The Spectrum Blog

Patriotism, Piety, and the Perfect Storm

By Michael Peabody, Esq., Vice President of the Seventh-day Adventist Church State Council in Sacramento and Executive Director of the North American Religious Liberty Association - West

Excerpted from his article in the Nov/Dec issue of Liberty.

"A while back, a friend who leans heavily to the right asked me whether I thought God supported the United States in the War on Terror. Knowing the nature of the question, I sensed that I was walking into a shabbily constructed minefield so I decided to up the ante with a few questions of my own. Can a Christian feel patriotic toward his native Iraq or toward her North Korean homeland? Does God draw lines in the sand based on geopolitics, or on American interests? Bottom line, would God drive a Chevy or a Hyundai?"
...

"I have long felt that one of the main reasons that so many communist nations failed was because they early on targeted the faith of the religious. Had they embraced the outward signs of the faith and gradually, imperceptibly, morphed it to their ends, they could have gained the support of the large number of marginal believers who would have begun to see the work of the politburo as consistent with that of God. Only the intellectually vigorous would remain in opposition, and they could easily be disposed of openly and with the blessing of the majority who would view them as criminals."

"Instead through persecution, communist dictators created a religious vacuum which ultimately became a fatal flaw. Despites its storied attempts to foist atheistic patriotism on the people, the Soviet Union was unable to sustain itself and its residents clamored for the exit when the Iron Curtain fell. Had the USSR wrapped the same authoritarian aims in the gradually modified religion of Mother Russia, it might have lasted. But in the absence of a faith, the secular state was doomed."

"In contrast, those nations that have embraced the symbols of religion, carefully choosing only  those elements that support their aims, opportunistic thugs become saints, and those who question them are viewed by the majority as both unpatriotic and unholy. Kamikaze pilots turn their planes into guided missiles  t the bequest of a divine Emperor, and terrorists are convinced to detonate themselves in the name of Allah."

How would you answer the questions that Michael poses in his opening paragraph?

Spectrum poll: Would you vote for a Mormon?

By Alexander Carpenter

Opinion Polls & Market Research

Religious right runs for third

By Alexander Carpenter

This weekend, while Adventist Forum members debated the finer points of Adventist sectiness -- can it increase with maturity? -- the old goaders of majority evangelicalism met in Salt Lake City to express their discomfort with Giuliani's dominance in the GOP presidential primary.

Now the religious right's lockstep support for the Iraq war is coming back to hurt the old leadership of James Dobson, Tony Perkins and Richard Viguerie.  In expending their moral influence on hyping the post-9/11 neoconservative clash of civilizations fantasy, they have confused their believers and lost their more reflective members: pro-life and pro-pointless slaughter?

Because pro-choice Giuliani is also running to be the president of 9/11, as both the Onion and Thomas Friedman note, the religious right is getting split by its own rhetoric. As Chris Matthews notes, what these religious right leaders really care about is raising money on pro-life issues and wielding influence over GOP candidates.  Now a new generation of Christian conservatives care about a broad range of issues, pro-life and pro-poor and pro-stopping global warming.   

According to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, evangelicals 18-29 have gone from a 55% GOP party affiliation in 2005 to 40% in 2007. (Interestingly, during the Adventist Forums conference Keith Lockhart noted Adventist party affiliation has shifted in the last 15 years from a majority Republicans to now about only 35% of Adventists identifying with the GOP.

In this six minute interview, David Kuo, a beliefnet.com contributer and former Bush official, notes why this has-been guard, which come out of Salt Lake City threatening to form a "pro-life" third party, is losing ground.

A Town Tough vs. the Mighty Maccabees

By Alexander Carpenter

In the current New York Review of Books, Ian Buruma examines arch neo-con Norm Podhoretz's toughness problem. Describing a short history of the Jewish wing of neoconservatism, Buruma goes back to a 1963 Podhoretz essay: "My Nego Problem--and Ours" in which Podhoretz complains about not being tough enough physically to stand up to the school yard bullies of his youth. For Podhoretz, the power to change life for the better is a physical more than intellectual thing -- even ethnic -- rooted in the history of Jewish resistance and loss and the 9/11 threat that evil was again trying to take away our change.

Cutting through this scaredy cant, Buruma concludes:

The key to Podhoretz's politics seems to me to lie right there: the longing for power, for toughness, for the Shtarker who doesn't give a damn about anyone or anything, and hatred of the contemptible, cowardly liberals with their pandering ways and their double standards. Since Podhoretz, himself a bookish man, can never be a Shtarker, his government must fill that role, and not give a damn about anyone or anything.

However, beyond this bulvon way -- an undergrad mix of Nietzsche and Rand -- there now emerges a new mighty Jewish alternative for engaging the contemporary problems of the world. The current Nation reports:

A new wave of Jewish activists, from synagogues and other groups, seeks to challenge (and learn from) the rise of the religious right. They want to renew the Jewish ethic of tikkun olam--healing the world from social and economic injustice. Until the late 1990s, few Jewish congregations were involved in the burgeoning multi-issue grassroots organizing coalitions. By 2000 twenty synagogues had joined one of these local interfaith activist groups. Today nearly 100 synagogues are involved, and the number is growing steadily. The foundation Jewish Funds for Justice (JFSJ) has helped catalyze this movement.

 

This JFSJ video features rabbis and lay leaders from synagogues around the country sharing their inspiring stories and reflections on getting involved in this model of social justice work.

Of course JSpot is happy about the coverage, yet they note that ". . .more than the numbers is the cultural shift this will have on synagogues - agitating them to be more relational (where congregants know one another’s stories) and less transactional (I pay dues, you provide me with services) - as well as learning how to operate in the public arena in interfaith partnership."

This tough, but dividend-reaping work of religious community organizing -- forming relationships, re-pairing the world -- is what will actually save us from the inhumanity of the brutal school and the battlefield.

A must watch: Aspen Institute on Religion in the Public Square

By Alexander Carpenter

Religion and the Public Square with Alan Wolfe, The Rev. Jim Wallis, Nancy Gibbs, Reza Aslan and Rabbi Irwin Kula speaking at the 2007 Aspen Ideas Festival. Jon Meacham moderates the panel.

God's "Christian" Warriors

By Alexander Carpenter

As a service to the Spectrum Blog community. . .in case you missed it, feel free to watch Christiane Amanpour's CNN documentary, God's Christian Warriors below. The rest is on my YouTube site. 

On God's Warriors

By Alexander Carpenter

Like many Americans, my heart's an idealist and my head's a pragmatist on things religious and political. I often search for ways to split the difference between these two all too often separate states of being. However, last night Christiane Amanpour showed the danger that occurs when religious idealism and political pragmatism split the difference.

It's clear in the people that she interviews who participate in the Israeli occupation that when humans lie, preemptively attack, and occupy, they lose their head and their heart in the process.

She set it up with this contrast of two warriors on the same side in 1967. . .

But it goes beyond the personal, to explore the last four decade of Jewish history that these individuals influenced -- in part -- through their Godly warring. During the interviews with the settlers, one cannot miss the struggle in the faithful as they admit that they lied and killed in a pragmatic pact with their ideals.  As the Times noted, the most interesting aspect of this is the footage of the fund raising in America that support this cultural war. The mix of money and religio-political strategy should give folks of any faith -- liberal or conservative -- pause at the cost to morality and dignity that comes with the territory.

As evangelical blogger Peace and Piety writes: "Watching this, I found myself engulfed in disbelief, awe and amazement at what faith can accomplish. When faith is used to try and transform the masses, it destroys civilizations, neighborhoods, homes, cities, kills children and demolishes peace- to say the very least." Yale student Baptist Like Me notes that as a part of the God's Warriors documentary Madeline Albright gave an interview, titled here as On Religion in Politics: Ignore It "At Our Peril.'  She adds, "I'm not really a partisan person, and even though I would never have voted for her Baptist boss and I long for a compelling, ethical pro-life voice to emerge in her party, I didn't boycott or picket Madeleine Albright when she came to Yale a few years ago. I really admire the Secratary for many reasons, and I think this new interview, part of CNN's "God's Warriors" series, is a very good read." Methodist seminarian Facilitating Paradox found the topics covered to be evocative of other less prime time work on the Middle East, writing:

her documentary reminded me of the similar reporting of Bill Moyers and others on the subject. I've heard of AIPAC before, heard of its power, and knew that illegal settlements were the persistent problem in any Middle East peace process. I've read and heard enough Rabbi Michael Lerner to know that Israelis are just as much in the wrong as any Palestinian. I have a good deal of respect for President Jimmy Carter and his analysis of the situation. But how many other people are already aware of these things? This was the surprise to me: that I was watching this on CNN on primetime. How many people would have their eyes opened? How many people saw these things and heard these stories for the first time? Hopefully millions.

The Two State Peace Plan promotin' OneVoice blog got to

"thinking about how many people there are in the world NOT engaged in violence and enmeshed in “holy wars,” but are actually working to make things better.Extremists make a lot of noise and carry out their initiatives with a kind of unmatched zeal, dedication, and persistence.  They make so much noise, in fact, that they very easily drown out the voices of those calling for tolerance, moderation, nonviolence, and pragmatic steps toward a less conflict-driven and conflict-ridden world.

Thus, we come back to pragmatism.  But perhaps a different kind, not the sort where the ends justify the means, rather the ideal of a pragmatism deployed which finds hope in ethnic and metaphysical difference and always negotiates to keep heads cool and hearts beating on. Because as that old Federalist "blogger" James Madison wrote in famous paper number ten:

"Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time, must be prevented; or the majority, having such co-existent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together. . . ."

Although the embed has been disabled, you can still watch the whole first night: God's Jewish Warriors here. And if you're watching too, let me know.

On location -- the Gulf Coast

By Alexander Carpenter

Greetings from Gulfport, Mississippi. This week Johnny A. Ramirez and I are working at Camp Coast Care with a group of clergy, religious leaders and students putting a little faith into action. We're having a very good time. Check out Johnny's post here. Also, Ron Osborn will be posting a couple of letters from Africa this summer where he has gone to join his sister and a recent Adventist UCLA law grad who are working to free people from the corrupt prisons of Guinea.

A quick and dirty religio-presidential forum

By Alexander Carpenter

Before Monday's Sojourners/CNN Presidential Forum on Faith, Values and Poverty, the Times suggested:

The event is a relatively rare opportunity for the Democratic candidates to talk about the role faith plays in their political lives, and their appearances signals that the votes of at least some politically active Christians may be up for grabs in 2008.

After watching it, I thought that the Sojourners' show on faith, values and poverty turned out quick and dirty.

Quick: fifteen minutes per presidential candidate goes by really fast, especially if you're Sen. Barack Obama talking about poverty, Sen. Hillary Clinton telling a story about the Congo, or Edwards listing all the work he and his wife have done for the poor and taking people to help with relief work along the Gulf Coast.

Dirty: this forum muddied the waters, the unnaturally old, white, pristine Robertson/Falwell/Dobson fluids of filtered Christianity. In this forum we got to hear more nuance (but we do need so much more) on issues like abortion, faith journey (private faith works too), and moral values that prioritize the American poor. Dan Gilgoff writes in US News and World Report:

But the prospect of presidential candidates discussing such a personal issue as their religious lives on national television could make for a delicate evening, particularly as secular voters are becoming one of the fastest-growing Democratic voter blocs.

Turns out less delicate than superficial, which may bother more than the secular-minded. While some may raise warnings of church and state mixing a bit much on the left now, I'd say that after this debate the courthouses and ID-free textbooks are pretty safe. But I worry about faith. As Pastor Jim Gertmenian, of the Plymouth Center for Progressive Christian Faith commented:

. . .not to be cynical, but it sounded as though the hour was peppered with phrases that the candidates had been prompted to use: "Lord and Savior," "prayer warriors," etc. Maybe those were more natural than I'm giving them credit for, but I hope that Dems will go to these issues in ways that go deeper than just pop religious language.

Even progressive religion risks being watered down when mixed with the hyper will-to-power of presidential politics. I'll grant that several of the candidates dropped buzz words, but they also noted the a deeper life of faith than most Americans recognize as compatible with social justice activism.  That said, as the progressive Christian movement grows, we need to pay careful attention to that wise Tillichian definition of religion as "the state of ultimate concern." In that we should express widely our faithful concern for all. That's what I think was the best part of the Forum, the revelation to conservative America that Christians have more than just two morals. While, on the other hand we must show that we have more than just buzz words too. That the ultimate lies beyond the easy phrases of speech writers, and our leaders -- whether president or preacher, liberal or conservative -- they can no longer just drop God, but must reinterpret the "dirtiness" of religious experience for our common good.

Props to Marcel for posting on this as well. I've posted all the video from the forum here.

Revival of Justice

By Alexander Carpenter

"From day one of the Pentecost 2007: Taking the Vision to the Streets conference - Derek Webb, Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, and Jim Wallis call a packed sanctuary at National City Christian Church to take God's concern for the poor seriously and commit to 'Vote Out Poverty.'"

Liberty for church, chaplain & state

An Adventist Peace Fellowship conversation with Alexander Carpenter, Ryan Bell, Johnny A. Ramirez and Monte Sahlin

___________________________________

I find it immoral to have military chaplains. While they don't actually kill, they are involved too closely in the machine of war to lay claim to the Adventist tradition of "objection." Or anything resembling the non-violent witness of Christ.

Having tax paid chaplains in these mostly "symbolic" roles in the legislature and the military allows religion (and its prophetic voice) to be co-opted to spread a symbolic patina over the proceedings. A Hindu or Atheist tax payer should not have to fund Christians or religious work in governmental institutions. I think that Christopher Hitchens is right to point out that this is offensive in a liberal democracy, and counter to the non-establishment clause. In addition, certainly not having a chaplain does not preclude free exercise. Any church that wants to hold services should pay for their own chaplains to accompany soldiers into battle. And while they are on base, they can always worship at local (off base) churches.

There's no way that the military can have a chaplain for each faith represented in a fighting unit and so we get a watering down of religion or conversion pressure like this report posted by a Buddhist chaplain about a Jew and a Pentecostal. (Not a joke set up.)

While there may be an arguable good for Adventist PR to have Adventist Senate chaplain Barry Black paid to pray over politicians and some chaplains praying with soldiers before they kill to ease their conscience or fears, tax-paid religious leaders run counter to American principles of "separation" and the Adventist practice of "conscientious objection." Not that I don't cross a few Adventist principles myself, but work for peace and keeping religion and government apart seems like core ways to keep faith free and prophetic.

Chaplains exist in the chain of command, they are not autonomous, but employees of the Pentagon. As every chaplain I have talked in depth about this acknowledges, they function as morale boosters. As Bush et al keeps emphasizing, this (contra cut and run rhetoric) morale is necessary for the war machine. The presence of chaplains in the military adds to the moral authority of the Bush administration and the military-industrial complex.

The bottom line: chaplains should not be funded through taxes. it is a violation of the establishment clause.

- Alexander Carpenter studies critical theory, visual culture, and religion at the Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley, CA.. He is a member of the Adventist Peace Fellowship.

___________________________________

I think there is a difference between mingling with, eating  with, befriending and ministering to people who do any manner of contemptible things. But military chaplaincy is part of the military institution. I think if we can give serious thought to this it will more than the denomination has done in a long time. There was never a question in the Seminary. It was just assumed that military chaplaincy was an unqualified good. From talking to military chaplains and reading various articles and websites, I would have to conclude at least two things bother me deeply.

1) Military chaplains serve the role of asking the blessing of God on the military campaign. Chaplains do not get to decide which campaigns to support and which to protest. As a member of the armed services you are expected to follow orders. That includes asking God to bless the efforts of our military as they head off to wage preemptive, immoral and unjust wars as well as those that might pass the "just war" tests.

2) Military chaplains serve the role of helping the soldiers manage their emotions. If a soldier is all messed up because they had to kill a child who had a gun pointed at him, the commanding officer can't have that guy on the sidelines. He needs him ready to go back to war the next day. The chaplain has to counsel him through that and get him read to do some more killing.

If a military chaplain became convinced that a certain war were immoral and a soldier came to him or her and expressed their conviction that the war was immoral, that chaplain cannot counsel the soldier to follow his or her conscience.

I think when you really see what the chaplains are required to do, it pretty atrocious. Can there be civilian ministries to military men and women? Absolutely! I think this is a must, in fact, and if an Adventist church were located near a military base (there must be dozens like that) I would say this is a primary mission field. How would that ministry be carried out? I have no idea!

Ryan Bell pastors in Hollywood and is a member of the steering group for the Adventist Peace Fellowship.

___________________________________

In my opinion there is a difference between endorsing a war state and ministering to troops.  I believe that this line is best walked by the chaplains themselves who are working a hard job in hard situations. 

Is there an industry that our clergy should avoid?  Is there an institution where our clergy shouldn't minister?  I talk about my fear of becoming a compromised pragmatist but I don't think we're helped by absolutist positions either.  In my humble opinion having clergy ecclesiastically endorsed serving in the military says more about our commitment to the salvation of the troops than our approval of war or armed conflict. The notion that we should abolish the chaplaincy within the military is not worthy of our great commission church- I believe that yes, politicians and soldiers are worthy of our ecclesiastical attention.

It is pretty obvious when we look at the job done by military chaplains that their position is morally compromised.  But when I look at Adventist parish pastors I also see plenty of moral compromises- I don't think that chaplains have a monopoly on morally compromised clergy.

I would argue that we are all compromised at some level by the world and that our lives are, if anything, a series of inherent inconsistencies and compromises.  I would say that is true of our personal lives, the lives of our clergy, parish clergy, evangelists, chaplains and beyond.  I do not believe we can be entirely sanctified or perfected until Christs second coming.  Until then we will continue to have institutions in need of continual reform and people in need of continual renewal. 

My question is not if the system is good but if we should be present in it.  In Nazi Germany Adventist nurses did pretty atrocious things.  It is the best example of compromised pragmatic Adventist relations with the state and serves as a stern lesson to us as we discuss how deeply our clergy should be embedded within the state today.

I do believe that we should strive to perfect our institutions and protect the integrity of our clergy in its relations with the state and its institutions as we should strive to consistently side with right against might. Speaking truth to power is a Christian duty we should never abandon.

In one of my favorite shows, Yes, Prime Minister, there is a statement that in today's world politicians want to talk about faith and parsons want to talk about politics.  Well I am a Christian first and an activist second.  When we see the military we should see them as Christ does.  And I can't believe that my Lord would not cavort with politicians, soldiers or military.  Call it my evangelistic impulse. Yes, even they deserve the good news. 

Military people involved in armed conflict overseas need salvation too and the status quo is that you have to join up to reach them.  And we should be there in Iraq amongst the troops.  I don't envy the chaplains who have to confront these dilemmas we've outlined day in and day out!

- Johnny A. Ramirez, is starting an M.Th. in Christian Ethics & Practical Theology at the University of Aberdeen. He is a member of the Adventist Peace Fellowship.

___________________________________

Let me try to re-frame the debate here. I am a pacifist and believe that the worst case of "lowered standards" in the Adventist Church is the way in which we have moved from being a Peace Church in the beginning to one that (like most American Protestants) teaches that killing in war is such an inconsequential moral decision that, unlike whether or not to attend the cinema or wear earings, the church leaves it up to the individual to decide. But, having spent a lot of time interacting with a number of chaplains (Adventist and others, military and others), I don't think their role has a whole lot to do with the institutional witness of their denomination toward war or even their personal stance on the matter.

This may surprise you, but when they feel free to share with fellow clergy whom they trust as close friends, some military chaplains are not at all supportive of current war policy. The role of a chaplain (military, brothel or hosptial or prison ... or industrial?) is very much like that of an noncombatant battlefield medic. It is a slightly counter-cultural presence, not at a decidely counter-cultural presence. It is paying the price of  ambivalence on some moral issues in order to be right where people are hurting and in need of immediate care.

After 40 years as pastoral worker, I am acutely aware that in almost every instance in which I provide care for someone, I must pay that price of some moral ambivalence. When I go to the bedside of a many dying from lung cancer after decades of smoking, it is not the time to talk to him about his smoking habit. Nor, do I rightly represent the compassion of Christ by having a personal policy of refusing hospital visits to people who inflicted their disease through long years of bad health habits. When I go into a prison to lead a worship service, the men singing hymns with me are almost all people who (a) have committed violent crimes and (b) are not completely honest about accepting responsibility for what they have done. They will all tell you a story that puts them in a positive light. And that is human nature.

Almost no one I talk to as a pastor is ready to plead guilty to all their sins, open their minds to the moral implications of their lives that go beyond their understanding and radically change the entire tenor and character of their lifestyle and social position. We would all like to think that we regularly have such 100% conversion stories, but that isn't reality. The nature of pastoral ministry is not just to accept people where they are, but to go to them where they are and bring the presence of Christ into their lives; to do otherwise is to  deny the character of God who loves us in our sin and continues to
extend patience to us for a lifetime as we continue to sin no matter what he does to help us grow.

Thankfully, the ministry of the Christ is not all pastoral. It is also prophetic! Any wholly-formed clergy person has in his/her heart and mind both the image of Barry Black and the image of Jim Wallis. I have marched for peace and civil rights as well as sat at the deathbed of an unrepentent murderer. I am the same clergyman both places, but in one context I function as prophet and in the other I function as pastor. This is entirely consistent with the full character of God; he loves us and hates our sin. He hates our sin for what it does to us, as well as what it does to others. If this is too complex and
compromised for you, then that is because the character of Godis that complex and compromised.

- Monte Sahlin is the Director of Research & Special Projects for the Ohio Conference and chairman of the board for the Center for Creative Ministry and a member of the steering group for the Adventist Peace Fellowship. He is also a part-time teaching as associate faculty at the Campolo School for Social Change at Eastern University and adjunct faculty for the DMin program at Andrews University. His next book, "Mission in Metropolis," comes off the press in July.

___________________________________

POLLS

Speaking of religious liberty

By Alexander Carpenter

You might want to check out this Adventist News Network story on the Liberty, International Religious Liberty Association, North American Religious Liberty Association annual banquet. The keynote speaker was Sen. John Kerry this year. In the past they've had John McCain.

Sen. Kerry said that, We all uphold the right to practice what we believe as a matter of religious freedom. The ability to be able to do that is a crucial part of our national identity; [it] is what we hold up to other nations and it's what we take great pride in." He also spoke about the environment noting that,"Every faith shares a commonality, a universality of principle. All share a fundamental respect for the earth itself, of creation and what it is." He then quoted 1 Corinthians 10:26 to remind his audience that 'The earth is the Lord's, And everything in it.'

Chuck Scriven, lex talionis, and All in the Family

By Alexander Carpenter

Commenting on this week's Sabbath School Lesson, Charles Scriven continues the conversation over biblical authority with seminary professors, Roy Gane and Richard Davidson. Scriven writes:

In an e-mail, Davidson suggested that Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount makes no advance on the moral standard, familiar from the Pentateuch, of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.2 Although Jesus appears to contrast his own vision with that of the so-called lex talionis, the Sermon, Davidson said, does not call us "to a higher ethical standard. The same call for personal love for one’s enemies Jesus gave in the Sermon on the Mount" can be found "throughout" the Old Testament.3

Davidson wants the Bible’s authority to be flat across all its bits and pieces, so he has to show that Jesus does not disagree with what you find elsewhere in the book. And it is true, certainly, that the Old Testament expresses the ideals of love for the stranger and reconciliation with the enemy. It is also true that Jesus himself was a lover of the Hebrew Bible. But the suggestion that the Old Testament gives voice "throughout" to the ideal of enemy love is, to say the least, debatable.

To take the severest counterexample, you can find in Scripture calls to…genocide, calls as unmitigated as they are horrific.4 This fact is one reason why the most influential scholars agree that Jesus’ reading of the Old Testament takes Jewish moral thought in a distinctive direction. Even if some disagree, the consensus on this is as wide as the sea.

Of course you should read the rest in context here. And feel free to comment.

In addition, since this conversation over the proper Christian use of violence has appeared several times on this blog (Israel and Palestine and Lebanon and Iraq and Darfur) I had to smile while watching this famous episode from All in the Family.

It always surprises me when hawkish people find protecting family or others incompatible with a prophetic Christian tradition of peace-making. Garnishing this argument WWII, Viet Nam, Iraq, and Darfur get lumped in together with little nuance. In fact, John Yoder numbers 21 faith-inspired versions of pacifism in his pamphlet Nevertheless (1971). Here's a great blogger, Sub Ratione Dei, who has been reading through it and posting summaries and comments. Enjoy the show. Even All in the Family notes that ethics often stems from how one reads the Testaments.
 

JFK on the separation of church/state

By Alexander Carpenter

One of the political positions that I'm particularly proud of as an Adventist is our advocacy for the separation of church and state around the world. Here is video of John F. Kennedy's famous speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on the issue of religion in public life (1960).

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President  -- should he be Catholic -- how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference, and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him, or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accept instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials, and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

Here's an archive page with the whole audio and text of the speech.

Blessed are the peacemakers

By Alexander Carpenter

A low level discussion about the proper Adventist response to war has emerged at the MLK: Speak for the weak and Chomsky posts.

Already "liberal socialist" has been trotted out as both an epithet and a badge of honor. I'd like to break open the debate about the proper Christian response to war. And since it's tax season, let's talk about the money.

Spectrum community member Arlyn asks: "how then shall we act? How to be peaceful in a new paradigm of terrorism? How to defend our civilians without killing others? . . .I need to hear real answers too, Jesus' way for governments to proceed in a sinful world. How can America die on it's cross? unpack this please."

While there exist many approaches to arguing that war is counterproductive and immoral I've chosen to kick off the discussion by looking at the material cause for war. These discussions can get bogged down in so many ways and so I want to emphasize what lies behind the rhetoric. Johnny kicked us off helpfully with former GOP president and five star general Eisenhower warning in 1961 about the growing military-industrial complex.

While everyone agrees that war is evil, often the debate in Christian circles centers on the definition of just war. The argument gets trotted out that at least WWII was moral because the Allies were defeating the Axis. But this short circuits the logic of moral action and neglects the history of Christian fetishization of power that aided in Hitler's rise. There's a great book called Theologians Under Hilter (1987) and now a documentary of the same name (2005) "that introduces the viewer to three of the greatest Christian scholars of the twentieth century: Paul Althaus, Emanuel Hirsch, and Gerhard Kittel, men who were also outspoken supporters of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party."

A review in Religion and Ethics Daily notes:

One of the documentary'€™s strengths is its presentation of the Deutsche Christenor German Christian movement that came to prominence in the 1920s. It championed a radical, nationalist agenda that merged church and state to the point of draping a swastika on the church altar. . . .Doris Bergen of Notre Dame University. . .points out how the Deutsche Christen movement thought the church had become too feminized and sought to portray the institution as young and virile."

Here it's essential to note two classic moral compromises that lead to fascism. Equating patriotism with religion and supporting gender inequality in institutions. Frankly, one of the best things humans can do for peace is support more pacifist women in power.

While this little YouTube video editorializes a bit much about the Nazi collusion of the Lutherans (note the misunderstanding about the Confessing Church), it's essential to note that the majority of the Protestant, Catholic, and yes Adventist leadership stayed silent during the rise of the National Socialist party and failed to object to Hitler's creation of a military-industrial complex for war. Here's a little rule of thumb, the more pro security a candidate the more likely the nation will go to war unnecessarily. And it will be called self-defense. One of the biggest misunderstandings about just war theory is what actually is just. I'm sure that if someone asks, Ron, who is a scholar on the topic, will shed some light.

Here I'll get back to discussing belli causi.

Fact: the number one drive for war is increased profit. It's not humanitarian; it's not self-defense; it is an outgrowth of the the military-industrial complex which threatens our spiritual well-being and frays the very fabric our our society, according to Eisenhower.

Now let's take an example: the Iraq war that a majority of Americans supported. The Iraq war has turned out to be surprisingly expensive. You and I have already spent $500 billion on it with another $100 billion supplemental awaiting Bush's decision this month. The 2008 budget for the first time will include Iraq war money. Thus far, this entire war has been funded outside the budget. In caring for the 25,000 wounded Americans and continued reconstruction costs, the total is currently projected around 1,000,000,000,000. To put that in perspective - in inflation adjusted dollars, WWII cost 2 trillion. And we got three dictators, and faster.

As Eisenhower states: "This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. . .we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

Therefore, while the Iraq war is only one example it is not the exception, but is the future of conflict. In Korea we had to draw down troops and Viet Nam and we eventually will in Iraq. That's three wars without victory. Then why do we fight? Certainly there are geopolitical reasons, but let's not miss that history lesson of modern wars in which people die while military contractors increase profits.   We now have in place a war machine on which millions of Americans depend for their livelihood. Over 41 percent of our taxed money goes to the defense department. According to the Stockholm International Peace Institute, "The USA is responsible for 48 per cent of the world total [military spending], distantly followed by the UK, France, Japan and China with 4-5 per cent each."

This a graph on our next US community budget. The Bush administration has proposed over $650 billion for the Pentagon, compare that to$32 billion on education. The X in the graph above is the amount of money that disappears into old weapons systems and nuclear stockpiles. That said, it's essential not to mix our moral arguments about war. Since the sixties, the moral clarity that Christians should oppose war has been hijacked by the corporate interests who depend on the military-industrial complex to survive. Thus, what causes war? One of the major factors is the collusion between private corporations and military spending creates war to make money. War is not self-defense. Self-defense is creating the moral climate that resists bellicosity and limits the kind of corporate and military meddling in other countries that creates terrified ideologies that attack back. International institutions and peace provides lasting national security, not wars on socialism, on drugs, on Iraq/terrorism. Of course the comment section may turn into a place where people toss around hypotheticals, do you support this or that? But first we need to address the root causes for war. It is not national defense or democracy - it is profit. If Adventists can understand and short-circuit this Ouroboros of military and industry feeding each other our church just might recreate a culture of conscientious objection. And actually save souls - not just win them.   

Over at the Center for American Progress, Scott Lilly writes:

"As a young soldier in the early 1970s, I prayed every morning that I would not come down on orders€ for Vietnam and would not be placed in a position where I would have to shoot at people who posed no plausible threat to me or my country. I was extremely angry and frustrated with the President and Congress for not putting an end to a mindless conflict that was disrupting my life, causing the deaths of so many innocent people, and wasting resources so desperately needed for real problems facing our society at home.

But I was almost as frustrated by the mindless antics of many opposing the war who did little more than harden the resolve of the war supporters and dissuade those who might otherwise have become war opponents. They provided a perfect foil for Richard Nixon, who had run out of explanations to justify the continuation of the conflict. Nixon turned the debate over the war€ into a debate over the war movement€ a bait-and-switch that helped him rally support even among people who had growing reservations about what they witnessed each night on television. 

To this day, I think those who insisted on injecting arguments about drugs, sex, personal hygiene, and respect for law into the debate over Viet Nam prolonged the war (perhaps by years) and, as a consequence, contributed to the deaths of hundreds and possibly thousands of my fellow soldiers. That is a lesson that anyone engaged in a struggle to build a coalition large enough and strong enough to change national policy should remember."

Suddenly being respectable meant supporting unnecessary killing and a crook. Let's not let that happen again. . . We can have conversations about social issues - since those choices are linked - but first we need to establish our moral clarity on war. You do.  As Adventists. As followers of Jesus. Our tradition is conscientious objection, but we have neglected to take that seriously. In reclaiming our witness for peace, every Adventist in every country can use his or her power to stand, vote, write, talk, pray, create, preach, work - a global witness that we object to war.

Cornel West: Democracy matters

By Alexander Carpenter

Yeah, I know that my fellow believers might object to Cornel West articulating this leftist religious vision for democracy. I mean, if some people are still questioning Martin Luther King. . . Yet I encourage openness; listen critically and we just might find some common ground for a radical critique of the idolatry of materialism and the influence of corporate greed.

MLK: Speak for the weak

By Alexander Carpenter

So, I think that Ron, Peter, Bob, et al, have contributed very helpfully to the Adventist discussion of origins. I'm off to the library to pick up The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design (Harvard UP, 2006), not because I'm interested in hashing out more of the evidence. It should be relatively clear that creation and intelligent design fail to marshal the evidence and evolution as natural selection leaves plenty of room for divine action.

What's next? Ron and Bob ask about belief in God and Blake asks about faithful action.

I'll start a post reasons for belief, but until then here are some prophetic words for our historical moment and the moral questions of our time. Because whatever one believes about from where we came, there's no doubt that we have a role to play in what comes next.

On April 4, 1967, Martin Luther King spoke to religious leaders at the Riverside Chuch about ending the Vietnam War. He called for immediate action, because "tomorrow is today. In this video, the contemporary images reveal a continuing moral truth for believers.

Christian Peace Witness for Iraq

In addition to the hundreds of MSM hits, there are over 270 blog hits for the Christian Peace Witness for Iraq.

Here's a sample from the people who went: Yet Another Unitarian Universalist shot this footage.

Click To Play

From at the crossroads' Karissa, an EMU student:

I went to a war protest this weekend. I know, I know. Me? I was surprised too. But don't worry. I didn't hold any angry signs or yell obscenities. All I had was a small electric candle, symbolizing the light of Christ and his call for peace. And all I said, aside from conversations with my friends and strangers along the 4-mile walk from the National Cathedral to the White House, was "Peace," which we chanted at the White House. . . .At any rate, it was a beautiful, worthwhile event, and I am glad I went. Even though I never thought I would go to a protest:

From the Back Pew writes, "Even the name -- the Christian Peace Witness for Iraq -- is a revolutionary act." On his MySpace blog, 28-year-old Hammer of Truth writes, "I felt the need to help sound the trumpet myself." Don't Eat Alone notes: "A significant part of the protest was the Christian Peace Witness for Iraq, the combined conspiracy of most everyone from Adventists to Catholics and Pentecostals to the UCC." And the restaurateur adds,

"One of the reasons it is significant to me that this particular protest was explicitly Christian is the justification of the war in Iraq often carries religious overtones, as if the war is Christian vs. Muslim. Bush intimates, often without much subtlety, that God is on our side because we are fighting for freedom and God is for freedom. I’m proud of the people who conspired to say God is for peace and so are many American Christians."

Speaking of eating, An Old Curmudgeon writes:

"We would need to be at the Cathedral at about 5:00pm and were not sure when we would have another opportunity to eat. When feeding times are not certain, the only logical thing to do is eat big when the opportunity presents itself. We sat down to a fantastic lunch at the Old Ebbitts Grill. After cups of seafood gumbo and a crab cake, we again considered the uncertainty of supper and decided it would only be prudent to have some pie and ice cream. In these uncertain times, one cannot be too careful."

Hoosier Daddy takes issue with the MSM coverage, noting the tendency for the media to lump the Christian Peace Witness for Iraq with the regular "anti" protests. He writes:

"However, this event Friday was in a whole different category of its own. It attracted no counterdemonstrators whatsoever. It was rooted and grounded in worship which filled the National Cathedral and in "divine obedience" in the middle of the night at the gates to the White House. It was definitely FOR something - for important and constructive goals that honor people, preserve life and work towards justice."

"President Bush is going to win this war come hell or high water. Maybe he's willing to forfeit his soul for his noble cause. He's not dragging me down with him," writes Les Enragés. Here's an audio recording of Jim Wallis' speech. Unexpectedly for herself,  Margaret feels patriotic: "It's a pretty incredible country that will allow several thousand Christians to process down Massachusetts Avenue in Washington, DC carrying electric candles and various banners." Texas-based Brains and Eggs notes that Bush has "lost the Christians." From the buckle of the bible belt, Presbyterian minister Shuck and Jive simply notes: "they need to know that we want it ended." On LiveJournal, thatjugglerguy writes: "It was an amazing experience to see people connected like that, taking a stand for what they believe."

Failing America's Faithful

By Alexander Carpenter

"Two-term Maryland lieutenant governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend makes a valid point: in America, faith is no longer about community. She longs for the Catholic Church of her youth, that "dealt with issues at the core of the Gospel—suffering, injustice, sickness, and poverty" rather than a Christianity influenced by a crop of preachers who seem to believe that 'Jesus healed the sick, fed the hungry and cared for the poor just so we don't have to." 

Prejudging vs. judging

By Alexander Carpenter

On Sabbath Bob raised a thoughtful question about my language celebrating Senate chaplain Barry Black's decision not to grace the Coral Ridge Ministries folks with his presence. I'll grant the point on the loaded use of "informed," but speaking of loads, consider the stuff that Coral Ridge puts out.

At some point we humans all decide some ground rules for understanding our world. Frankly, I'm going to trust those folks who spend years studying origins rather than TV preachers with dubious doctorates who link Darwin and Hitler. Yes, I'm making a judgment--that the totality of my evidence is greater than theirs. It's not hubris--it's how we all get through each day.

And noting that bias, Bob homes in on the problem of judging others:

"How can one -- or how can we -- come to the table of Christian -- and human -- fellowship all-the-while insisting OUR version of Christianity is the purest, best, most informed?? Isn’t that what "THEY” are saying too? Why respond in kind? Why are some SO willing to demonize and smear the so called “Christian Right”? Don’t they KNOW that to talk of “tolerance” that does not “tolerate” the right’s and opinions of EVERYONE -- even a caricatured “religious right” -- is self negating?"

Bob concludes by wishing that Barry Black had gone and "said EXACTLY what was on his mind about the largeness of God, and about the smallness of the vision of those before him…"

Even here there lies a distinction. I used the term "informed;" Bob measures vision. My point: there is no such things as tolerance for everything. It's both a logical and practical impossibility. The rub lies in that we always judge. Here I'd like to elucidate a core evaluative difference between the religious right and a prophetic faith.

Two distinctions are vital (at least for me):

1. The difference between defining the heavenly and the earthly community. I have no idea who will get to heaven. In fact, most of the distinctions we humans have made in the past seem completely backward now (no Protestants, no dancers, no Jews, no homos) -- you get the idea. But we humans do have a duty to envision the community on earth. I'd say that we agree that outright racists can no longer lead xenophobic Sabbath School classes and even though many Adventists wouldn't say that only Sabbath-keepers go to heaven, many of those same Sevies still get together to worship God on Saturday. Why?  Because the community has defined itself as coming together in "this" and not "that" way.

2. The second point I'd like to make here lies in the difference between prejudging and judging. It's why I support women's ordination and the full communion of homosexuals, and youth involvement in church but I do not accept racism, homophobia, or ageism (both directions). We all make judgments, but we should not make prejudgments--and racists, homophobes, sexists say that how a person looks determines their essential goodness. I don't care much how people look in Christianity, but I do care about what they think and what they do. The difference spins on the question of inherence. I believe that most women, minority ethnicities in America, and homosexuals don't choose their identity. On the other hand, while social experience does play into it, a racist, sexist or homophobe has much more choice over his or her ideology.

That's why I salute Barry Black -- he refused to let his position as a religious leader be used by folks who propound incorrect and quasi-racist ideas like this:

“Islam has expanded throughout the world from its beginnings, always by aggressive war and by the subjugation of conquered people.” Christians, according to Dykstra, “need to challenge that idea that Islam is a religion of peace. It is not; it never has been.” Dykstra helps readers understand the implications for America if it becomes lax in its immigration policies." Or twisted science like this, or weird homophobia like this.

I'm a firm believer in dialogue and get into great discussions with other grad students I share a house with-- Catholics, agnostics--who differ from me on abortion, metaphysics, hermeneutics, and when the vacuuming should be done. (It is good fun.)

I pay my taxes and tithe to support what I hope will be the free exchange of ideas in America and in Adventism. However much I love someone clothing their children in "God Hates Fags" shirts I decline to overtly support those whose a priori judgments assume that a women, an Arab, or a queer, Arab women are less valuable than anyone in the eyes of God. Could one define a Christian for the future as one who never prejudges the access to power of a male or female, Jew or Greek, queer or straight.

I'm happy to converse to convince "prejudgers" that there are better ways of understanding human relations, but we have to start somewhere and the great Christian vision lies in the hope that the kin-dom of God includes everyone first, because we are all inherently kin of God.  That lived (and voted) reality of  human interconnection might just stop terrorism a bit faster than invading Iraq. . .

Barry Black talks back. . .to the religious right

By Alexander Carpenter

YEAH! That's what we're talking about. Mad props to Chaplain Barry Black for takin' a stand for informed religious values. Already a friend of mine, an Episcopalian Reverend priestess, mentioned his action. What people do makes a difference. [updated thanks to xy.]

From the AP:

WASHINGTON — Senate Chaplain Barry C. Black has canceled his scheduled appearance at a Christian evangelical conference after he was pictured with columnist Ann Coulter and other prominent conservatives in a brochure promoting the event.

Black told Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that he wouldn't be addressing next month's Reclaiming America for Christ Conference because his appearance wouldn't uphold the Senate chaplain's "historic tradition of being nonpolitical, nonpartisan, nonsectarian," a spokeswoman for the chaplain said Thursday.

Spokeswoman Meg Saunders said Black, a Seventh-day Adventist and a former Navy chaplain, had received "a very generic invitation" in fall 2005 to speak at the March conference and had agreed because there was room on his schedule.

After learning more about the other speakers and the event's featured topics, Black became "concerned" and canceled his appearance, Saunders said. "He felt the information had been incomplete," she said.

Other featured speakers at the conference in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., include Father Frank A. Pavone, a Catholic priest and abortion opponent; conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly; and Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. Listed topics include "making America safe for the unborn," "the battle to defend marriage," "homosexuality and the church" and "Darwin's deadly legacy."

Catch the whole story here.

J. Cash: God's gonna cut you down

Scientists and Christian leaders on global warming