» BACK TO BODY PARTS MAIN

Posts Tagged ‘conservative’

Changing the Tone?

Wednesday, October 28th, 2009

 

Christopher Hitchens. Photo by ensceptico

Christopher Hitchens. Photo by ensceptico

Christopher Hitchens, author of “God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything,” has been debating religious leaders for a good long while now, traveling from campus to campus, auditorium to auditorium, arguing the (I think ludicrous) point that faith is an unqualified, unrepentant force for evil. 

 

But perhaps, in spending so much time with real flesh-and-blood people, Hitchens may be ever-so-slightly softening. Look at this line from a column he recently wrote for Slate:

I haven’t yet run into an argument that has made me want to change my mind. After all, a believing religious person, however brilliant or however good in debate, is compelled to stick fairly closely to a “script” that is known in advance, and known to me, too. However, I have discovered that the so-called Christian right is much less monolithic, and very much more polite and hospitable, than I would once have thought, or than most liberals believe. I haven’t been asked to Bob Jones University yet, but I have been invited to Jerry Falwell’s old Liberty University campus in Virginia, even though we haven’t yet agreed on the terms.

I doubt Hitchens will ever decide he’s been wrong all these years and convert to Christianity (or another religion). He now has, in fact, all sorts of public and financial incentives for remaining the staunch atheist he is. But I’m encouraged that, while he may not agree with what we believe, he perhaps sees a glimpse of the people who we are: Christians are no longer people of the “they,” but people who he’s met with, talked with, perhaps even eaten with. 

I think it’s much harder to hate a group of people once we meet them. Hitchens, to his credit, has met us where we live. And perhaps, in so doing, there resides a faint flicker of hope that Hitchens and his fellow “angry atheists” may not stay quite so angry.

Mending Fences?

Wednesday, October 21st, 2009

 

Pope Benedict XVI and Archbishop Rowan Williams, head of the Anglican Communion. Photo courtesy ACNS Rosenthal.

Pope Benedict XVI and Archbishop Rowan Williams, head of the Anglican Communion. Photo courtesy ACNS Rosenthal.

The big news on the religion beat yesterday was a stunning announcement by the Roman Catholic Church, welcoming disenchanted Episcopalians back into the Catholic fold with few stipulations. 

 

“Under the new structure, groups of Anglicans can move into a local Catholic Church that will be headed by former Anglican clergy, who can ease them into Catholicism without their having to kiss goodbye their own pastor or the rites they were raised on,” according to Time magazine.

The move is thought to be less an olive branch to the granddaddy of European Protestantism (the Anglican Church, and subsequent Anglican Communion, was founded in the 1500s by England’s Henry VIII) and more a response to recent decisions by the United States’ Episcopal Church, and giving its more conservative adherents another place to go, spiritually speaking.

The American Episcopal denomination, thought to now represent 2.2 million folks, has opened its doors to openly and active gay clergy, which has infuriated much of the wider Anglican communion and alienated more conservative Episcopalians within its own churches. Many parishes — indeed, entire Episcopalian dioceses — have since aligned themselves with other Anglican authorities worldwide.

It’s telling that, when I was covering religion for a secular paper in 2006, the Episcopal Church in the United States represented 2.7 million believers, meaning that the denomination has lost about 500,000 members in the span of three years.

But the Catholic Church is also reportedly shrinking. And really, it feels as though Christianity as a whole in the midst of a critical discussion related to human sexuality. Decisions made over the last 10 years, and decisions coming down the pipe for the next 20 or 30 more, will have a massive impact on how Christians worship, interpret the Bible and deal with worldly changes for centuries to come — a frustrating but fascinating crossroads.

Armed for Jesus?

Tuesday, October 13th, 2009

gunThe Rev. Ken Pagano, the pastor of New Bethel Church in Louisville, Ky., who created quite a stir several months ago when he invited congregants to bring their guns to church, is leaving the pulpit to spend more time talking about firearms. 

“Thirty years was a good, long run, but it’s time for a change,” Pagano told The Washington Times. “If I can write my own ticket, I want to get involved more in Second Amendment issues as they affect the church, and I can do more from outside the pulpit than from behind it.”

Pagano’s move comes at a time when churches seem, more than ever, to be in the line of unfriendly fire. We’ve covered here the case of George Tiller, who was shot at church in Wichita, Kan., earlier this year — the same year in which an Illinois pastor was gunned down while giving a sermon. About two years ago in Colorado Springs, where I live, a gunman burst into a church and shot several church-goers, killing two of them, before a security guard took him down. And, given churches are: a) inherently controversial, b) eager to help those suffering all manner of problems, and c) are reluctant to install metal detectors, there’s sadly a chance we’ll see more would-be shooters try to disturb the sanctity of church. 

Pagano is now teaming up with New York Rabbi Gary Moskowitz in an effort to educate clergy on how to better protect places of worship. And, while most pastors are understandably reluctant to install armed guards in their churches, Pagano says they may have no other choice.

“Churches are very soft targets and very vulnerable to attack from terrorists and other homegrown, disgruntled individuals,” Pagano said. “Unfortunately, most religious leaders are living in denial.” 

Pretty interesting. I wonder, though, what you think about introducing armed guards — be they in uniform or in plain clothes — into worship services. What does your church do? What do you wish they’d do?

Biased Bibles

Tuesday, October 6th, 2009

Bible.malmesburyI’m not quite sure what to make of this Conservative Bible Project getting so much buzz around the blogosphere. The project sounds so outlandish that I half expect to hear that Stephen Colbert is heading the thing. 

The project, in a nutshell, is this: the folks behind the Conservapedia are convinced that liberalism—not just content to run the media, the entertainment industry and most of our most beloved theme parks—has wormed its way into our Bibles, as well. Most of our Bible translations are apparently enough to make even normally sober Christians sing Joan Baez songs, and they aim to put a stop to it by crafting their own translation. And they’re going back to the original source documents to do it: That’s right, they’re dispensing with those hard-to-understand Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts and using the King James Version of the Bible.

In this new version, gone will be the story of the adulterous woman found in John chapters 7 and 8 (the one where Jesus says, “let he without sin cast the first stone”). Gone will be the passage where Jesus, on the cross, asks God to forgive his persecutors, “for they know not what they do.” Gone will be pro-liberal terms like, say, the word “government.” Instead, readers will be treated to “powerful conservative terms” (as they develop, according to Conservapedia) and “free market parables.”

When Time’s Amy Sullivan wrote about the effort in the Swampland blog, one of her readers quipped, “Do you think the part where Jesus handed out food to all the people listening to his sermon is now going to be referred to as Jesus starting up a small business and was thankful for the low tax rates?”

“Liberals will oppose this effort,” the Conservapedia guys acknowledge, “but they will have to read the Bible to criticize this, and that will open their minds.” Except, of course, for the fact they’ll likely be reading a liberal translation of the Bible, which will surely inculcate them further into the liberal fold. Or am I missing something here?

Personally, I think one of the Bible’s greatest charms is the fact that, at some point, it makes almost everyone who reads it a little uncomfortable. It’s a challenging book — and it should be. As a result, some readers wrestle mightily with the Bible’s meaning. Many cherry-pick parts that have the most meaning for them. A few, as Thomas Jefferson was rumored to have done, literally cut out the parts of the Bible they disagree with.

Rarely do folks go to the trouble of crafting their own translation, though. What do you think? Is it needed? Is this something you’d be inclined to read?

Religion and Politics: Praying for the Other Side

Friday, October 2nd, 2009

David Waters posted an interesting story on The Washington Post’s “On Faith” blog, about how The Liberty Counsel is asking its members to “Adopt a Liberal” and actively pray for them. 

Liberty’s prayer list of liberals includes Democrats and Republicans — President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, but also California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

“Pick one or more of the liberals from the list we have posted online at www.LC.org, or choose your own liberal(s) to adopt,” Liberty requests. “Pray earnestly and intensely for them! Pray that the Lord would move upon them and cause them to be the kind of leaders who will encourage others to lead ‘a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence.’ We encourage you to seek the Lord’s guidance on how to pray for your liberal(s), always allowing Him to temper your prayer with His love and mercy.”

The drive implies, of course, that liberals can’t be Christian. Which, considering traditional progressive stances on such issues as abortion and same-sex marriage, some of you might agree with. Then again, perhaps there are liberal Christians out there — perhaps even reading this blog — that feel some traditionally conservative positions are inherently un-Christian, too. 

Me, I gravitate toward this post by John Shore, who’s ”exhausted with conservative Christians thinking liberal Christians wouldn’t know God’s will from a venti soy caramel latte with extra foam, and with liberal Christians thinking conservative Christians are inbred morons.”  But that’s just me.

New days, same old Chuck Colson

Tuesday, September 29th, 2009

 

Chuck Colson

Chuck Colson

It seems we’ve been hearing a lot from Charles Colson lately. 

Not that Colson — one-time Watergate villain/fall guy, founder of Prison Fellowship and a driving force behind Christian conservatism — has ever been exactly quiet. But of all the powerful figures we’ve grown to associate with the so-called “Religious Right” — Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson et al — Colson has found a way to successfully navigate the highly politicized religion of the 1980s and ’90s to stay relevant today, even as the Religious Right has fallen on hard times. But oddly, he really hasn’t changed his message (as far as I can tell) one whit — at least not from what I can gather from this interview in Time:

The church has fallen into a therapeutic model. It believes its job is to make people happy and take care of their problems. It’s a feel-good kind of Christianity. I don’t think the job of the church is to make people happy. I think it’s to make them holy.

In the Q&A, Colson says that tying religion with politics back in the day was a mistake — a statement that might be taken as a repudiation by some of what his own movement was up to. But here’s the thing: Colson was pretty wary of politics back then, too — at least when compared to his contemporaries. Maybe it’s because Colson got his fill of politics when he worked with the late Richard Nixon, but whatever the reason, it doesn’t seem as though Colson allowed hot-button issues or monumental elections distract him from what he saw as his primary purpose: Deepening the faith of fellow Christians. Which is why he’s founded a new organization, the Chuck Colson Center, to help do just that. The online worldview resource launched this month.

“A lot of people don’t want to bother with it [serious Christianity],” Colson told Time. “[Many] people have reduced the whole Christian faith to just a relationship with Jesus. That strips the faith of its doctrine, its sovereign nature. The biggest problem is getting people to be serious about what they profess to believe.”

I don’t know what Colson’s center teaches. But I do agree with Colson that Christianity demands not just our hearts, but our minds, as well. The path Christians walk shouldn’t be easy, and it shouldn’t be pursued lightly. Christianity is meant to be more than just a talisman we hold dear when things get tough: It should be transformative. And if it’s not transforming both their own lives and the lives of people around them, well, maybe (and I say this in a spirit of self-recrimination, frankly) Christians (I) should work on that a bit.