Matthew Baugh

New Light on Jeremiah Wright

pthameru@hotmail.com — Fri, 28 Mar 08 10:17:00 UT

This is an Op-Ed piece that appeared in the Chicago Tribune. It gives some needed depth to the picture the media is painting of Dr. Jeremiah Wright.

www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped0326trinitymar26,0,2414760.story
chicagotribune.com
Rev. Wright in a different light
By William A. Von Hoene Jr.
March 26, 2008

By William A. Von Hoene Jr.

During the last two weeks, excerpts from sermons of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., pastor for more than 35 years at Trinity United Church of Christ on Chicago's South Side, have flooded the airwaves and dominated our discourse about the presidential campaign and race. Wright has been depicted as a racial extremist, or just a plain racist. A number of political figures and news commentators have attempted to use Sen. Barack Obama's association with him to call into question Obama's judgment and the sincerity of his commitment to unity.

I have been a member of Trinity, a church with an almost entirely African-American congregation, for more than 25 years. I am, however, a white male. From a decidedly different perspective than most Trinitarians, I have heard Wright preach about racial inequality many times, in unvarnished and passionate terms.

In Obama's recent speech in Philadelphia on racial issues confronting our nation, the senator eloquently observed that Rev. Wright's sermons reflect the difficult experiences and frustrations of a generation.

It is important that we understand the dynamic Obama spoke about.

It also is important that we not let media coverage and political gamesmanship isolate selected remarks by Wright to the exclusion of anything else that might define him more accurately and completely.

I find it very troubling that we have distilled Wright's 35-year ministry to a few phrases; no context whatsoever has been offered or explored.

I do have a bit of personal context. About 26 years ago, I became engaged to my wife, an African-American. She was at that time and remains a member of Trinity. Somewhere between the ring and the altar, my wife had second thoughts and broke off the engagement. Her decision was grounded in race: So committed to black causes, the daughter of parents subjected to unthinkable prejudice over the years, an "up-and-coming" leader in the young black community, how could she marry a white man?

Rev. Wright, whom I had met only in passing at the time and who was equally if not more outspoken about "black" issues than he is today, somehow found out about my wife's decision. He called and asked her to "drop everything" and meet with him at Trinity. He spent four hours explaining his reaction to her decision. Racial divisions were unacceptable, he said, no matter how great or prolonged the pain that caused them. God would not want us to assess or make decisions about people based on race. The world could make progress on issues of race only if people were prepared to break down barriers that were much easier to let stand.

Rev. Wright was pretty persuasive; he presided over our wedding a few months later. In the years since, I have watched in utter awe as Wright has overseen and constructed a support system for thousands in need on the South Side that is far more impressive and effective than any governmental program possibly could approach. And never in my life have I been welcomed more warmly and sincerely than at Trinity. Never.

I hope that as a nation, we take advantage of the opportunity the recent focus on Rev. Wright presentso advance our dialogue on race in a meaningful and unprecedented way. To do so, however, we need to appreciate that passion born of difficulty does not always manifest itself in the kind of words with which we are most comfortable. We also need to recognize that the basic goodness of people like Jeremiah Wright is not always packaged conventionally.

The problems of race confronting us are immense. But if we sensationalize isolated words for political advantage, casting aside the depth of feeling, circumstances and context which inform them, those problems not only will remain immense, they will be insoluble.

William A. Von Hoene Jr. of Chicago is a member of Trinity United Church of Christ.
Copyright 2008, Chicago Tribune

Jeremiah Wright

pthameru@hotmail.com — Tue, 18 Mar 08 11:18:00 UT

Hmm... I see I managed to post my last entry twice. I am technologically challenged sometimes.

Well, my denomination is in the news again. The Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, the recently retired pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago is getting a lot of unfavorable coverage in the press.

I don't know Dr. Wright personally. My friends who do know him speak of him as an intelligent, faithful and compassionate man of high character. The sound bytes that sound so bizarre are taken out of context.

Preachers are easy to do this to. We like to make dramatic statements and our sermons are peppered with phrases that can easily be misrepresented. We exaggerate for dramatic effect, we use irony (and sometimes outright sarcasm), we indulge in metaphors and similes and all manner of similar techniques to communicate the point we are trying to make.

I don't know what all the particulars are in this case. I suspect there's a lot of spin going on to create a sensational news story where there really isn't one. I can say that you can't fairly judge what a preacher (or anyone) is trying to say based on a few sound bytes. It's best to see the whole sermon to know what the intent was.

There's some more information here:
http://www.ucc.org/news/chicagos-trinity-ucc-is.html
and here...
http://www.ocucc.org/StaffPages/Art%20Cribbs%20Letter.doc

Hmm... If one of my parishioners ever decided to run for office, I wonder what they could turn up on me. LOL!

Hooray for Heretics

pthameru@hotmail.com — Mon, 17 Mar 08 15:18:00 UT

Heretics

Iâve posted about a couple of people recently who have gotten the label âhereticsâ. Thereâs my own denomination, the United Church of Christ (but that accusation is old news), Jay Bakker who I blogged about recently, John Shelby Spong the controversial retired Episcopal bishop and writer, and Rob Bell.

Now itâs not the case that I automatically like anyone who gets this label, but it seems to me that it gets slapped onto a lot of Christianityâs best and brightest. It got me wondering, just what is a âhereticâ?

The definition of heresy I found at wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn is:
â¢ unorthodoxy: any opinions or doctrines at variance with the official or orthodox position
â¢ a belief that rejects the orthodox tenets of a religion
In other words, a heretic is an original thinker, someone who asks intelligent questions, someone who looks for new insights rather than going along with the program. Itâs someone whose approach to religion is, to some degree, like that of Jesus whose unorthodox ideas put him on the wrong side of the religious leaders of his day.

Let me back up a bit. This probably sounds like Iâm saying that orthodoxy is always thoughtless, narrow, intellectually lazy, hard-hearted and wrong and that what gets labeled âheresyâ is always faithful, honest, penetrating, expansive, generous and true. Itâs not that simple. No point of view is âalwaysâ right or âwrongâ.

There are a lot of doctrines and creeds in Christianity. They are teachings designed to answer troubling questions of faith. As a rule a doctrine or a creed is written to counteract a teaching that is perceived as wrong-headed and dangerous. Sometimes this makes a great deal of sense. Innovative ideas can easily take people down a path that is self-destructive or harmful to others. Itâs only responsible to denounce such an idea.

An extreme example is Rasputin the âmad monkâ who lived in Russia in the early 20th Century. Rasputin believed that the greatest bliss came from being forgivenâ¦ but you canât be forgiven if you havenât done anything. He decided that life should be a series of drunken orgies, followed be extreme penance and managed to combine the lifestyles of frat boy and flagellant monk. He also managed to leave a trail of damaged people behind him. Iâve got no quarrel with saying he falls outside the bounds of useful religious teachings.

The problem is that doctrine which is created to address a specific problem is then made into a universal principal that covers every time and every place. When Paul said that women should cover their hair in church he was writing to a city where cultic prostitutes advertised by going around with uncovered hair. It makes sense in the context, but becomes oppressive nonsense anywhere else.

What are worse to my mind are doctrines about salvation. The Bible has some wonderful, statements of faith about salvation. As a rule these are poetic, couched in parables, or otherwise presented as storytelling literature. Thatâs something you do with truths so profound that prosaic language canât handle them.

You can sense the truth of such a faith statement. Its power and meaning will resonate on a level that makes it feel right. Unfortunately for the literal-minded among us, such statements are weak on details. Thatâs when people like Calvin step in. John Calvin was one of the great lights of the Reformation. He started out as a lawyer. While lawyers can be wonderful people, they donât make the best interpreters of poetic statements of faith. They transform them into inflexible legal documents, which basically cause them to lose all real meaning.

In claiming to have the last word on the inner workings of Godâs mind, we get lost in our own arrogance. We cite all kinds of scriptures to prove ourselves right but we forget that, in the scriptures, Jobâs friends, and the Pharisees, and even Satan all pulled that trick. It didnât work for them and wonât work for us. We need to learn enough humility to say those three simple words: âI donât know.â

I like that statement because itâs honest. With so many difficult questions of faith the only honest answer is âI donât know.â But thatâs also the beginning for some really good conversations about faith.

Thatâs what the heretics give us. They challenge our arrogance when it needs to be challenged. They question our answers about the things that we really donât know and the doctrines that are no longer make any sense. So, thank God for the heretics, we really need them.

Hooray for Heretics

pthameru@hotmail.com — Mon, 17 Mar 08 15:17:00 UT

Rob Bell

pthameru@hotmail.com — Wed, 12 Mar 08 10:48:00 UT

I have a confession to make. Sometimes, when I hear someone called a 'heretic' I like that person even better.

The most recent use of that word I've seen is applied to Rob Bell, pastor of the Michigan based "Mars Hill Church" and the speaker in the wonderful NOOMA video series.

You can get a sense of Rob's ministry from the name of his church. 'Mars Hill' is a place in Athens that is very important in a Bible story. In Acts 17:16-34 Paul visits a section of Athens where there are shrines to every god imaginable. This is called the 'Aeropagus' which translates into English as "the hill devoted to the god Mars".

Instead of berating the people of Athens for having so many gods, Paul finds common ground with them. He tells them about his God and about Jesus but he does it in a way that is positive and respectful. He praises them, seeing in their many shrines a sincere spiritual seeking for the truth.

Rob Bell does something similar. Instead of assuming that popular culture is the enemy (something many preachers do) he finds ways to draw out the good, and there is a lot of good to find. The lyrics of popular songs, the themes of movies, the rants of blogs often contain so much that is worthwhile. You can find beautiful expressions of love and meaning, a passionate longing for justice, as well as painfully honest questions. Rob uses these to draw people who are interested in God but skeptical about religion into conversations. Instead of starting with "I'm right, and you need to be more like me" he meets people where they are and offers his thoughts.

Excerpts of many of his messages are found at www.nooma.com and full versions (bootleg no doubt) are available at www.YouTube.com. I don't want to push bootleg, but I encourage anyone who thinks about God but finds churches difficult to warm up to check them out. Rob's approach is honest, fresh and makes good sense.

It's also deeply faithful, which is why it's odd that some preachers are working hard to debunk him. A search on YouTube will also turn up videos attacking his messages or calling him a heretic. I've watched a couple and the issue seems to be that he doesn't take a hard, doctrinal approach to his message.

What is says is Biblically grounded and shows the kind of insights that come from a keen mind, a warm heart, and a deep personal faith but that doesn't satisfy those who value doctrine over scripture and rules over relationships.

Like Jay Bakker (see last entry) he's different enough from the old-fashioned expectations of a preacher that some see him as a threat, especially because his ministry seems to be thriving. (Ah, jealousy...)

I, on the other hand, may be a little jealous of his success but can't recommend him too highly. He is one of the new voices emerging in Christianity that really need to be heard. He's connected with the heart of Jesus message and ministry in a way the old-school isn't. I wish him success and blessings.

Jay Bakker

pthameru@hotmail.com — Fri, 7 Mar 08 23:07:00 UT

A friend recently alerted me to something I hadnât heard of. Itâs a documentary program on the Sundance Channel called, âOne Punk Under Godâ.

I donât get the Sundance channel but, after a couple of conversations, and a visit to the website, Iâm very interested in laying my hands on the DVDs.

âOne Punkâ tells the story of Jay Bakker, the son of televangelists Jim & Tammy Faye Bakker. From the little Iâve seek heâs a good guy, very devout in his faith, very sincere in doing what he feels called to do by Christ, and honest in a way that many prominent people in Christianity arenât. Iâm not saying that in an accusatory way, saying that others are terribly dishonest, itâs just that Jay has reached a level of painful honesty that few get to.

Heâs honest about his call, even when that turns away some people who might otherwise be his allies. Heâs honest about his own flaws and the decisions he regrets in his life. Heâs also honest about Christianity in a way thatâs hopeful to see. His church is âRevolution Ministriesâ in NYC http://www.revolutionnyc.com/ their sign says:

âAs Christians, weâre sorry for being self-righteous judgmental bastards.â

Thatâs stronger language than Iâd use, but maybe that just says something about me. I didnât have this experience of the Church growing upâ¦ at least not in my church. I did have Christian friends and acquaintances who could be really hard on me for belonging to the church I did, watching movies, listening to secular music, and a number of other things that they considered sinful. That could get unpleasant and I know that it was a hundred times worse for a lot of people.

What Jay Bakker is trying to do is to reach out to those people, and help connect them to God. Heâs trying to get past the negative baggage of Christianity and help them find something that can bring meaning and healing into their lives. His approach is non-churchy (at least he doesnât carry around many of the traditional trappings of church) which creates some controversy. His biggest controversy is his loving approach to gay Christians.

What Jay is doing takes enormous courage. He is utterly convinced that God really is loving and embracing of all people. I havenât learned much about the details of what he believes, but the fact that he embraces this basic truth with such passion draws me to him. It reminds me of the Jesus who ate with the unacceptable people of his culture, who touched the people considered untouchable, who stood up to the narrow-minded and legalistic religious authorities of his day.

It seems to me that Jay is on the right track when it comes to following Jesus. Heâs not defying authority for the sake of it that I can see. Heâs genuinely motivated by faith, compassion and a clear vision of where Christ is calling him. I can respect thatâ¦ a lot.

I also like the fact that heâs not turning around and attacking the people who attack him (at least not that Iâve seen). He seems to be very sincere about the principal of not judging. He is about helping people change their lives through faith, and about loving all those Christ loves.

As I said, I want to know some more. He sounds like the kind of person we need more of in Christianity!

Ah, rants...

pthameru@hotmail.com — Thu, 7 Feb 08 13:10:00 UT

This was sent to me by a friend:

âThis is a statement that was read over the PA system at the football game at Roane County High School, Kingston, Tennessee, by school Principal, Jody McLeodâ

The whole statement is here http://tinyurl.com/29patw but the essence of it is that Principal McLeod was frustrated by a court ruling on prayer in schools. He gives an angry sounding rant about the many things he can talk about in school, even though he finds them morally unacceptable, then contrasts them with the benign act of praying to God which is not allowed.

I can sympathize with Principal MacLeodâs frustration (Iâve felt dismissed and excluded on the basis of my Christian faith too). As Iâve said before I wish schools would look for ways to honor all religious speech (and speech about religious matters) equally rather than simply exclude it.

Despite that, I canât agree with his approach. The unacceptable behaviors he lashes out are: homosexuality (which he characterizes as a âsexual perversionâ), condom distribution programs (which he says âcondone sexual promiscuityâ), abortion (which he says is promoted as a âviable form of birth controlâ), Earth Day (which he associates with pagan goddess worship) and the use of teaching materials which depicts Christians as "simple minded" and "ignorant".

To take these in order:

1) Homosexuality is an orientation one is born with rather than a choice. To issue a blanket condemnation of all gays is ignorant and cruel. (Thatâs something Iâve found to be true of blanket condemnations as a whole.) Ignorant and cruel arenât what we should be about as Christians.

2) Advocates say that condom distribution programs prevent STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Critics say they send a message to young people that casual sex is okay. While the use of condoms is certainly healthier than unprotected sex the jury seems to be out on how such programs influence the sexual behavior of young people. Iâve found NIH articles that tie programs to a rise in sexual activity http://tinyurl.com/yopdyb and others that say that the rise in sexual activity happens in schools whether they have the programs or not http://tinyurl.com/2hs4wo. Iâve seen quite a bit of material that suggests that the abstinence programs many Christian groups support have very a limited impact on young peopleâs sexual activity http://tinyurl.com/yvfvtw. In other words, people have a lot of theories about how to handle teen sexuality but we have limited information about what works and what doesnât. (Iâm holding out hope for values-based sex ed. Curricula like my denominationâs Our Whole Lives curriculum http://tinyurl.com/274c2g (developed with the UU church). Programs like this push abstinence while offering honest and comprehensive education rather than the scare tactics of abstinence-only programs).

All of that is a long-winded way of saying that, though approaches differ widely, no one is trying to promote promiscuous teen sex and itâs irresponsible to claim that is the hidden motive behind condom distribution programs.

3) Iâm not aware of anyone who teaches the virtues of abortion as a form of birth control. Like Principal McLeod, Iâd like live in a world where abortion was almost unheard of. I think I differ from him in believing that, for abortion to be rare, it must also be legal and safe. Banning abortion doesnât get rid of it. It only stigmatizes and endangers pregnant women. Our efforts are better spent working on things like adoption laws and teaching young people to make responsible decisions about sexual involvement.

4) Environmentalism is not an anti-Christian value. Mainline churches have been involved in caring for creation for decades. Now a growing number of Evangelical churches are coming to realize that the stewardship of creation is a call from God. It is true that the protection of the environment is something that Pagans care about too, but thereâs nothing wrong I can see in having a common cause, especially when itâs a good one.

5) I do agree with Principal McLeod that teachers and classroom materials shouldnât mock or insult Christians. I think that contempt for people based on religion should be as unacceptable as contempt based on race, nationality, age, economic situation, gender, or any of the other pretexts we use. That cuts both ways. It is just as unacceptable for Christians to offer contempt to people who they perceive as different.

That brings me back to my real problem with Principal McLeodâs rant. In defending his right to pray as a Christian he engages in some un-Christian attitudes. You canât claim to be defending the Gospel when the good news is buried under angry rhetoric. You canât complain about people seeing Christians as ignorant and small-minded when your own arguments are so intolerant and uninformed.

Thatâs not how Jesus teaches us to act. Rather than getting indignant about our rights, Christians are supposed to ââ¦Love your enemies. Let them bring out the best in you, not the worst. When someone gives you a hard time, respond with the energies of prayer for that person.â (Luke 6:27-28)

This isnât all about us and our rights after all. Itâs about being authentic to our faith. Weâre to be motivated by the love of Christ and as another favorite scripture reminds usâ¦

âLove is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.â (1 Cor 13:4-7)

Words to live by.

Trinity Church

pthameru@hotmail.com — Wed, 30 Jan 08 11:35:00 UT

This has been around for about a year and Iâm just recently becoming aware of it.

Barak Obama attends Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, IL. This is the largest congregation in my denomination, the United Church of Christ and a church I live in fairly close proximity to.

Thereâs an e-mail that shows up on the www.snopes.com website http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/church.asp that attacks the church, claiming that itâs interest in Africa and African American Heritage indicate a racist attitude. The e-mail claims that only Black people are welcomed as members and even questions the churchâs Christianity and wonders if Obama isnât ââ¦a covert worshipper of the Muslim faith, even today!â

A quick web-search on the words âObama Trinity Churchâ yielded quite a few web pages where the charges were repeated and expounded on. The most interesting for me was this page http://mediamatters.org/items/200703010012 reproduced an interview with Erik Rush, a columnist for the website www.WorldNetDaily.com on the Fox News program Hannity & Colmes. Rush refers to a number of points on the website that talk about commitment to the Black community, Black family and Black work ethic. He says, âIt was something that you'd see in more like a cult or an Aryan Brethren Church or something like that.â

All of this is so inaccurate, and so bizarre that it really threw me. While I havenât visited Trinity yet Iâve known many people who have and a few who are members. It is a warm and inviting congregation where anyone can be a member regardless of color or ethnicity. The membership is mostly Black but that has to do with the history of the church and the part of Chicago where it grew up. There is not and never has been any attempt to exclude Whites, Asians, Latinos or anyone else from membership.

The church does have a special focus on the needs of the African American community but thatâs just a way of responding to the immediate needs of its members. Inspiring people to take an interest in their community, their families and their work ethic is a good thing for a church to do. The focus on Blackness and Africa are can be are no more sinister than a church in a Polish-American, Irish American or Chinese American community taking pride in their ethnic roots. The church wants people to take pride in who they are and where they come from.

All of that may be hard for White visitors to the website to relate to, but thereâs no racism in it. Trinity Church may have a special focus for their ministry but they express a deep sense of the brotherhood of all people, a desire for justice and peace that benefits people of every race, and a warm fellowship that extends to all visitors and potential members.

Itâs absurd and disgusting to compare this church with the Aryan Brotherhood. The AB actively preaches hatred and sanctifies racial violence. Itâs equally offensive to hear the patriotism or the Christian faith of members of Mr. Obama or any of the members of the church questioned because of their affiliation. Thereâs no truth in it.

But, donât just take my word for it. First hand evidence is always best. The church has a website http://www.tucc.org/home.htm, broadcasts its worship services, and welcomes visitors. IF you have concerns, itâs easy to learn the truth first hand.

Faith and Elections

pthameru@hotmail.com — Sat, 26 Jan 08 23:20:00 UT

Just a quick thought. I was in a discussion recently with a guy living outside the US who lamented the fact that we doesn't have any separation of church and state.

That baffled me because we do (at least the last time I checked.) The United States doesn't have and has never had an official state religion. The government doesn't run the churches and the churches don't run the government.

"But you have a Fundamentalist President," he said.

I get his point, kind of. I can see how, from an outsider's perspective having a president with strong ties to the Religious Right could look like no separation. I don't agree, but I understand the concern.

I don't agree because the Religious Right has never managed to pass any of the major legislation it wants on issues like abortion, gay rights, stem cell research, or the teaching of evolution in public schools. While it is a political force to be reckoned with, the Religious Right is clearly not in control.

This is a nation where a candidate with strong religious convictions can be elected. But I don't think that is a bad thing. A devout Christian (or Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, etc.) is not automatically going to be a bad political leader. In fact that person's faith can go a long way to keeping him or her aware of the issues of justice, compassion and honesty that a leader must have.

Of course a quick scam of prominent American religious leaders is a good indicator that strong faith is not any guarantee of a good leader. Sad but true. A candidate must be chosen on strengths and weaknesses, not based on what religious group he or she belongs to.

There are three candidates right now whose faith is getting a lot of play. Mike Hucakbee is a former Baptist Preacher. Mitt Romney is a member of the Latter Day Saints church (Mormons) and Barak Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ, though strange and irresponsible internet rumors continue to dog him.

(The rumors about Obama that I've seen are:

1) He is ideologically a radical Muslim.

2) He attends a racist African American church with radical Muslim leanings.

Both are malicious nonsense. Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, radical or otherwise.

More info here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

Senator Obama is a devout Christian and a member of Trinity United Church in Chicago. The congregation is mostly African American and celebrates its African heritage, but it is not racist. It has many white members and promotes equality and understanding between all people. It is a Christian congregation and has nothing to do with radical Islam. I can say that with some confidence because the church is a part of the United Church of Christ and I am an ordained minister in that denomination.

There's also more information here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/church.asp)

I started this with a friend's observation that a nation with a Fundamentalist President must not have separation of state and religion. He didn't say what might remedy the problem he sees. Short of barring devout religious people from holding office I'm not sure what could. But that would be a terrible solution.

I hope people don't vote against a candidate because he or she is Christian, Mormon, Fundamentalist, United Church of Christ, or Atheist. I hope they look at the candidates records, listen to their ideas, learn about their character and make a decision based on that. The candidate to avoid is the one who would be a BAD PRESIDENT, not the one whose religion we don't care for.

A Christian Nation?

pthameru@hotmail.com — Fri, 25 Jan 08 14:47:00 UT

I was at a church conference recently. One presenter was making a pitch for churches using better communications skills. That sounded like a good thing to me, but she kind of lost me with the next part. In an urgent voice she said...

"We're not even considered a Christian nation anymore."

I'm sure she wanted to impart just how important it was for us to be more effective at what we do. While I certainly agree with that, the way she said it made me wonder.

1. When were we a 'Christian Nation'?
2. What exactly does it mean to be a 'Christian Nation'?
3. Who is in charge of certifying nations for Christianity?
4. When did the certification run out for America?

Many American Christians look back with a sense of nostalgia to a time when all American citizens were practicing Christians with a strongly held personal faith in God. The thing is, I don't believe there ever was such a time in U.S. history.

It's true that for a lot of American history church membership has been a cultural norm. People went to church for a variety of reasons: because of faith, because it was a good place to make business contacts, because it was a good place to meet someone to marry, and because it was expected of them. Christianity was inextricably linked in many people's minds to American patriotism, to American style Democracy, to Free Market Capitalism, and to manifest destiny.

In other words, a lot of people were going to church, but many of them were going for reasons that had nothing to do with genuine faith.

I am a Christian, but in no way do I want to go back to that. A nation where everyone feels compelled to go to church and is convinced that American national interest is automatically God's will is a long way from what I would call 'Christian.'

I would much rather see a nation where Christians were committed to living out Christ-like values. That would mean that...

- Non-Christians would be treated with compassion and respect.

- Help would be offered to the poor and suffering. This wouldn't be filtered through what group they belonged to.

- The right of all people to the essentials of life, and human dignity would be important.

- The faithful would feel compelled to speak out against the government when its policies were cruel, selfish, or unjust.

To answer my own questions, I don't know that America (or any nation) has ever really been a Christian nation. Some have adopted that title but that's just a superficial label. It's what's in the hearts of the people that matters.

I don't think that the label of bring a 'Christian nation' is a worth-while goal. I think a better goal for American Christians is to strive to remain true to the values of our faith and let that push us to make a positive difference in our nation.

Prayer for Peace

pthameru@hotmail.com — Fri, 25 Jan 08 14:40:00 UT

I ran across this today and wanted to share...

"On the edge of war, one foot already in,
I no longer pray for peace: I pray for miracles.

I pray that stone hearts will turn
to tenderheartedness,
and evil intentions will turn
to mercifulness,
and all the soldiers already deployed
will be snatched out of harm's way,
and the whole world will be
astounded onto its knees.

I pray that all the "God talk"
will take bones,
and stand up and shed
its cloak of faithlessness,
and walk again in its powerful truth.
I pray that the whole world might
sit down together and share
its bread and wine.

Some say there is no hope,
but then I've always applauded the holy fools
who never seem to give up on
the scandalousness of our faith
that we are loved by God.....
that we can truly love one another.

I no longer pray for peace: I pray for miracles.

--Copyright 2003 by Ann Weems

New Light on an Old Topic

pthameru@hotmail.com — Fri, 14 Dec 07 16:03:00 UT

This came out in retired Bishop John Shelby Spong's newsletter and I thought it was important enough to share. If you've read my archives you know that I've written about homosexuality several times.

I'd written to show that the traditional understanding of homosexuals and homosexuality in Christian tradition headed down the wrong path. The scriptures that are often cited as condemning gays are misunderstood and misused. The problem is that interpreters decide that homosexuality is wrong first, and then go to the scriptures looking for verification of their prejudices.

The article that Bishop Spong posted suggests that it hasn't just been church folks who have done this. Even the mental health community has had a tough learning curve on this topic, though they have largely learned to see past their presuppositions. I hope the rest of us can learn from them.

-----------------------------------------------------

Royal College of Psychiatrists
Submission to the Church of England's Listening Exercise on Human Sexuality

This report is prepared by a Special Interest Group in the Royal College of Psychiatrists. We have limited our comments to areas that pertain to the origins of sexuality and the psychological and social well being of lesbian, gay and bisexual people (LGB), which we believe will inform the Church of England's listening exercise.

Introduction

The Royal College of Psychiatrists holds the view that LGB people should be regarded as valued members of society who have exactly similar rights and responsibilities as all other citizens. This includes equal access to health care, the rights and responsibilities involved in a civil partnership, the rights and responsibilities involved in procreating and bringing up children, freedom to practice a religion as a lay person or religious leader, freedom from harassment or discrimination in any sphere and a right to protection from therapies that are potentially damaging, particularly those that purport to change sexual orientation.

We shall address a number of issues that arise from our expertise in this area with the aim of informing the debate within the Church of England about homosexual people. These concern the history of the relationship between psychiatry and LGB people, determinants of sexual orientation, the mental health and well being of LGB people, their access to psychotherapy and the kinds of psychotherapy that can be harmful.

1. The history of psychiatry with LGB people.
Opposition to homosexuality in Europe reached a peak in the nineteenth century. What had earlier been regarded as a vice, evolved into a perversion or psychological illness. Official sanction of homosexuality both as illness and (for men) a crime led to discrimination, inhumane treatments and shame, guilt and fear for gay men and lesbians (1). However, things began to change for the better some 30 years ago when in 1973 the American Psychiatric Association concluded there was no scientific evidence that homosexuality was a disorder and removed it from its diagnostic glossary of mental disorders. The International Classification of Diseases of the World Health Organization followed suit in 1992. This unfortunate history demonstrates how marginalization of a group of people who have a particular personality feature (in this case homosexuality) can lead to harmful medical practice and a basis for discrimination in society.

2. The origins of homosexuality
Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person's fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation (2). It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors (3) and the early uterine environment (4). Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice, though sexual behavior clearly is. Thus LGB people have exactly the same rights and responsibilities concerning the expression of their sexuality as heterosexual people. However, until the beginning of more liberal social attitudes to homosexuality in the past two decades, prejudice and discrimination against homosexuality induced considerable embarrassment and shame in many LGB people and did little to encourage them to lead sex lives that are respectful of themselves and others. We return to the stability of LGB partnerships below.

3. Psychological and social well being of LGB people
There is now a large body of research evidence that indicates that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment. However, the experiences of discrimination in society and possible rejection by friends, families and others, such as employers, means that some LGB people experience a greater than expected prevalence of mental health and substance misuse problems (5, 6). Although there have been claims by conservative political groups in the USA that this higher prevalence of mental health difficulties is confirmation that homosexuality is itself a mental disorder, there is no evidence whatever to substantiate such a claim (7).

4. Stability of gay and lesbian relationships
There appears to be considerable variability in the quality and durability of same-sex, cohabiting relationships (8, 9). A large part of the instability in gay and lesbian partnerships arises from lack of support within society, the church or the family for such relationships. Since the introduction of the first civil partnership law in 1989 in Denmark, legal recognition of same-sex relationships has been debated around the world. Civil partnership agreements were conceived out of a concern that same-sex couples have no protection in law in circumstances of death or break-up of the relationship. There is already good evidence that marriage confers health benefits on heterosexual men and women (10, 11) and similar benefits could accrue from same-sex civil unions. Legal and social recognition of same-sex relationships is likely to reduce discrimination, increase the stability of same sex relationships and lead to better physical and mental health for gay and lesbian people. It is difficult to understand opposition to civil partnerships for a group of socially marginalized people who cannot marry and who as a consequence may experience more unstable partnerships. It cannot offer a threat to the stability of heterosexual marriage. Legal recognition of civil partnerships seems likely to stabilize same-sex relationships, create a focus for celebration with families and friends and provide vital protection at time of dissolution (12). Gay men and lesbians' vulnerability to mental disorders may diminish in societies that recognize their relationships as valuable and become more accepting of them as respected members of society who might meet prospective partners at places of work and in other such settings that are taken for granted by heterosexual people.

5. Psychotherapy and reparative therapy for LGB people
The British Association for Counseling and Psychotherapy recently commissioned a systematic review of the world's literature on LGB people's experiences with psychotherapy (13). This evidence shows that LGB people are open to seeking help for mental health problems. However, they may be misunderstood by therapists who regard their homosexuality as the root cause of any presenting problem such as depression or anxiety. Unfortunately, therapists who behave in this way are likely to cause considerable distress. A small minority of therapists will even go so far as to attempt to change their client's sexual orientation (14). This can be deeply damaging. Although there is now a number of therapists and organization in the USA and in the UK that claim that therapy can help homosexuals to become heterosexual, there is no evidence that such change is possible. The best evidence for efficacy of any treatment comes from randomized clinical trials and no such trial has been carried out in this field. There are however at least two studies that have followed up LGB people who have undergone therapy with the aim of becoming heterosexual. Neither attempted to assess the patients before receiving therapy and both relied on the subjective accounts of people, who were asked to volunteer by the therapy organizations themselves (15) or who were recruited via the Internet (16). The first study claimed that change was possible for a small minority (13%) of LGB people, most of whom could be regarded as bisexual at the outset of therapy (15). The second showed little effect as well as considerable harm (16). Meanwhile, we know from historical evidence that treatments to change sexual orientation that were common in the 1960s and 1970s were very damaging to those patients who underwent them and affected no change in their sexual orientation (1, 17, 18).

Conclusions
In conclusion the evidence would suggest that there is no scientific or rational reason for treating LGB people any differently to their heterosexual counterparts. People are happiest and are likely to reach their potential when they are able to integrate the various aspects of the self as fully as possible (19). Socially inclusive, non-judgmental attitudes to LGB people who attend places of worship or who are religious leaders themselves will have positive consequences for LGB people as well as for the wider society in which they live.
Professor Michael King
Report prepared by the Special Interest Group in Gay and Lesbian Mental Health of the Royal College of
Psychiatrists.
31st October 2007

Reference List

(1) King M, Bartlett A. British psychiatry and homosexuality. Br J Psychiatry 1999 August;175:106-13.
(2) Bell AP, Weinberg MS. Homosexualities : a study of diversity among men and women. New York: Simon and Schuster; 1978.
(3) Mustanski BS, DuPree MG, Nievergelt CM, Bocklandt S, Schork NJ, Hamer DH. A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation. Human Genetics 2005 March 17;116(4):272-8.
(4) Blanchard R, Cantor JM, Bogaert AF, Breedlove SM, Ellis L. Interaction of fraternal birth order and handedness in the development of male homosexuality. Hormones and Behavior 2006 March;49(3):405-14.
(5) King M, McKeown E, Warner J et al. Mental health and quality of life of gay men and lesbians in England and Wales: controlled, cross-sectional study. Br J Psychiatry 2003 December;183:552-8.
(6) Gilman SE, Cochran SD, Mays VM, Hughes M, Ostrow D, Kessler RC. Risk of psychiatric disorders among individuals reporting same-sex sexual partners in the National Comorbidity Survey. Am J Public Health 2001 June;91(6):933-9.
(7) Bailey JM. Homosexuality and mental illness. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1999 October;56(10):883-4.
(8) Mays VM, Cochran SD. Mental health correlates of perceived discrimination among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the United States. Am J Public Health 2001 November;91(11):1869-76.
(9) McWhirter DP, Mattison AM. Male couples. In: Cabaj R, Stein TS, editors. Textbook of Homosexuality and Mental Health.Washington: American Psychiatric Press; 1996.
(10) Kiecolt-Glaser JK, Newton TL. Marriage and health: his and hers. Psychol Bull 2001 July;127(4):472-503.
(11) Johnson NJ, Backlund E, Sorlie PD, Loveless CA. Marital status and mortality: the national longitudinal mortality study. Ann Epidemiol 2000 May;10(4):224-38.
(12) King M, Bartlett A. What same sex civil partnerships may mean for health. J Epidemiol Community Health 2006 March 1;60(3):188-91.
(13) King M, Semlyen J, Killaspy H, Nazareth I, Osborn DP. A systematic review of research on counseling and psychotherapy for lesbian, gay, bisexual & transgender people. Lutterworth: BACP; 2007.
(14) Bartlett A, King M, Phillips P. Straight talking: an investigation of the attitudes and practice of psychoanalysts and psychotherapists in relation to gays and lesbians. Br J Psychiatry 2001 December;179:545-9.
(15) Spitzer RL. Can some gay men and lesbians change their sexual orientation? 200 participants reporting a change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation. Arch Sex Behav 2003 October;32(5):403-17.
(16) Shidlo A, Schroeder M. Changing sexual orientation: A consumers' report. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 2002;33:249-59.
(17) King M, Smith G, Bartlett A. Treatments of homosexuality in Britain since the 1950s--an oral history: the experience of professionals. BMJ 2004 February 21;328(7437):429.
(18) Smith G, Bartlett A, King M. Treatments of homosexuality in Britain since the 1950s--an oral history: the experience of patients. BMJ 2004 February 21;328(7437):427.
(19) Haldeman DC. Gay Rights, Patient Rights: The Implications of Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapy. Professional Psychology - Research & Practice 2002;33(3):260-4.

his Dark Materials

pthameru@hotmail.com — Sat, 10 Nov 07 17:26:00 UT

Attention Christians, we are under attack again! This year it's not Wal-Mart employees saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" or even the diabolical influence of the Harry Potter books. This year itâs the newest batch of atheist authors.

In case you can't tell, I don't tend to take these 'threats' very seriously. As dearly as I love my fellow Christians, I've noticed that we have an unfortunate tendency to get in a huff about non-existent threats. We seem to imagine ourselves to be an imperiled minority, as Christians were when the New Testament was written. We sometimes forget that about 1/3 of the world's population calls itself Christian. We are a powerful majority often forget that in the United States (and most of the rest of the world) we are the powerful and prosperous majority. We prefer seem to like to think of ourselves as a persecuted minority, as Christians were in Imperial Rome. It's not our best quality.

This time the 'threat' is slightly more real. One of the books on the bestselling list in 2007 has been God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens, a scathing critique of religion in general with special attention to Christianity and Islam. Hitchens and other popular atheist authors Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion) and Sam Harris (The End of Faith) have all written books that describe religion as naturally irrational, intolerant, bigoted and obsolete. The fact all three have been on the bestselling lists suggests that they have hit a nerve.

The latest buzz I've heard is all about the upcoming movie, "The Golden Compass." The previews I've seen show what looks like a beautiful and highly original fantasy where witches vie with great airships for mastery of the sky and cowboy ride gigantic, talking polar bears.

It looks like the kind of movie I really enjoy but it's drawn a lot of flak from Christian writers. The movie is based on the first book in the popular His Dark Materials trilogy by Philip Pullman. The books tell the story of the quest to kill a malignant God-like figure called the Authority that is oppressing all of creation. Pullman is open about the fact that he is an atheist, that his books contain anti-religious themes. In fact, in a 2003 interview with the Sydney Morning Herald he said, "My books are about killing God."

That has a disturbing sound to believers, and it's no doubt meant to. The question is how we respond. It would be easy to get indignant; to send batches of hate mail to the authors, producers, etc.; to boycott the movie and burn the books. But what would that say about us? When others accuse us of being intolerant, irrational and hateful does it make any sense to respond in an irrational, intolerant and hateful way. How much better to follow the way of Jesus who said, âYou have heard the law that says, âLove your neighborâ and hate your enemy. But I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you! In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven." (Matthew 5:43-45)

Responding in faith means we don't get to lash out at things like this. In fact, we might do well to listen carefully to what our detractors have to say. Some of their attacks are nonsense, but others have truth in them. It's uncomfortable to hear, but we really can be narrow and intolerant. There are a lot of wounded people in the world who stay out of churches, not because of what they've heard from atheists but because what they've experienced at the hands of Christians. We really can be our own worst enemy.

But, if follow Jesus' example of resisting attacks with love and faith, all of that changes. When we are living the way we are called to live the attacks will roll off of us like raindrops because there won't be any truth in them. People who have experienced peace and healing through the church aren't going to be put off by the arguments books and movies. Their personal experience will tell them better. Besides, that's just the way we're supposed to live.

Love your enemies and pray for your persecutors. It's a difficult thing to do, but it is something that can change the world.

Political Correctness

pthameru@hotmail.com — Wed, 5 Sep 07 15:18:00 UT

I havenât ever been a huge fan of political correctness. I remember running into the phrase a few times in college but it seemed pretty innocuous back then. It was in seminary in the late 80âs that I learned how obnoxious it could be.

The roots of political correctness are simple and admirable. Donât say or do things that deliberately hurt or exclude any group of people. The most basic assumption should be obvious. Using insulting language against women, mentally handicapped people, people who look different, have different accents, worship differently, etc. shouldnât be acceptable. Itâs really not any better than physically assaulting them.

Political correctness moves on from malicious stuff like that to the things that we may not be aware are hurtful. Phrases like âretardedâ werenât created to hurt anyone, but it wasnât long before they were used in such cruel ways that the original intent was lost. Today thereâs nothing left of these words except the insulting connotation. Political correctness has tried to fix this by coming up with new labels. Unfortunately, the new labels soon pick up the same negative connotations and youâre left wondering what label, if any, is acceptable.

It doesnât help that there are people who consider themselves experts who seem to delight in lashing out at anyone who gets it wrong. Using the wrong words can draw a blistering verbal attack. It can turn into an ugly elitism where the people in the know hold themselves above those who arenât up to date. Itâs no wonder people whoâve been on the wrong end of a self-righteous tongue lashing, or worse want to run, screaming from the idea of political correctness.

Thereâs another problem. There are a number of people who have started using the dislike for political correctness as license to say and do some really miserable things. I see it a mostly in the world of internet bloggers, pundits and comedians, but many others seem to have picked up their lead. The attitude seems to be that saying hateful things is just âbeing honestâ while any show of consideration is a concession to âpolitical correctness.â

I have a problem with this, not because Iâm a big fan of political correctness but because of something else. My parents taught me with the idea that courtesy was important. For them that meant much more than good manners, it meant treating others with genuine respect. It meant caring about the welfare of other people, no matter how different they might be. For them, and for me, courtesy is the logical extension of a teaching Jesus called one of the most important, âDo to others as you would have them do to youâ (Mt 7:12).

It bothers me when people regard courtesy as something feeble or dishonest. It bothers me when they assume that compassion and respect for others are nothing more than attempt to be âniceâ so that people wonât have their feelings hurt. It really bothers me when they dismiss genuine compassion and respect as âpolitical correctness.â

The way we treat others is much more fundamental than any of those things. It is the measure of and our humanity. It is where all our principals of faith are put to the test. If we fail, it doesnât mean that weâre not âniceâ or not âpolitically correct.â It means that people are suffering for no good reason. It means that hate and fear are gaining a foothold in our lives. It means that we donât believe in our own values of justice, faith and love.

People matter! That is a bedrock principal of Christianity. Itâs something that should be self-evident to everyone, regardless of differences of faith and culture. People matter, and the way we treat them matters. Thatâs not political correctness, itâs a basic reality. If we choose to ignore that truth we make ourselves less human and turn our back on reality. Neither of those is a particularly useful strategy in living life. And if that werenât enough, Iâll leave you with one more quote from Jesus.

'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

Walls

pthameru@hotmail.com — Wed, 15 Aug 07 14:53:00 UT

âSomething there is that doesnât love a wallâ¦â

Thatâs the first line of a favorite poem of mine, âMending Wallâ by Robert Frost. It talks about a manâs reflections on the barriers between people as he and a neighbor mend a stone fence on their property line. The neighborâs philosophy is simple. He quotes the old proverb, âGood fences make good neighbors.â

The poet questions this. He can see reasons why walls are sometimes necessary, but doesnât accept that they should always be there. Barriers are not always a good thing. Iâd take that a step further and say that usually they donât.

When we start putting up barriers itâs generally because we want to protect ourselves. The current discussion over a physical of figurative wall along the southern border of the U.S. reflects this. We are worried about losing jobs, losing money sent back to families south of the border, losing resources as more aliens receive benefits from social services, even losing identity as more people who from outside mainstream American culture live in the country. You hear this when someone makes a statement like, âI had to walk six blocks before I heard a word of English. I couldnât even tell I was in America.â

There are some real concerns about this. There are limits to how many immigrants our system can handle. There is a great deal of crime associated with people crossing the border illegally. (Of course an illegal crossing itself is a crime but I mean people smuggling, sexual slavery, drug smuggling, and other more malign crimes that attach to it.) There is also the exploitation of the immigrants themselves which is facilitated by their illegal status. Employers often practice fraud, allow unsafe working conditions, pay substandard wages, etc. Thereâs even the danger of terrorists using the human traffic to bring dangerous people into the U.S.

I wish I could say that Iâm smart enough to know what kind of immigration policy would prevent all of these problems. Iâm not. I donât have a policy solution and this isnât a political blog. What I do want to lift up is the idea that a wall (real of metaphorical) is not a solution. Itâs just a way of separating the world into âusâ and âthemâ and pretending that our problems will all be solved if we just keep âthemâ out.1

Itâs a mindset that people have fallen into in many times and places. You can see it clearly in the New Testament where âuncleanâ people were regularly excluded from the life of the community. With the best of intentions (protecting our people, our faith, and our identity) the religious officials found ways to exclude the physically and emotionally ill, foreigners, and people who fell short of the standards of purity.

This set up a powerful tension between these leaders and Jesus. He drew the harshest criticism when he reached out to the people on the other side of the cultural walls. He touched the untouchable, connected to foreigners with kindness and respect, and shared meals with tax collectors and prostitutes. For him there was no âthem.â He offered everyone a chance to be âusâ without walls.

We lose touch with this when we start to focus on walls, and we connect to a different way of thinking. As physical walls go up so do the emotional walls of hate and fear. Iâm not saying that everyone who wants to control immigration is a hate-monger, but the danger of becoming caught in the same mindset is very real. The Southern Poverty Law Center reports a 40% growth in American hate groups since 2000. This appears to be directly connected to the immigration debate.

"This kind of really vile propaganda begins in hate groups, makes its way out into the larger anti-immigration movement, and, before you know it, winds up in places like 'Lou Dobbs Tonight' on CNN," said Mark Potok, director of the SPLC's Intelligence Project. "This country needs a robust debate on immigration, but it does not need a debate based on racist allegations and bogus conspiracy theories." (The full article can be found at http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=762 )

As I said before, Iâm not smart enough to have the answer to the immigration question. I am convinced though that it isnât about building more walls. Good fences don't make good neighbors.