was 30 years ago, but in time measured out by the psyche it was yesterday. Thank God such things are now illegal. But there remain those determined to turn back the clock. "We are told that in England it is a crime to spank children," writes Debbi Pearl from No Greater Joy Ministries, following a row that has erupted over the distribution of their literature in the UK. "Therefore Christians are not able to openly obey God in regard to biblical chastisement. They are in danger of having the state steal their children." The Pearls are evangelical Christians who believe corporal punishment is "doing it God's way". With a mailing list of tens of thousands of parents, the Pearls say that the justification for their approach is in scripture: "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes" (Proverbs 13:24). Chastening begins early. "For the under-one-year-old, a little, 10- to 12-inch long, willowy branch (stripped of any knots that might break the skin) about one-eighth inch diameter is sufficient," writes Michael Pearl. With older children he advises: "After a short explanation about bad attitudes and the need to love, patiently and calmly apply the rod to his backside. Somehow, after eight or 10 licks, the poison is transformed into gushing love and contentment. The world becomes a beautiful place. A brand-new child emerges. It makes an adult stare at the rod in wonder, trying to see what magic is contained therein." It's incredible to me that books such as this are readily available on Amazon; it is little short of incitement to child abuse. What makes the whole thing doubly sick is that it's done in the name of God. Apparently, the "proper application of the rod is essential to the Christian world-view". Note "essential". Perhaps it shouldn't come as a surprise. For, as evangelicals, the Pearls believe that salvation only comes through punishment and pain. God punishes his Son with crucifixion so that humanity might not have to face the Father's anger. This image of God the father, for whom violence is an expression of tough love, is lodged deep in the evangelical imagination. And it twists a religion of forgiveness and compassion into something dark and cruel. It's terrifying how deep this teaching penetrates into a philosophy of child rearing. Just as divine anger is deemed to be provoked by the original sin of human disobedience, the beating of children is seen as punishment for rebellion. According to Ted Tripp, in his monstrous bestseller Shepherding a Child's Heart, even babies who struggle while having their nappy changed are deemed to be rebellious and need punishment. Last month Lynn Paddock of North Carolina was charged with the murder of her four-year-old son, Sean. She had apparently beaten him with a length of quarter-inch plumbing line - plastic tubing. Like many in her church, Paddock had turned to the Pearls' resources on Biblical parenting. The Pearls say chastisement with plumbing line is "a real attention getter". Sean Paddock's autopsy describes layers of bruises stretching from his bottom to his shoulder. What Jesus said about those who would harm children comes inevitably to mind: "It would be better for them if a millstone was hanged about their neck, and that they were drowned in the depth of the sea." Dr Giles Fraser is the vicar of Putney. giles.fraser@btinternet.com © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 Sun, 11 Jun 2006 16:04:17 GMT http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/58dab37b-2ffd-431c-94a2-2dcb9670d5fb#597ebd54-0051-4a5f-a910-5230d55fd0f7 Jimi 2006-06-11T16:04:17Z http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/e10bb537-f4b3-4eb7-b114-4ab50ee77193#ea800d8f-7c3c-49ff-b5a3-c5af08eff63b Johnny! Come down for dinner, dear! Aw, Mom. Not now. I'm right in the middle of terminating a bunch of Christ-killin' Jews and liberal gay Episcopalians! Be there in a sec. Wed, 31 May 2006 21:29:13 GMT http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/e10bb537-f4b3-4eb7-b114-4ab50ee77193#ea800d8f-7c3c-49ff-b5a3-c5af08eff63b Jimi 2006-05-31T21:29:13Z http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/e10bb537-f4b3-4eb7-b114-4ab50ee77193#7f8a97bf-83fc-4e30-9ced-d7dabac05340 that is SO messed up. two initial reactions: 1 - what exactly *are* the ties between the pseudo-Christian religious right cult, the military, and the video game industry? 2 - what sort of a strategy could the religious left use to publicly damn this kind of perverse education of adolescents for the evil whic it is? yes, the religious left is above condemnation, reaches for understanding, etc; but surely none of us are so idealogically driven as to fail to see that "pretending to kill people" who speak for civic humanism is hrm, an assault on civilization, mercy, love, compassion, not to mention human rights. surely if there were a cultural issue to make a stink over in the way that the conservatives have made a stink over exposed nipples this is it. strike now. only ... how to strike? and with what media army? Wed, 31 May 2006 18:42:38 GMT http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/e10bb537-f4b3-4eb7-b114-4ab50ee77193#7f8a97bf-83fc-4e30-9ced-d7dabac05340 Jo 2006-05-31T18:42:38Z http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/e10bb537-f4b3-4eb7-b114-4ab50ee77193#fa9856db-f639-4e76-b35a-c29257bb0d54 Many Christian activists complain that the violence contained in video games have a direct impact on American Society. But apparently killing people who are for a "separation of Church and state" is fair game. Some sick games based on the "Left Behind" series are about to be unleashed on our youth. Maybe they will be handed out at the next "Justice Sunday" event. The Purpose Driven Life Takers Jonathan Hutson: "Imagine: you are a foot soldier in a paramilitary group whose purpose is to remake America as a Christian theocracy, and establish its worldly vision of the dominion of Christ over all aspects of life. You are issued high-tech military weaponry, and instructed to engage the infidel on the streets of New York City. You are on a mission - both a religious mission and a military mission -- to convert or kill Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, gays, and anyone who advocates the separation of church and state - especially moderate, mainstream Christians. Your mission is "to conduct physical and spiritual warfare"; all who resist must be taken out with extreme prejudice. You have never felt so powerful, so driven by a purpose: you are 13 years old. You are playing a real-time strategy video game whose creators are linked to the empire of mega-church pastor Rick Warren, best selling author of The Purpose Driven Life.....read on: http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/5/29/195855/959 Wed, 31 May 2006 00:13:07 GMT http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/e10bb537-f4b3-4eb7-b114-4ab50ee77193#fa9856db-f639-4e76-b35a-c29257bb0d54 Jimi 2006-05-31T00:13:07Z http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/6961229b-9608-43e2-9e85-a82ae2e7aef1#449fba85-5768-4052-8923-d5622792c7fe http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/opinions/columnists/masterson/ Perpetrating economic injustice in an immoral budget OK all you churchgoers, now's the time to get out of your Amen corner and in the face of national leaders who are failing to vote your values. Were our congressmen sunning themselves somewhere exotic last August when us working stiffs heard the Census Bureau report that the number of Americans living in poverty has increased by 1.1 million to 37 million and that those without health insurance has spiraled to 46 million? Wages are stagnant. Costs are rising. Need is up. So what does our House of Representatives do? They support $50 billion in cuts to programs like Medicaid, food stamps, child support enforcement, foster care and student loans. If those cuts, approved by the House last month, aren't enough evidence of the Grinch-like ruling class in this country, consider that Congress is also pursuing a $70 billion package of tax breaks, most of which will benefit the top one percent of American wage earners. On Wednesday night, concerned citizens, many of them Christians, braved the cold and snow and attended a "Vigil for a moral budget." The vigils were held at congressional offices around the country, including the new Northbrook office of Rep. Mark Kirk, R-Highland Park, who apparently believes it's OK to rob the poor to pay the rich. "Though Rep. Kirk voted for the budget cuts previously, we hope to persuade him to oppose the cuts this time around," said Ryan Canney, organizing director for Citizen Action/Illinois. "If the federal budget is a moral document reflecting our nation's values, Rep. Kirk has a chance to ensure that Congress doesn't pass a budget that reflects the wrong priorities." As people of faith, our priority should be those in need — including a growing number of our neighbors in Lake County. Catholic Charities in Waukegan reports a 9 percent increase in services to the working poor over the past year. Individual requests for help with basic human necessities — food, shelter, utilities — increased from 9,285 in 2004 to 11,057 this year — a 19 percent hike. The agency also served 7,000 more meals — for a total of nearly 100,000 — an 8 percent increase over the previous year." "These are very high numbers to try and maintain," said Teresa Denny, Catholic Charities regional representative. "People are working two and three jobs but they aren't making a living wage." The people who will be hurt most by the proposed cuts and in both taxes and programs are those who are barely hanging on in the first place: The young mother who depends on a child-care subsidy, the disabled who depend on Medicaid for health care; those who, despite their Link cards, still don't have enough for their families to eat. Some religious leaders have raised their voices in protest. Ministers from the Episcopal, Presbyterian, United Methodist, Evangelical Lutheran and United Church of Christ lambasted President Bush's proposed budget early last spring. They reminded our political leaders that to continue to ignore the poor will mean becoming like the "rich man" who pretended not to know the beggar Lazarus lying outside his gates. The story in the 16th chapter of the Gospel according to Luke, the preachers said, "contains a warning that should deeply trouble those of us who live in a wealthy nation." After the rich man dies and is sent to Hades, he implores Abraham to raise Lazarus from the dead and send him to his brothers so that they may be spared his torment. "They have Moses and the prophets," Abraham replies. "They should listen to them." The rich man says, "No, father Abraham; but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent." And Abraham answers: "If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead." The story, the religious leaders insist, makes clear that "perpetrating economic injustice is among the gravest of sins." But Jesus recognizes our fatal flaw — a self-interest "so deeply ingrained in each one of us, that we will not renounce it, even should someone rise from the dead." Bush's budget — the one supported by the majority Republican Congress — "takes Jesus' teaching on economic justice and stands it on its head," the pastors rail. While agencies like Catholic Charities will continue to work in the trenches to meet the growing need among us, charitable efforts will continue to fall short in the face of incessant, grasping greed and the calculating callousness of the people we elect. Even mercy — at least the human kind — can't make up for an immoral budget. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Millions of people are depending on you to call -- and it only takes a minute: Use the toll-free number to reach the Capitol switchboard. After you are connected with a staff person at the office of your Representative or Senator, tell them: "My name is _______________ and I live in (your town/city). I would like Representative/Senator [name] to vote NO on the final version of the budget cuts (the deal between the House and Senate bills - H.R.4241 and S.1932 ) . Do not allow billions in cuts to vital services for vulnerable people, including Medicaid, SSI, foster care, Food Stamps, and child support. These cuts are the wrong priorities. I also would like the Representative/Senator to announce to constituents that he/she opposes this bill." If you can't get through on that line, please call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121. Fri, 16 Dec 2005 19:26:18 GMT http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/6961229b-9608-43e2-9e85-a82ae2e7aef1#449fba85-5768-4052-8923-d5622792c7fe Teresa 2005-12-16T19:26:18Z http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/8dd02220-2741-4cc4-b2d7-80a20feb6212#00aee8d2-0eaf-4692-af0b-e3c09bfc8a2e http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051212/ap_on_re_us/williams_execution No mercy. No consideration of redemption or rehabilitation. No taking into account the good things Williams could continue to do dismantling gangs. Sickening. Mon, 12 Dec 2005 21:08:08 GMT http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/8dd02220-2741-4cc4-b2d7-80a20feb6212#00aee8d2-0eaf-4692-af0b-e3c09bfc8a2e $item.owner.firstName 2005-12-12T21:08:08Z http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/45cc2011-738d-42cf-a966-0b3bdc66efc8#5923bf5e-c952-4e5e-9dfd-678f2c2a7221 If you are interested I have posted an essay at http://christianurbanism.blogspot.com on the spiritual obligation of churches in regard to urban neighborhood revitalization. I would appreciate hearing your thoughts (via the blog site, Tribe, or private message). Frank Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:49:36 GMT http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/45cc2011-738d-42cf-a966-0b3bdc66efc8#5923bf5e-c952-4e5e-9dfd-678f2c2a7221 $item.owner.firstName 2005-12-11T18:49:36Z http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/09f4a8ab-d3a5-413b-9ea5-780a97a53966#8f3741bf-d01f-497a-8325-2d132e65c32c How about his appointment of an attorney general whose censorship policies are affecting us right here on tribe? Sat, 10 Dec 2005 02:22:55 GMT http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/09f4a8ab-d3a5-413b-9ea5-780a97a53966#8f3741bf-d01f-497a-8325-2d132e65c32c Clara 2005-12-10T02:22:55Z http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/a1c79e3e-a73b-4ea5-a5c9-4b1afc824962#4d948272-b760-4642-bd8d-3ab07c4ba968 <img style = "float:left; margin:10px" src = "http://www.conservativeactivist.net/images/OneManOneWoman.JPG">Liberals want to know how to win elections. Recently, you've heard a lot more of a clever but dangerous proposition about how to form a coalition of moderate Christians free from the claws of the radical right fringe cult. The proposition runs thus: we want progressives to work with moderates to build a more powerful political coalition, so we must jettison gay marriage and abortion from the political agenda. I should know, because I've argued for that position myself. In the autumn of last year, I was working with a gay seminarian friend, and we had reached the same conclusion: gay marriage was not going to be one of the items in our political lobby. Poverty, yes; prison reform, yes; fair trade and foreign relations, absolutely: but gay marriage was too divisive, too narrow, and too domestic an issue to touch. Marriage: one man, one woman. It's dividing churches, and the noise of churches breaking loses voters. Meanwhile, Jesus called us to serve the poor and disenfranchised; progressives have a nation to save. Maybe we also felt, secretly, that the gay marriage debate was going to be won without us: that the courts were acting in a fashion amenable to civil rights, that the rest of American culture was committed to a practical level of civic pluralism even if our government was not; that in any case, popular culture was so far ahead of the church in accepting gay relationships, that the church could only follow once enough of its older members, wary of Ellen and Boy George, died off. So while we separated our political crusade from our concern for gay marriage, we felt that this was no betrayal of gay rights. I come from a family of gay rights activists within the church, and my friend is seeking ordination in a church suspicious of his orientation. We both felt extremely committed towards lobbying for gay marriage -- not just blessing but marriage -- within our churches. We cited Melanchthon and Luther about the use of marriage not just to produce children but to care for the souls of the individuals; we both see marriage in a committed relationship before God and a community as serving that function, regardless of the gender of the individuals involved. We shied away from gay marriage for practical reasons. We saw case after case where this issue, raised in the media, gave way to the most limp and meaningless discussion of marriage. Some say progressive theologians don't have their theology worked out yet. Some say that progressives in general aren't skilled enough in discussing their point of view in pithy terms without hemorrhaging emotionality. Some say the religious right's soundbites are too strong an ammunition for us. Some say that divisions within the churches cripple convicted clergy on the left from speaking their own mind. Some say that the tolerant are actually a minority in this country. Some say that tolerance is a majority virtue, but never has a chance in the world of soundbites. My experience carrying forward the banner of "progressive values without discussion of sexuality" made me change my mind. I personally got a lot of flack -- often from moderates I hadn't expected it from, even more often from close friends and respected clergy who felt a duty to challenge me -- every time anyone asked us about our position. Those who have fought for gay rights have felt betrayed time and again by the Democratic Party and other liberal organizations that count on their vote (because liberals are better than the opposition), and then, once in power, turned Judas on their supporters. There's a great deal of righteous anger amongst gay rights supporters. There's a great deal of appropriate suspicion, to the extent that many committed activists, reading a "moderate" post such as this at CrossLeft, may simply roll their eyes and click on to the next site. To me, there is no question about the appropriateness of gay marriage or gay relationships within the church. To me, the foes of gay marriage run dangerously close to advocating a kind of marriage in which I, as a woman, would play the role of subservient to my husband. If gender is *so* essential that commitment, love, Godliness, and community are insufficient to marriage without the appropriate gendering of one man and one woman, the only correct marriage must be one in which women act as traditional women. Traditional women are, as we know, deferent laboratories for producing infants, not permitted to be ordained. Jesus and his apostles overturned that notion of gender long ago: there is neither man nor woman in Christ. Amongst the early Christians of the first centuries of the church, women acted as ministers and took more active roles than they had under Jewish law. When he told Christian women that they should not commit suicide just because their husband had died, Augustine advocated the independent salvation and purpose of the Christian woman in a fashion utterly radical to his pagan, Roman context. As Christians, we have no metaphysical use for gender. Our salvation is between one individual and Christ: a Christian woman is a woman who has found out all her callings - domestic, professional, political, romantic, and social - and acts with full liberty, confidence, and discernment in each of them according to the products of her direct and ongoing conversation with God, not the pre-packaged marriage instructions of a local sewing circle. When he went undercover amongst a cabal of billionaire right-wing Jesus freaks, journalist <a href = "http://www.harpers.org/JesusPlusNothing.html">Jeff Sharlet</a> gave a good picture of the way this minority has defaced the Christian understanding of gender by adulterating it with something more like the gospel of Liz Claiborne: <blockquote>They wore red lipstick and long skirts (makeup and “feminine” attire were required) and had, after several months of cleaning and serving in The Cedars while the brothers worked outside, become quite unimpressed by the high-powered clientele. “Girls don't sit in on the breakfasts,” one of them told me, though she said that none of them minded because it was “just politics.”</blockquote> As Progressives, we may understand that individuals in our world are gendered, and we may make use of institutions that help them to function spiritually and ethically within this world. We don't insist that women are only free if they stop shaving their legs or shave their hair; we understand that there are <a href = "http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~lit125/?redirect=no">a thousand different feminisms</a>, and that women as individuals pursue paths as diverse as men do. But gender and gendered living are necessary to neither our salvation nor to Christian living, and so they *cannot* be necessary to participating in marriage as a Christian sacrament (amongst Catholic churches) or Christian ceremony (amongst Protestant churches). But when our brothers and sisters in Jesus kick the girls out of the politics meeting, they betray our heritage, our culture, and our God. Their actions take on all the more significance when considered in light of international events. <a href = "http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_051128nigeca.shtml">Gay Nigerian Christians</a> have had their first meeting ever; a sign of hope to some and naivete to others. But the British media reports that the Nigerians just sound "scared." They sound scared because they have dared to discuss their sexuality openly in a culture that deems the openly gay unfit to live. I don't need to remind our readers of other societies where <a href = "http://www.lifenews.com/nat1881.html">girl babies</a> and widows are similarly deemed unfit to live. In the great world of feudal corporate fiefdoms and third-world dictatorships, the woes of your individual lesbian couple in California might not matter much. But they do matter insofar as more powerful nations have, in realpolitik, the opportunity to influence the protection of human rights the world over. Gay marriage in a small town in Idaho may not be our issue: getting mired by throwing Bible verses back and forth is not the way any of us should spend our precious time on the radio and tv waves. When we look at questions of liberty for political, social, religious, and economic action for people of every gender and sexuality, the United States and Britain make statements about freedoms appropriate for all people, whether they choose them or not. Poor families in Pakistan and Nigeria and South Carolina can choose traditional relationships, courtship, and ceremony wherever they wish, but in every democracy where the light of Christianity (or indeed the secular Enlightenment, which took many of its values) has shown, the state as the will of the majority has prevented husbands, clerics, and churches from curtailing the property rights, legal rights, or life of the individual. Protestant Christianity has always witnessed on behalf of the laws that protect individual freedom in this way. Its theology has, in the past, pushed the government to act in ways ever more protective of individual freedoms. Thus it is profoundly embarrassing and sad for <a href = "bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/fivelive_aod.shtml?fivelive/rowan_williams">the church to claim that it can't take a position on gay rights because its theology will take a hundred years to develop, as Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams did recently</a>; <a href = "http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/concord/web/conf-23.html">Luther</a> started us on the correct path five hundred years ago, and we have had a hundred years since <a href = "http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/HSC/fly/pre1973nonfiction.htm">Havelock Ellis and Freud</a> to understand how basic different forms of sexuality are to basic human identity. How queer that once we have to talk about what particular acts of sex a committed couple takes part in, godfearing Christians turn pale and run away. In being asked to defend gay marriage, Christians are merely called to the same questions of individual freedom and conscience before God, to which they have dedicated themselves individuals, as married couples, and as churches. Let me be clear: many things are not at stake here. At stake is not whether I, as a defender of my brother's freedoms, participate in them myself, am virginal or not, am married or not, wish to live in my brother's company or not, consider his choices well-advised or not, or wish to discuss his sexual life. At stake is not whether the individual priest is perfectly convinced that two people will forever adhere to the vow of chastity and commitment that they have made in due seriousness before him, although he may counsel and advise them according to his impression of the individuals in question. At stake in whether a church marries too people is certainly not whether the individual priest judges that the individuals before him are actually going to heaven: what priest refuses marriage to the drunk or gluttonous or hate-filled man who stands before him with a future bride? At stake is only a precept of freedom about whether the individual's rights will be curtailed on the basis of gender, a precept which has profound consequences for global freedoms in light of today's issues. We believe in a God that builds communities and sustains individuals, and an oath of marriage between two people -- any two people -- is, if nothing else, a vow to build a community as individuals who have made a free choice before God. For in facing the question of how sexual relations are understood before God, the churches of United States and Britain have the opportunity with their theology to make a profound statement in favor of *human* rights -- including the fundamental right to life free from murder -- against regimes that devalue life merely because of an individual's gender. For as dictatorships and corporate feudalism spread throughout Africa and South America, we stand on a precipice and look out at two futures. In one version, the discourse of women's rights and gay rights are jettisoned, as we argue instead about the necessity of traditional polygamy to maintaining the chiefs of African villages, of Sati to maintaining the wealth system of northern India, and of man-woman marriage to something vaguely called "traditional morality" in North America. In such a future, girl children will be exposed on hillsides as they were in ancient pagan empires; villages will throw screaming widows into the funeral pyres of their husbands; a tiny minority of the world's women will have legal rights over their property; the rest of the world's women will be legally subject to rape by their husbands and left penniless in case of divorce. Remember that such was the legal condition of women in the West until about a hundred and twenty years ago -- until, that is, the age of Freud and Havelock Ellis and the modern understanding of human sexuality -- and you will understand how fragile is our concept of rights regardless of gender. You will understand how liable traditional local laws are to triumph in court and practice over the gospel of human rights. You will understand how, in the spectrum of legal protections, gay marriage is a direct continuation of our understanding that men are free to serve God, and women are free to serve God, and traditions that restrict their freedoms because of their gender go flatly against Jesus's teachings. You will understand how discussion of gay marriage scares people away from realizing the peril in which their common values stand. You will see that, while Western Christians hesitate, the Christian-derived precept of human rights stands threatened the world over. The other future before us is that path we were called to by Jesus, Paul, the early Christians, Augustine, Luther, and the progressives of nineteenth-century America. In this future, women the world over have the opportunity, if they desire it, to seek education, work, and political involvement. In this future, black and white marry -- even if a community deems it inadvisable, the church still supports them. In this future, a woman and a woman can marry, as can a man and a man, if their fascination with each other is romantic and sustained; if their mutual intention is towards God, and if they find a Christian community -- any Christian community -- willing to support them. In this future, the churches of America and Britain are a safe house and a nurturing family to the African who happens to be gay or the Chinese who happens to be a woman. In this future, the Christian message of individual discernment runs so strong that it inspires freely-discerning individuals around the world to make their cause with God and face the fallen world with courage. Rowan Williams has also spoken recently about what it means when a church says it needs leaders. Most people, he says, when they ask for leaders merely ask people to parrot back their own opinions for them. Leaders are instead individuals capable of holding together a sometimes fragile alliance for the purposes of some greater good that all have agreed upon. Let's agree that the discussion of gay marriage in the American media has been fractious and confusing, especially to Christians and moderates. We can talk with them individually and in our communities. Church leaders will continue to huddle and argue about Bible verses. But for political purposes, perhaps we can concede that the image of the altar, the procession, the wedding dress, the wedding ring, and the priest are so symbolically charged as to trouble people when the image is tweaked. Individuals of little experience find pictures of newlywed lesbians holding hands in San Francisco and Boston are visually jolting and confusing. Perhaps a good leader would spare them confusion, and direct them to a message that they can't be confused about: the rights of those gay Christians in Nigeria not to be lynched. Fri, 09 Dec 2005 16:40:13 GMT http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/a1c79e3e-a73b-4ea5-a5c9-4b1afc824962#4d948272-b760-4642-bd8d-3ab07c4ba968 Jo 2005-12-09T16:40:13Z http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/4bdbf046-817e-4141-a1cf-b0e0250ef4a8#fbc59998-e6c7-4c7b-bbfd-3a3539fcd9c1 http://mymotherlode.com/News/article/id/D8EB20N01 Some Megachurches Closing for Christmas Tuesday, December 06, 2005 - 11:35 PM By RACHEL ZOLL AP Religion Writer This Christmas, no prayers will be said in several megachurches around the country. Even though the holiday falls this year on a Sunday, when churches normally host thousands for worship, pastors are canceling services, anticipating low attendance on what they call a family day. Critics within the evangelical community, more accustomed to doing battle with department stores and public schools over keeping religion in Christmas, are stunned by the shutdown. It is almost unheard of for a Christian church to cancel services on a Sunday, and opponents of the closures are accusing these congregations of bowing to secular culture. "This is a consumer mentality at work: `Let´s not impose the church on people. Let´s not make church in any way inconvenient,´" said David Wells, professor of history and systematic theology at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, a leading evangelical school in Hamilton, Mass. "I think what this does is feed into the individualism that is found throughout American culture, where everyone does their own thing." The churches closing on Christmas plan multiple services in the days leading up to the holiday, including on Christmas Eve. Most normally do not hold Christmas Day services, preferring instead to mark the holiday in the days and night before. However, Sunday worship has been a Christian practice since ancient times. Cally Parkinson, a spokeswoman for Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Ill., said church leaders decided that organizing services on a Christmas Sunday would not be the most effective use of staff and volunteer resources. The last time Christmas fell on a Sunday was 1994, and only a small number of people showed up to pray, she said. "If our target and our mission is to reach the unchurched, basically the people who don´t go to church, how likely is it that they´ll be going to church on Christmas morning?" she said. Among the other megachurches closing on Christmas Day are Southland Christian Church in Nicholasville, Ky., near Lexington, and Fellowship Church in Grapevine, Texas, outside of Dallas. North Point Community Church in Alpharetta, Ga., outside of Atlanta, said on its Web site that no services will be held on Christmas Day or New Year´s Day, which also falls on a Sunday. A spokesman for North Point did not respond to requests for comment. The closures stand in stark contrast to Roman Catholic parishes, which will see some of their largest crowds of the year on Christmas, and mainline Protestant congregations such as the Episcopal, Methodist and Lutheran churches, where Sunday services are rarely if ever canceled. Cindy Willison, a spokeswoman for the evangelical Southland Christian Church, said at least 500 volunteers are needed, along with staff, to run Sunday services for the estimated 8,000 people who usually attend. She said many of the volunteers appreciate the chance to spend Christmas with their families instead of working, although she said a few church members complained. "If we weren´t having services at all, I would probably tend to feel that we were too accommodating to the secular viewpoint, but we´re having multiple services on Saturday and an additional service Friday night," Willison said. "We believe that you worship every day of the week, not just on a weekend, and you don´t have to be in a church building to worship." Troy Page, a spokesman for Fellowship Church, said the congregation was hardly shirking its religious obligations. Fellowship will hold 21 services in four locations in the days leading up to the holiday. Last year, more than 30,000 worshippers participated. "Doing them early allows you to reach people who may be leaving town Friday," Page said. These megachurches are not alone in adjusting Sunday worship to accommodate families on Christmas. But most other congregations are scaling back services instead of closing their doors. First Baptist Church in Daytona Beach, Fla., led by the Rev. Bobby Welch, president of the Southern Baptist Convention, will hold one service instead of the usual two. New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colo., led by the Rev. Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, will hold one Sunday service instead of the typical three. Wed, 07 Dec 2005 00:45:09 GMT http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/4bdbf046-817e-4141-a1cf-b0e0250ef4a8#fbc59998-e6c7-4c7b-bbfd-3a3539fcd9c1 Teresa 2005-12-07T00:45:09Z http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/dded7623-7afa-459d-ba40-b2729e626e6b#3562ac74-cf7a-46d4-98c8-4de8d00715ee "West Wing" actor Bradley Whitford sounds of on the Huffington Post about the IRS's outrageous attack on All Saints, Pasadena: Get The IRS Out of My Church Bradley Whitford Huffington Post 12.04.2005 I have been a member of the All Saints Church in Pasadena for over ten years. The recent revelations of an IRS investigation into its non-profit status as the result of a sermon given a week before the last presidential election by Rector Emeritus George Regas has outraged and galvanized our congregation. The support we have received from across the spectrum of faith communities, including traditionally conservative evangelical leaders, has solidified our resolve—the United States government has no place in our houses of worship, and the selective targeting of churches who speak out on the issues of the day sets a dangerous precedent that threatens the religious freedom of every citizen. The sermon in question explicitly refused to endorse a particular candidate. It did, however, hold George Bush and John Kerry up to the high standard of Christian values. Both were found wanting. Values not put into action are meaningless, no matter how lofty they are. It is the obligation of our spiritual leaders to not just articulate those values, but to make them a reality. We live in an age where describing oneself as a “person of faith” carries with it a tremendous political advantage. But too often in the public arena, being “religious” is defined only as a search for personal salvation and a willingness to adhere to dogma. Declaring oneself a Christian is easy. Putting Christian values to work in a dangerous and violent world is not. Perhaps the best response to the tragedy of 9/11 was a preemptive war against a country that had nothing to do with the attacks. Tens of thousands of deaths later, perhaps it is still the right decision. But it is not Christian. Perhaps it is good economics to give me, an actor on a television show, over a quarter of a million dollars in tax relief over the last five years as the poverty rate climbs, as we burden our children with structural budget deficits and cut services for our most vulnerable citizens. But it is not Christian. Perhaps the death penalty is an acceptable way to punish criminals. But it is not Christian. Jesus Christ was the Prince of Peace, not the Prince of Preemptive War. He was an advocate for the poor, not of supply-side economics. And let’s not forget that Jesus himself died in a bogus death-penalty rap. His was the original “bleeding heart,” yet I am afraid he would be described pejoratively by many today as a “do-gooder.” President Bush proudly proclaims himself a Christian and tells us that his faith has changed his heart. Perhaps one day his faith will change his policies. Until then, I am proud to be a part of a congregation that seeks to hold all public officials to their easy— and too often empty—proclamations of faith. Mon, 05 Dec 2005 12:47:50 GMT http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/dded7623-7afa-459d-ba40-b2729e626e6b#3562ac74-cf7a-46d4-98c8-4de8d00715ee $item.owner.firstName 2005-12-05T12:47:50Z http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/09f4a8ab-d3a5-413b-9ea5-780a97a53966#323b4a9b-df8f-4453-9051-87f147248042 Oh, darn. I left out "My Pet Goat." Fri, 02 Dec 2005 22:47:28 GMT http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/09f4a8ab-d3a5-413b-9ea5-780a97a53966#323b4a9b-df8f-4453-9051-87f147248042 $item.owner.firstName 2005-12-02T22:47:28Z http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/09f4a8ab-d3a5-413b-9ea5-780a97a53966#8aa95017-f5a1-4971-a791-a31e87b0e4d8 I don't know about you, but I am starting to suffer from Bush fatigue. I'm Bushed. But I know that is just stinkin' thinkin', and I must resist such incipient sloth. The main problem is the sheer volume of outrages and atrocities by this administration that we are confronted with every week. The number must be approaching one best expressed in scientific notation (which I never learned very well in school). In days of yore, the public would be confronted with scant few outrages to bitch about during any given presidential administration. Only the occasional Teapot Dome (Harding), Checkers-speech-prompting fundraising scam (Nixon under Eisenhower), botched Bay of Pigs (Kennedy), trumped-up Tonkin Gulf (Johnson), Pentagon Papers (Nixon), Watergate (Nixon), botched Iran rescue (Carter), Iran-Contra (Reagan), Willie Horton ad (Bush pere), and Blue Dress Stain (Clinton) would divert our citizenry's sustained attention away from its normal producing, consuming, shitting, showering and shaving. But W. OMG. The outrages started even before he took office. What he did to John McCain in the 2000 South Carolina primary (phoning voters with the story that McCain sired an illigitimate brown baby) set the motif for the endless theme and variations that has followed. To say that the electoral process that installed him in 2000 was an electoral process insults all presidential electoral processes that preceded it. I would like to develop a list of the bad things this bad man has done. Just so I can keep it straight in my head, and so it all does not wash down the memory hole. I need your help with this. Let's confine the list to things that have been done or intentionally left undone during Bush's administrations (thereby omitting such matters as his hot-iron branding of frat-pledge buttocks at Yale and his AWOL National Guard status). So here goes. I will start, in no particular order of importance or chronology, and I will attribute to Bush the acts and omissions of his agents, capos, and legislative toadies (because the buck stops -- where?): - Torture at Abu Ghraib - Torture at Guantanamo - Torture all over the planet in an archipelago of secret gulags - Torture justified in ridiculous legal memorandum - Elevation of signer of said memorandum to Attorney General - Ignoring the pre-911 Daily Press Briefings - Patriot Act - Lying us into the Iraq War (no WMD, no al Qaida tie-in) - Katrina response - Fraudulent speech at New Orleans' Jackson Square, adding insulting hope to injury - Outing Valerie Plame - No-bid contracts for the likes of Halliburton - Medal of Freedom for George Tenet - Refusal to sign up for International Court of Justice (because he knew he would be committing war crimes) - Use of chemical weapons at Fallujah - Near-total destruction of Fallujah, dwarfing the My Lai incident in Vietnam - Bombing of Al Jazeera offices in Iraq, killing reporters - Telling Blair he wanted to bomb Al Jazeera central office in Qatar - Letting Bin Laden escape from Tora Bora - Assisting Bin Laden's family and friends escape the U.S. in the week after 911 - Carlyle Group (Bush and bin Laden families' golden goose for war profiteering) - Arresting people at Bush rallies and Social Security "conversations" for their tee-shirts, bumper stickers or the cut of their jibs - Attack on Social Security - Diebold - Voter purges in swing states Florida and Ohio - Multifarious nefariousness in Ohio 2004, resulting in Kerry's ignominious, servile concession speech - Repeal of forest protections ("Healthy Forests" initiative) - Rollback of clear air standards ("Clean Skies" initiative) - Effort to push through oil drilling in Arctic wildlife refuge - Refusal to participate in international climate change discussions (or international discussions on much of anything else, preferring instead to lecture international authorities in butchered English) - Refusal to acknowledge global warming - The shrinking Coalition of the Willing - "Shock and Awe" - Over 100,000 Iraqis killed (how many more maimed?) - Over 2100 American soldiers killed (how many more maimed?) - Over 50,000 American troops who will come back mentally deranged from what they have seen and done (Rep. Murtha mentioned this the other day) - Purging of CIA critics - Firing of FBI whistleblower - Refusal to participate in global conference on land mines - EPA reversal of sewage standards, allowing massive dumping - Permitting oil drilling in national parks - Tax breaks for the wealthiest, even while marching off to war - "Mission Accomplished" stunt - Massive budget deficits that threaten economic collapse (even Greenspan hints at this) - Did I mention massive budget deficits? After he was handed a huge budget surplus by Clinton. Bush has the Midas touch in reverse - everything he has ever touched has turned to caca. Every business (don't mention the Texas Rangers - he traded Sosa). Every political office (just ask Texans) - What happened to Iraq's oil money? - Speaking of which, what about that Wolfowitz guy (who said Iraq would pay for its own war)? Now he heads the World Bank! - $9 billiion of Iraq money unaccounted for on Bremer's watch - Refusal to allow meaningful stem-cell research - Backing "Intelligent Design" fantasy - Terry Schiavo - Anti-gay-marriage proposed Constitutional amendment - Numerous other instances of kow-towing to the religious right - Enron (taking campaign contributions from "Kenny-boy" and his klepto-company) - Indefinite detention of American citizens without counsel and without charge - The Downing Street Memo (remember that?), showing Bush/Cheney "fixed" the intelligence around the policy - Depleted uranium munitions - Harriet Myers - That Alito guy, who can be counted on to ban abortion and support torture and permanent imprisonment of non-citizens without trial - Allowing coal companies to drop mercury on all of us - Believing (really?) that God instructed him to kill in Iraq - "I've got to get on with my life" - Refusal to listen to any military brass who are unwilling to bring good news - Refusal to talk to a grieving mother - Refusal to attend soldiers' funerals - Blocking photographs of coffins returning from Iraq - Armstrong Williams - Jeff Gannon - Swift-boating - Spending Dept of Education money on fascist rock and roll for high school students - Karl Rove I could go on, but I have run out of time just now. This list has barely scratched the surface. So help me out, won't you? (Note to right-wing trollers: Please feel free to assemble competing lists of all the wonderful things you believe Bush has done for our country. I would really like to see that.) Fri, 02 Dec 2005 22:43:29 GMT http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/09f4a8ab-d3a5-413b-9ea5-780a97a53966#8aa95017-f5a1-4971-a791-a31e87b0e4d8 $item.owner.firstName 2005-12-02T22:43:29Z http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/15a17a06-db4b-4954-99a8-bb8ddeca0e1c#6be40718-53fd-4e45-89f4-af26ab53f643 <<and symbolizes the death of compassionate conservatism>> There never was such a thing, it is one of the biggest lies about the repubs - they finally are coming into the light and we are being shown what they truly are - PRAISE GOD! Fri, 18 Nov 2005 22:40:32 GMT http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/15a17a06-db4b-4954-99a8-bb8ddeca0e1c#6be40718-53fd-4e45-89f4-af26ab53f643 Teresa 2005-11-18T22:40:32Z http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/15a17a06-db4b-4954-99a8-bb8ddeca0e1c#241c3cf4-3f1c-4033-b446-3e4370f71635 Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners, made the following statement today on the narrow passage of the House Budget Reconciliation Bill. STATEMENT BY JIM WALLIS: The prophet Isaiah said: "Woe to you legislators of infamous laws ... who refuse justice to the unfortunate, who cheat the poor among my people of their rights, who make widows their prey and rob the orphan." Today, I repeat those words. When our legislators put ideology over principle, it is time to sound the trumpets of justice and tell the truth. It is a moral disgrace to take food from the mouths of hungry children to increase the luxuries of those feasting at a table overflowing with plenty. This is not what America is about, not what the season of Thanksgiving is about, not what loving our neighbor is about, and not what family values are about. There is no moral path our legislators can take to defend a reckless, mean-spirited budget reconciliation bill that diminishes our compassion, as Jesus said, "for the least of these." It is morally unconscionable to hide behind arguments for fiscal responsibility and government efficiency. It is dishonest to stake proud claims to deficit reduction when tax cuts for the wealthy that increase the deficit are the next order of business. It is one more example of an absence of morality in our current political leadership. Budgets are moral documents that reflect what we care about. Budget and tax bills that increase the deficit put our children's futures in jeopardy - and they hurt the vulnerable right now. The choice to cut supports that help people make it day to day in order to pay for tax cuts for those with plenty goes against everything our religious and moral principles teach us. It says that leaders don't care about people in need. It is a blatant reversal of biblical values - and symbolizes the death of compassionate conservatism. The faith community is outraged and is drawing a line in the sand against immoral national priorities. It is time to draw that line more forcefully and more visibly. I applaud those House members who have stood up for better budget priorities and fought hard all year to keep issues of basic fairness at the forefront of this debate. And I thank those on both sides of the aisle who stood up and did the right thing in voting against this bill, despite pressure from the House leadership. These strong voices provide some hope for getting beyond an ideology that disregards the role of government for the common good. Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:53:10 GMT http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/15a17a06-db4b-4954-99a8-bb8ddeca0e1c#241c3cf4-3f1c-4033-b446-3e4370f71635 $item.owner.firstName 2005-11-18T21:53:10Z http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/21ab0edd-1ba1-477f-a39f-202c2917b505#3d78e03b-808d-4036-b27a-d53fb0f8db39 posting crossleft to other sites: already happens. we have about 10 other sites doing it now. edited feed: love it. helen thompson is working on setting up an edited "magazine" of the best posts and articles, to come out bimonthly! Sat, 29 Oct 2005 13:51:49 GMT http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/21ab0edd-1ba1-477f-a39f-202c2917b505#3d78e03b-808d-4036-b27a-d53fb0f8db39 Jo 2005-10-29T13:51:49Z http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/21ab0edd-1ba1-477f-a39f-202c2917b505#800f8557-b2af-4b2f-935c-d0755086fed4 You could attempt to set up a reverse service, where if someone posts to CrossLeft, your software cross-posts it on all those other sites Some sites won't like this, but some probably will, esp if you only do with high-quality, pre-screened posts Also, in addition to the feed, which generates potentially tons of posts going by, you could have an editorial board or some way of harvesting user feedback and create a recommended area, or hall of fame, or best posts of the month (week, year) section So, that by harvesting all these areas you could take the most interesting and create a sort of magazine People who don't want to deal with the feed or understand things like that, could just go to the 'magazine', which could be a separate url (subdomain like mag.crossleft.com) and it would navigate like static monthly or weekly content, more stable for example if people want to tell their friends -- read the latest issue, it has articles on this, that and the other Eventually you could solicit content for this section directly and potentially lead to a print version If you get ad revenue, you could potentially offer to give a bit to 'winning' posts that are selected for that section of the site Or solicit 'columns' from those writers (who may be pastors or whatever) for themed issues Fri, 28 Oct 2005 14:42:24 GMT http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/21ab0edd-1ba1-477f-a39f-202c2917b505#800f8557-b2af-4b2f-935c-d0755086fed4 $item.owner.firstName 2005-10-28T14:42:24Z http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/21ab0edd-1ba1-477f-a39f-202c2917b505#15d6d564-f77b-454a-8f0f-25b9ea3c12b6 It's a sad fact that progressives get together and mope, while the Religious Right gets together and gets their people in office. Time that changed. The fact is that we tend to mope in little clumps. I've been whizzing around YahooGroups for the afternoon, and I've seen something like two dozen separate email lists of progressive Christians -- some of them 200 names long, some of them 20; all very active, commenting on the media. But think about all that wasted energy -- twenty something discreet groups, none of them speaking to each other? It's good to talk; it's good to vent; but it's much better to organize and do something. The CrossLeft leadership team wants to do something about that. We're putting a big push forward the next few months to recruit attention to the website. We'll be sending out mailings (please forward them!), posting around other places on the web, and encouraging folks to carry our banner and newsstream as a way of helping to get progressives in touch with each other. We welcome your ideas. Even more, we welcome your help. If this sounds like a good idea to you, don't just sit there, help us tell people about it. And in the meantime, to give you a sense of our commitment to helping progressive Christians find each other and meet each other, check out the "LINKS" page: http://www.crossleft.org/?q=links . I've put up links to most of the several hundred other discussion boards, blog-sites, church sites, and columnists that feed into our StreamingChristianity newsstream -- including the half dozen YahooGroups that had public RSS-streams. We want people to meet each other, and we're hoping that, if nothing else, vanity will lead them here as people follow the addresses that list their own sites. It's about more than that, though. This isn't just another blogrolling site or webring. We're offering a major service with the newsstreams -- you can read the headlines that interest you the most, already put together. For instance, say you've got a lonely pastor friend, the only blue preacher he knows in a red state. Send him to our daily-updated selection of headlines from blogs by progressive clergy. Once folks come here, we hope they'll say hello, start joining us in talking about a PATH TO ACTION for political and social change, post local progressive Christian events in their area, and help us show how large the movement could be if only we all showed up at once. Fri, 28 Oct 2005 01:11:33 GMT http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/21ab0edd-1ba1-477f-a39f-202c2917b505#15d6d564-f77b-454a-8f0f-25b9ea3c12b6 Jo 2005-10-28T01:11:33Z http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/2c5a3b95-d54f-468d-99af-99e0c4a8565f#4d1d0824-fa17-448a-b4e4-3f6759cb3e22 working on it! we have a bunch of files and a few technical difficulties. by the end of the week there should be one, and instructions on how to use it. at the moment you can freely post anything up to 2kb. if you want more space, you can go to podomatic.com (they'll let you record your voice over the phone or by speaking at their website!) and then post the link at crossleft so people can find you! Fri, 28 Oct 2005 01:09:35 GMT http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/2c5a3b95-d54f-468d-99af-99e0c4a8565f#4d1d0824-fa17-448a-b4e4-3f6759cb3e22 Jo 2005-10-28T01:09:35Z http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/2c5a3b95-d54f-468d-99af-99e0c4a8565f#5bd55b45-c9fa-408c-9a2f-7ffad7647754 We must also not overlook the fact that mainline churches are by no means monolithically progressive, even within a particular congregation. I attend a monthly men's group at my Episcopal parish in Oakland, CA. Although most of the guys there are of varying degrees of progressive persuasion, there are some who are avowedly conservative. It makes it difficult for the group to be activistic, except on local noncontroversial matters, e.g., helping schools in low income areas, food bank participation, street beautification, etc. Thu, 20 Oct 2005 17:35:08 GMT http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/2c5a3b95-d54f-468d-99af-99e0c4a8565f#5bd55b45-c9fa-408c-9a2f-7ffad7647754 $item.owner.firstName 2005-10-20T17:35:08Z http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/2c5a3b95-d54f-468d-99af-99e0c4a8565f#1fc53592-3796-4547-8976-d6f10cb8900e Jo, is there an audio archive on the CrossLeft site? Could be fun to have podcasts and audio sermons and audio from your conferences all stored there for people to easily browse and listen to Thu, 20 Oct 2005 15:43:07 GMT http://socialredemption.tribe.net/thread/2c5a3b95-d54f-468d-99af-99e0c4a8565f#1fc53592-3796-4547-8976-d6f10cb8900e $item.owner.firstName 2005-10-20T15:43:07Z