Faith + the 2012 Presidential Election

Barack Obama + Mitt Romney answer questions about their faith. 

Read the complete Cathedral Age Magazine interviews.

Bible Believers

And that's when Virginia understood: These people didn't believe the Bible; they believed what they believed about the Bible.

Discuss

President Obama at the 2011 Easter Prayer Breakfast

To all the faith leaders and the distinguished guests that are here today, welcome to our second annual -- I’m going to make it annual, why not?  (Laughter and applause.)  Our second Easter Prayer Breakfast.  The Easter Egg Roll, that’s well established.  (Laughter.)  The Prayer Breakfast we started last year, in part because it gave me a good excuse to bring together people who have been such extraordinary influences in my life and such great friends.  And it gives me a chance to meet and make some new friends here in the White House.

I wanted to host this breakfast for a simple reason -– because as busy as we are, as many tasks as pile up, during this season, we are reminded that there’s something about the resurrection -- something about the resurrection of our savior, Jesus Christ, that puts everything else in perspective. 

We all live in the hustle and bustle of our work.  And everybody in this room has weighty responsibilities, from leading churches and denominations, to helping to administer important government programs, to shaping our culture in various ways.  And I admit that my plate has been full as well.  (Laughter.)  The inbox keeps on accumulating.  (Laughter.)

Stephen Colbert Walks Off The View...

...and then comes back and talks about faith (a little). I totally missed this the other day. You?

It's harder to believe than not to

When my friend was 15, we talked long about the difficulties of believing and I recall trying to comfort her with a fragment from Flannery O'Connor: "It is much harder to believe than not to believe."

Now, two decades later, my friend writes:

I have long had a question about the first of the blessings in the book Blessing Your Spirit by Sylvia Gunther/Arthur Burke... The first blessing is about identity and legitimacy, which I know is hugely important in terms of the well being of our spirits...  I was trying to pray it this morning, but I stopped because there is something I can't reconcile in my mind and I wan't your insight/opinion...

 In this blessing, there are phrases like "He chose your parents", "He put you in your family", "He chose every one of your 23 pairs of chromosomes" "He chose every one of your than 10,000 genes"... I can take this in for myself and find that comforting, but then I always wonder about things, like the friend who's father was physically abusive while he was in the womb and after he was born, and then abandoned him he was very young, or the child who could not be born because of a chromosomal disorder which dramatically impacted the course of development of his body in the womb, or the child with a genetic disorder or neurological disorder that resulted in severe autism or bipolar disorder or schizophrenia... Where is God in that?

 I guess maybe it's not God I take issue with but the language of this blessing... I believe God delights int he creation of each one of His children, but some of His children suffer so greatly from such an early age, and throughout the whole of their lives and, in light of that, I just don't know that I believe God is making active choices about the elements that are woven together to create us... How could He choose things that would cause such suffering?  How do we understand why sometimes physical or mental development is so different and challenging for some of God's children?  If it is, how can we say it's God's and blessing and miracle when that challenge does not occur?  It doesn't make sense it my mind....

I realize this is a big question, but I would love insight when you have the time...

I think this is an awfully good question from someone who has searched high and low and always seems to take God more seriously than anyone else, including herself. For what it's worth, here's my reply:

a short history of marketing

Non-negotiables by Martin E. Marty

here's a remarkable post from Martin Marty in the December 5, 2009 edition of Sightings, posted here by kind permission from the University of Chicago Divinity School Martin Marty Center. jh

Long-time subscribers know that Monday Sightings does not "do" U.S. Presidents or presidential candidates, but this twilight moment after an election and before an inauguration provides me with another category, "President-Elect," which today's column will notice for an important reason. That reason? The approach to religion-and-politics proposed by President-Elect Obama in his "Call to Renewal" address on May 28, 2006. I may print it out and use my new Christmas-gift magnets to affix it to a refrigerator door as a text for morning meditations. Here is an excerpt:

"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. Democracy requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all...Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy-making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing."

Now, contrast this with a message posted by the Reverend Pastor Richard Duane Warren, with whom I have no motive to pick a fight. But I wish he would engage in dialogue with his friend, the President-elect, before and after Inauguration Day. Warren:

"As church leaders, we know our congregations are not allowed to endorse specific candidates, and it's important for us to recognize that there can be multiple opinions among Bible-believing Christians when it comes to debatable issues such as the economy, social programs, Social Security, and the war in Iraq. But for those of us who accept the Bible as God's Word and know that God has a unique, sovereign purpose for every life, I believe there are five issues that are non-negotiable. To me, they're not even debatable because God's Word is clear on these issues."

These have to do with abortion, stem-cell harvesting, homosexual "marriage," human cloning, and euthanasia. He chose these five, about which the printed Bible displays only a few inches of text that can even be used as inferences to support them, as "non-negotiable" themes. He shelves as negotiable the multiple yards of printed biblical texts on some social issues which to him seem negotiable. With the President-Elect I affirm that Pastor Warren's "uncompromising commitments may be sublime," but I do see that "to base our policy-making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing."

We Bible-believing Christians are offended when some Muslims base social and political policy on the Qur'an, or ruling parties in India, on texts from their holy books, since we do not accept such texts as "God's Word." What Pastor Warren and millions in his camp advocate works only in a theocracy, where the whole population accepts or is forced to accept one faith's "God's Word." I really, really would like to eavesdrop if the President-Elect and the Pastor were to converse about this question.

Reference:
Read Obama's Call to Renewal address.

Advent | Christmas + people who claim to know something about God

Without the Nativity, we become a sort of lecture series and coffee club, with not very good coffee and sort of aimless lectures.

— Garrison Keillor, Salon, 12.05.07

Neutralizing Al-Qaeda | a Letter from Kamp Krusty

I don't know how to add to this. Brilliant.

Sunday Morning | Emerging Grace

Emerging Grace writes:

I didn't recognize my views in the posters that were made (elsewhere) concerning emerging church terms. So I decided to make my own posters that represent my simple understanding of emerging/missional terminology.

I hope these are encouraging to you

They are.

Here is one of my favorites . . .



The rest of Grace's images are here.

Thanks to Susan for introducing me to Grace.

Bart Campolo | Two Sons (Regardless)

Bart Campolo wrote an engaging post this morning. It's called Two Sons (Regardless)
Bart writes:

On some level, Jesus seems to suggest that what God really wants from us has less to do with what we say and more to do with what we…do.

I like that…I think.

On my best days, I think I like that too.

From the top of the little hill where I live, it appears the people who claim they know something about God have found a comfort zone where saying the right things substitutes for doing…anything, really. Orthopraxy — doing the right thing — means nothing, give or take. Orthodoxy — believing the right stuff from some sort of biblical framework — is frequently all that matters — as long as we get to skip the Minor Prophets, the letter from James, all but chapter one of First John and much of what we call the four Gospels — other than that and maybe a couple of other things, we take the Bible to be authoritative in sum and substance.

How else to explain a drug addled talk radio celebrity who gets to keep his position of honor with people who believe drug addicts are criminals — unless they say the right things.

How else to explain sex junkies of various proclivities who are quickly restored to honor by people who believe sex junkies are perverts — unless they say the right things.

How else to explain the free pass extgended to a presidential candidate who called a New York Times reporter an asshole by people who believe that kind of language is a sin — unless it’s used by someone who says the right things (in which case it’s a sign of…what? Being wild at heart?).

And how else to explain myriad unkept promises to the poor and powerless by church and state, willingly excused by people who believe yes should mean yes, no should mean no (and anything else is sin) — unless…well, you know.

All that to say this: I think people like me, who say we may know something about God, ought to act justly and love mercy and walk humbly with God because the gospel Jesus preached — don’t listen to your hometown evangelist, go read it for yourself — was the gospel of the kingdom of heaven where justice, mercy and humility are the rules. And because Jesus, if he can be trusted, represented that God intends to have everything his way — on earth as it is in heaven. And because the only people Jesus was hard on were self-important fools (like me) — to whom he said, “Whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.” And because there is no shalom for anyone unless there is shalom for everyone.

My friend Bart puts a mighty fine point on things at the end of his post. It's worth reading.

The Dog's Dilemma

A dog of average (which is say almost no) intelligence lies in the dirt, gnawing a bone. The bone, once a vital part of some cow’s structural integrity, is now depleted of marrow and moisture, worthless for anything beyond stimulating the canine’s gums and exercising his jaws.

You approach the dog, hands behind your back; he eyes you, suspicious. You speak kindly; he wags his tail slowly, smiles a doggy smile and places a paw on top of the bone, sniffing the air uncertainly.

After a moment, he returns to the bone with a lick, and is about to resume gnawing when you bring your hands from behind your back, revealing half a pound of fresh-ground beef. This maneuver captures the dog’s attention and he wags his tail appreciatively while covering the bone again with his paw. You have to pay respects to a human with fresh beef — he knows this but can’t remember why.

You smile and straighten your arm a bit: the one with the meat piled on the end of it. The dog smiles back and licks his lips. You take half a tentative step forward, extending the meat as if to offer it to the dog and he, after a moment of frozen indecision, stands to his feet and picks up the bone, never taking his eyes off you.

You take another half step forward. Nothing has changed, you’re still smiling, still offering the burger, and you would think, since he is your dog, who sneaks into your bed after you fall asleep, who licks fried chicken grease right off your hand and drinks from your open toilet — you would think the beast would see your approach as nothing if not promising — but incredibly he backs away, his eyes mapping out an escape route lest he become cornered and you do something terrible. But this is not your intention at all. You seek only his good and offer half a pound of lean ground chuck as proof. And so what if there is the tiniest bit of doggy medicine mixed with the beef — that too, is for his good and you expect if he knows anything at all he would know this. And to be fair, he suspects it in a vague, dreamy way — you are the one who goes away and then comes back so marvelously and he has no idea how you do that but he is mightily impressed every time. And you are the one who appears on occasion with food or a ball or a piece of whadaya-call-it…rope! and what great fun that is until his gums bleed and you pin him to the floor and say “No more!” so sternly, and he’s not sure why you have to be so strict, but he loves you and gets excited when he hears that noise that means you’ll come through that wall opening that appears and then disappears so suddenly, and how in the world does that work, he wonder, and now here you are with meat! You have meat and boy does that look good and his nostrils flare as you wave that tasty treat in front of him, and he doesn’t really know why he’s backing up with that nasty bone when you’re right there with a huge chunk fresh USDA inspected beef and all he has to do — he knows this somehow as his tail drops, still wagging between his hind legs — all he has to do is let go of the bone, just drop the bone and you’ll almost certainly — he doesn’t know why you would, but it’s not his to question; he hasn’t, as far as he can remember, done anything to deserve it, but you’re so good that way; it’s part of why he loves you — you will almost certainly give him the meat and all he has to do is drop the bone and golly does that meat look good and boy is this bone ever dry, and he would, he would take the meat in a second because he trusts you and believes in you and you’re holding meat right out in front of him almost touching his nose and his tail is between his legs and hardly even wagging anymore — it’s just one too many operations under the circumstances — and the circumstances are that you have the beef and he’s pretty doggone sure you’ll give it to him if he’ll just drop the bone but you gotta understand, the beef is just a promise, and he knows it may not be much but he’s got the bone.

That’s the dog’s dilemma. You see his problem don’t you?

— from Posers, Fakers & Wannabes by Brennan Manning and me

The Dog's Dilemma is available as a video download (featuring the talented Brian Boyle).