Showing posts with label church and society. Show all posts
Showing posts with label church and society. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Black Clergy Oppose Gay "Marriage"

Members of the African-American Clergy Coalition — Pastor Andrew Singleton, from left, Bishop Willie James Campbell, Pastor Byron Brazier and Bishop Horace Smith with Cardinal Francis George.
(Photo: Antonio Perez, Chicago Tribune)


And it is happening in President Obama's hometown, but the mainstream media once again has failed to take note.

On Thursday April 4th, the Chicago Tribune ran a front page, above the fold story with the headline “Black lawmakers may hold key on gay marriage in Illinois.” It was revealing, in so many ways.

The Rev. James Meeks took to the pulpit of the enormous House of Hope at Salem Baptist Church of Chicago and exhorted his congregation to make its voice heard by lawmakers who will vote on whether to allow gay marriage in Illinois.

“We’re living in a time where, here in our own state … they are about to make the law of the land that a man can marry a man and a woman can marry a woman. I think it’s time for the church to wake up,” Meeks, a former state senator, said on a recent Sunday.

With the measure a dozen votes or less shy of the 60 required for final approval, advocates on either side of the issue consider the 20 black Illinois House members key votes in the spring session.

Some African-American lawmakers reject attempts to characterize gay rights as the latest civil rights cause.

Bishop Lance Davis, senior pastor of New Zion Christian Fellowship Church of Dolton said, "Nature and the Bible dictate our stance today. It is not our personal opinion about the lifestyles of any individual that comes in our church or outside of our church. It is merely based upon the word of God."

“When I saw that the lawmakers were excited about passing legislation about same-sex marriage, it’s a slap in the face of the Bible,” said Bishop Davis. “I didn’t see that kind of enthusiasm about stopping children from killing children in the streets.”




Saturday, January 19, 2013

Why Blame Religion for Cultural Tensions?


Lawrence Solum at Legal Theory Blog asks questions about religion and culture.


Caylee Hong and Rene Provost (McGill University - Faculty of Law and McGill University - Faculty of Law) have posted Let Us Compare Mythologies on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
    For several decades, "culture" played a central role in challenging the liberal tradition and its legal and philosophical foundations, a debate particularly acute in the field of human rights. "Religion," which also had posed a challenge to liberal thought for centuries, seemed to have almost faded away beyond constitutional debates regarding the limits of free exercise. More recently, however, religion seems to have reemerged as the new central challenge facing Western liberal societies. 
    This paper is the introduction to an edited volume that addresses the significance of the growing presence of "religion" in contemporary law and politics, and discusses the following questions: 
    Has "religion" indeed taken the place of "culture" as a center of political tension and social integration? 
    How have liberal democracies faced the rise of religion in the age of multiculturalism? 
    Do religious and ethnic groups pose similar challenges to modern liberal societies, or are these challenges significantly different? 
    Has the traditional struggle for "religious freedom" been transformed to a struggle for political recognition in line with the more contemporary "politics of identity"? 
    Are contemporary discussions of a "post-secular" society similar to those of "multi-cultural" societies? 
    Are notions of religious belief being merged with cultural practices to enlarge the constitutionally protected autonomy of minorities? 
    Can this destabilize societies viewing themselves as multicultural by relying on a common foundation presented as secular? 
    Can the notion of "citizenship" escape any religious overtone, given the significance of religious beliefs in the identities of so many groups constituting modern societies? 
    Is "secularization" itself, as some have argued, "culturally biased"? 
    Is "culture" in the final analysis nothing more than a "secularized" version of (Christian?) "religion"? 
    More generally, what is the philosophical and legal sense of "religion" and "culture"? Have these concepts and the phenomena they represent undergone a historical change? Are we in need of new concepts, doctrines and theories to comprehend and resolve the new challenges of religious revival in the post-multicultural age? 

Reading Solum's blog entry alongside Yoram Hazony's The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture has called my attention to the way that many regard the Bible and Christianity to be about the supernatural and revelation, and both as causes of cultural tension. Why do both Solum and Hazony lay this at the feet of Christians? Why not include Jews who believe the Bible is revelation, or Muslims who regard the Quran as revelation? I explore this more fully in "Genesis and Homosex: Beyond Sodom".




Sunday, December 25, 2011

British PM: "We are a Christian Country"

The Bible has given Britain a set of values and morals which it should actively defend, says David Cameron.


The following is the prepared text of a speech by British Prime Minister David Cameron, delivered at Christ Church, Oxford, last weekend for the 400th anniversary of the publication of the King James Version of the Bible. In it, Mr Cameron says the UK is Christian country and that when Christians are confident of their own identity it provides greater space for other religious faiths too.

It’s great to be here and to have this opportunity to come together today to mark the end of this very special 400th anniversary year for the King James Bible.

I know there are some who will question why I am giving this speech. And if they happen to know that I’m setting out my views today in a former home of the current Archbishop of Canterbury and in front of many great theologians and church leaders they really will think I have entered the lions’ den. But I am proud to stand here and celebrate the achievements of the King James Bible. Not as some great Christian on a mission to convert the world. But because, as Prime Minister, it is right to recognise the impact of a translation that is, I believe, one of this country’s greatest achievements.

The Bible is a book that has not just shaped our country, but shaped the world. And, with three Bibles sold or given away every second, a book that is not just important in understanding our past, but which will continue to have a profound impact in shaping our collective future.

In making this speech I claim no religious authority whatsoever. I am a committed – but I have to say vaguely practising – Church of England Christian, who will stand up for the values and principles of my faith but who is full of doubts and, like many, constantly grappling with the difficult questions when it comes to some of the big theological issues. But what I do believe is this. The King James Bible is as relevant today as at any point in its 400 year history. And none of us should be frightened of recognising this. Why? Put simply, three reasons.

First, the King James Bible has bequeathed a body of language that permeates every aspect of our culture and heritage from everyday phrases to our greatest works of literature, music and art. We live and breathe the language of the King James Bible, sometimes without even realising it. And it is right that we should acknowledge this – particularly in this anniversary year.

Second, just as our language and culture is steeped in the Bible, so too is our politics. From human rights and equality to our constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy, from the role of the church in the first forms of welfare provision, to the many modern day faith-led social action projects the Bible has been a spur to action for people of faith throughout history, and it remains so today.

Third, we are a Christian country. And we should not be afraid to say so. Let me be clear: I am not in any way saying that to have another faith – or no faith – is somehow wrong. I know and fully respect that many people in this country do not have a religion. And I am also incredibly proud that Britain is home to many different faith communities, who do so much to make our country stronger. But what I am saying is that the Bible has helped to give Britain a set of values and morals which make Britain what it is today. Values and morals we should actively stand up and defend. The alternative of moral neutrality should not be an option. You can’t fight something with nothing. Because if we don’t stand for something, we can’t stand against anything.

Let me take each of these points in turn.

First, language and culture.

Powerful language is incredibly evocative. It crystallises profound, sometimes complex, thoughts and suggests a depth of meaning far beyond the words on the page giving us something to share, to cherish, to celebrate. Part of the glue that can help to bind us together.

Along with Shakespeare, the King James Bible is a high point of the English language, creating arresting phrases that move, challenge and inspire. One of my favourites is the line “For now we see through a glass, darkly.” It is a brilliant summation of the profound sense that there is more to life, that we are imperfect, that we get things wrong, that we should strive to see beyond our own perspective. The key word is darkly – profoundly loaded, with many shades of meaning. I feel the power is lost in some more literal translations. The New International Version says: “Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror” The Good News Bible: “What we see now is like a dim image in a mirror”. They feel not just a bit less special but dry and cold, and don’t quite have the same magic and meaning.

Like Shakespeare, the King James translation dates from a period when the written word was intended to be read aloud. And this helps to give it a poetic power and sheer resonance that in my view is not matched by any subsequent translation. It has also contributed immensely to the spread of spoken English around the world. Indeed, the language of the King James Bible is very much alive today.

I’ve already mentioned the lions’ den. Just think about some of the other things we all say. Phrases like: strength to strength, how the mighty are fallen, the skin of my teeth, the salt of the earth, nothing new under the sun. According to one recent study there are 257 of these phrases and idioms that come from the Bible. These phrases are all around us from court cases to TV sitcoms and from recipe books to pop music lyrics.

Of course, there is a healthy debate about the extent to which it was the King James version that originated the many phrases in our language today. And it’s right to recognise the impact of earlier versions like Tyndale, Wycliffe, Douai-Rheims, the Bishops and Geneva Bibles too. The King James Bible does exactly that, setting out with the stated aim of making a good translation better, or out of many good ones, to make “one principal good one”. But what is clear is that the King James Version gave the Bible’s many expressions a much more widespread public presence.

Much of that dissemination has come through our literature, through the great speeches we remember and the art and music we still enjoy today. From Milton to Morrison and Coleridge to Cormac McCarthy the Bible supports the plot, context, language and sometimes even the characters in some of our greatest literature. Tennyson makes over 400 Biblical references in his poems and makes allusions to 42 different books of the Bible.

The Bible has infused some of the greatest speeches from Martin Luther King’s dream that Isaiah’s prophecy would be fulfilled and that one day “every valley shall be exalted” to Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg address which employed not just Biblical words but cadence and rhythms borrowed from the King James Bible as well. When Lincoln said that his forefathers “brought forth” a new nation, he was imitating the way in which the Bible announced the birth of Jesus.

The Bible also runs through our art. From Giotto to El Greco and Michelangelo to Stanley Spencer. The paintings in Sandham Memorial Chapel in Berkshire are some of my favourite works of art. Those who died in Salonika rising to heaven is religious art in the modern age and, in my view, as powerful as some of what has come before.

And the Bible runs through our music too. From the great oratorios like J S Bach’s Matthew and John Passions and Handel’s Messiah to the wealth of music written across the ages for mass and evensong in great cathedrals like this one. The Biblical settings of composers from Tallis to Taverner are regularly celebrated here in this great cathedral and will sustain our great British tradition of choral music for generations to come.

It’s impossible to do justice in a short speech to the full scale of the cultural impact of the King James Bible. But what is clear is that four hundred years on, this book is still absolutely pivotal to our language and culture. And that’s one very good reason for us all to recognise it today.

A second reason is this.

Just as our language and culture is steeped in the Bible, so too is our politics. The Bible runs through our political history in a way that is often not properly recognised. The history and existence of a constitutional monarchy owes much to a Bible in which Kings were anointed and sanctified with the authority of God and in which there was a clear emphasis on the respect for Royal Power and the need to maintain political order. Jesus said: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

And yet at the same time, the Judeo-Christian roots of the Bible also provide the foundations for protest and for the evolution of our freedom and democracy. The Torah placed the first limits on Royal Power. And the knowledge that God created man in his own image was, if you like, a game changer for the cause of human dignity and equality.

In the ancient world this equity was inconceivable. In Athens, for example, full and equal rights were the preserve of adult, free born men. But when each and every individual is related to a power above all of us and when every human being is of equal and infinite importance, created in the very image of God we get the irrepressible foundation for equality and human rights -- a foundation that has seen the Bible at the forefront of the emergence of democracy, the abolition of slavery and the emancipation of women – even if not every church has always got the point!

Crucially the translation of the Bible into English made all this accessible to many who had previously been unable to comprehend the Latin versions. And this created an unrelenting desire for change. The Putney debates in the Church of St Mary the Virgin in 1647 saw the first call for One Man, One vote and the demand that authority be invested in the House of Commons rather than the King. Reading the Bible in English gave people equality with each other through God. And this led them to seek equality with each other through government.

In a similar way, the Bible provides a defining influence on the formation of the first welfare state. In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus says that whatever people have done “unto one of the least of these my brethren” they have done unto him. Just as in the past it was the influence of the church that enabled hospitals to be built, charities created, the hungry fed, the sick nursed and the poor given shelter, so today faith based groups are at the heart of modern social action.

Organisations like the Church Urban Fund which has supported over 5,000 faith based projects in England’s poorest communities including the Near Neighbours Programme which Eric Pickles helped to launch last month. And St Ethelburga’s Centre for Reconciliation and Peace in London’s Bishopsgate a building once destroyed by an IRA bomb but now a centre where people divided by conflict, culture or religion can meet and listen to each other’s perspective.

In total, there are almost 30 thousand faith based charities in this country not to mention the thousands of people who step forward as individuals, as families, as communities, as organisations and yes, as churches and do extraordinary things to help build a bigger, richer, stronger, more prosperous and more generous society. And when it comes to the great humanitarian crises – like the famine in Horn of Africa – again you can count on faith-based organisations like Christian Aid, Tearfund, CAFOD, Jewish Care, Islamic Relief, and Muslim Aid to be at the forefront of the action to save lives.

So it’s right to recognise the huge contribution our faith communities make to our politics and to recognise the role of the Bible in inspiring many of their works.

People often say that politicians shouldn’t “do God.” If by that they mean we shouldn’t try to claim a direct line to God for one particular political party they could not be more right. But we shouldn’t let our caution about that stand in the way of recognising both what our faith communities bring to our country and also just how incredibly important faith is to so many people in Britain.

The Economist may have published the obituary of God in their Millennium issue. But in the past century, the proportion of people in the world who adhere to the four biggest religions has actually increased from around two-thirds to nearly three quarters and is forecast to continue rising.

For example, it is now thought there are at least 65 million protestants in China and 12 million Catholics – more Christians than there are members of the communist party. Official numbers indicate China has about 20 million Muslims – almost as many as in Saudi Arabia – and nearly twice as many as in the whole of the EU. And by 2050, some people think China could well be both the world’s biggest Christian nation and its biggest Muslim one too.

Here in Britain we only have to look at the reaction to the Pope’s visit last year, this year’s Royal Wedding or of course the festival of Christmas next week, to see that Christianity is alive and well in our country.

The key point is this. Societies do not necessarily become more secular with modernity but rather more plural, with a wider range of beliefs and commitments.

And that brings me to my third point.

The Bible has helped to shape the values which define our country. Indeed, as Margaret Thatcher once said, “we are a nation whose ideals are founded on the Bible.” Responsibility, hard work, charity, compassion, humility, self-sacrifice, love pride in working for the common good and honouring the social obligations we have to one another, to our families and our communities these are the values we treasure.

Yes, they are Christian values. And we should not be afraid to acknowledge that. But they are also values that speak to us all – to people of every faith and none. And I believe we should all stand up and defend them. Those who oppose this usually make the case for secular neutrality. They argue that by saying we are a Christian country and standing up for Christian values we are somehow doing down other faiths. And that the only way not to offend people is not to pass judgement on their behaviour.

I think these arguments are profoundly wrong. And being clear on this is absolutely fundamental to who we are as a people what we stand for and the kind of society we want to build.

First, those who say being a Christian country is doing down other faiths simply don’t understand that it is easier for people to believe and practise other faiths when Britain has confidence in its Christian identity. Many people tell me it is much easier to be Jewish or Muslim here in Britain than it is in a secular country like France.

Why? Because the tolerance that Christianity demands of our society provides greater space for other religious faiths too. And because many of the values of a Christian country are shared by people of all faiths and indeed by people of no faith at all.

Second, those who advocate secular neutrality in order to avoid passing judgement on the behaviour of others fail to grasp the consequences of that neutrality or the role that faith can play in helping people to have a moral code.

Let’s be clear. Faith is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for morality. There are Christians who don’t live by a moral code. And there are atheists and agnostics who do. But for people who do have a faith, their faith can be a helpful prod in the right direction. And whether inspired by faith or not – that direction, that moral code, matters.

Whether you look at the riots last summer, the financial crash and the expenses scandal, or the on-going terrorist threat from Islamist extremists around the world, one thing is clear: moral neutrality or passive tolerance just isn’t going to cut it anymore. Shying away from speaking the truth about behaviour, about morality has actually helped to cause some of the social problems that lie at the heart of the lawlessness we saw with the riots.

The absence of any real accountability, or moral code allowed some bankers and politicians to behave with scant regard for the rest of society. And when it comes to fighting violent extremism, the almost fearful passive tolerance of religious extremism that has allowed segregated communities to behave in ways that run completely counter to our values has not contained that extremism but allowed it to grow and prosper in the process blackening the good name of the great religions that these extremists abuse for their own purposes.

Put simply, for too long we have been unwilling to distinguish right from wrong. “Live and let live” has too often become “do what you please”. Bad choices have too often been defended as just different lifestyles. To be confident in saying something is wrong is not a sign of weakness, it’s a strength.

But we can’t fight something with nothing. As I’ve said, if we don’t stand for something, we can’t stand against anything. One of the biggest lessons of the riots last Summer is that we’ve got stand up for our values if we are to confront the slow-motion moral collapse that has taken place in parts of our country these past few generations.

The same is true of religious extremism. As President Obama wrote in the Audacity of Hope: “…in reaction to religious overreach we equate tolerance with secularism, and forfeit the moral language that would help infuse our politics with larger meaning.”

Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and a much more active, muscular liberalism. A passively tolerant society says to its citizens, as long as you obey the law we will just leave you alone. It stands neutral between different values.

But I believe a genuinely liberal country does much more; it believes in certain values and actively promotes them. We need to stand up for these values. To have the confidence to say to people – this is what defines us as a society and that to belong here is to believe in these things.

I believe the church – and indeed all our religious leaders and their communities in Britain – have a vital role to play in helping to achieve this. I have never really understood the argument some people make about the church not getting involved in politics. To me, Christianity, faith, religion, the Church and the Bible are all inherently involved in politics because so many political questions are moral questions.

So I don’t think we should be shy or frightened of this. I certainly don’t object to the Archbishop of Canterbury expressing his views on politics. Religion has a moral basis and if he doesn’t agree with something he’s right to say so. But just as it is legitimate for religious leaders to make political comments, he shouldn’t be surprised when I respond.

Also it’s legitimate for political leaders to say something about religious institutions as they see them affecting our society, not least in the vital areas of equality and tolerance. I believe the Church of England has a unique opportunity to help shape the future of our communities. But to do so it must keep on the agenda that speaks to the whole country.

The future of our country is at a pivotal moment. The values we draw from the Bible go to the heart of what it means to belong in this country and you, as the Church of England, can help ensure that it stays that way.

How is religion measured in the UK?

 
Reprinted from here.

Sunday, August 28, 2011

Netherlands: Catholic Teaching and Liberal Euthanasia Attitudes Collide


Being a universal experience, death is surrounded with ancient social rituals for mourning and memorialising. Euthanasia and assisted suicide represent such a breach of continuity with past norms that conflict over these customs seems inevitable.

Funerals, for instance. Traditionally, they have a religious component. But what happens when a religion does not accept euthanasia? This is being debated in the Netherlands after a Catholic priest in the small town of Liempde refused to say a funeral mass for a man who had opted for euthanasia. Although hundreds of Dutch Catholics have probably chosen euthanasia in the last decade, this seems to be the first time a priest has refused a funeral since 2002.

Father Norbert van der Sluis said this week that he would not even refer the funeral service to a more accommodating priest (see YouTube for an interview in Dutch), so the family of the deceased man had to arrange for the service to be held in another parish. "When it comes to euthanasia, my answer has to be no", said Father van der Sluis. "As a matter of conscience I cannot allow a fellow priest to say the funeral mass in my church."

Some members of the parish of Beheading of Saint John Baptist told the media that they are furious. The parish council has halted a fundraising for a church organ. However, the priest says that he is only heeding rules set down by the Dutch Catholic bishops, who have declared that anyone who opts for euthanasia is not entitled to a church funeral. ~ Radio Netherlands, Aug 23
 

Sunday, January 23, 2011

Those Vatican Conspirators!

A programme about clerical sexual abuse aired January 17 by Irish broadcaster RTE attempted to prove that the Vatican had a worldwide policy encouraging bishops to conceal sexual abuse by priests. Reliable reporters say that the programme, aired just ahead of a Vatican-sponsored Apostolic Visitation of the Irish church, failed to make its claim stick.

The doco, “Unspeakable Crimes”, was based on a January 1997 letter from the papal ambassador to Ireland, communicating the opinion of the Vatican’s Congregation for Clergy about a set of proposed Irish policies on priestly sexual abuse. It confirms, says John Allen of National Catholic Reporter, “that in the late 1990s the Vatican was ambivalent about requirements that bishops be required to report abuse to police and civil prosecutors.”

In it, Storero, who died in 2000, writes that the Congregation for the Clergy had concluded that a “mandatory reporting” policy, proposed by a draft 1996 set of policies considered by the Irish bishops, “gives rise to serious reservations of both a moral and a canonical nature.”

That line has fueled charges that the Vatican effectively tied the hands of bishops, preventing them from turning over abuse cases to civil authorities.

American attorney, Jeffrey Anderson (who, having run out of US clients for his lucrative line of suing the Catholic Church, has recently set up shop in Britain) claimed the letter was yet another “smoking gun” indicating a conspiracy to suppress evidence of sexual assaults by Catholic priests. But Allen, who prides himself on his objective view of the Church, says there are three reasons that claim won’t stick.

As usual, there is some background to understand, but in brief:

* The “main concern of the letter is to ensure that when a bishop takes action against an abuser, his edict should stick – suggesting a fairly tough line on abuse, rather than a drive to cover it up.”

* “Second, the letter does not directly forbid bishops from reporting abusers to police and prosecutors. Instead, it communicates the judgment of one Vatican office that mandatory reporting policies raise concerns. It’s not a policy directive, in other words, but an expression of opinion.”

* “Third, the Congregation for the Clergy at the time was under the direction of Colombian Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, whose reservations about bishops reporting their priests to civil authorities have been already well documented.” Some other Vatican officials at the time, including Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, disagreed with Castrillon Hoyos’ approach. Pope John Paul II put Cardinal Ratzinger in charge of the Vatican’s response to the sexual abuse crisis in 2001.

Vatican spokesperson, Jesuit Fr. Federico Lombardi, said the letter “correctly insists on the importance that canonical legislation be respected, precisely so that guilty parties not have a basis to appeal.” The “moral and canonical concerns” mentioned in the letter, Lombardi said, concern the sacrament of confession.


From here.

Saturday, December 4, 2010

US Surprised by Pope Benedict's Election

Apparently, not even the sophisticated U.S. intellegence services were able to penetrate the walls of the Sistine Chapel. According to sensitive U.S. documents fed to the Wikileaks website and deemed illegal by the State Department, Joseph Ratzinger's papal election came as a total surprise.


Watch this!

Thursday, December 2, 2010

Are Evangelical Women Hypocrites?

Molly Worthen’s central thesis... seems to run thus: evangelical women with a gift for preaching, who claim to be “submissive” to their husbands and in favour of traditional views of gender, are hypocrites because they ostensibly reject feminism while reaping its benefits.

Dallas-based preacher Priscilla Shirer, for example, conducts a mega-ministry to women. She exercises leadership while her husband picks up at least half the tab for domestic and PA duties. All the while she insists that “the man is the head” and that there is a specific feminine way of being.

Ms Worthen is sceptical. I find Ms Worthen’s assumptions questionable. Here are some of my beefs with her.

In my reading of it, the whole essay turns on her suspicion of, if not rejection of, complementarity:

Many call themselves complementarians, signalling their belief that God ordained complementary — not identical or flexible — roles for men and women.

I suppose I am a complementarian, because, taking my cue from the science of biology, I believe, indeed I know that men and women are different. Based on common sense and lived experience (plus anthropology and sociology, which I have studied) I also believe that men and women have different strengths, and may have different, but complementary roles in life. Basically, these are the generative roles of mother and father, from which other roles (breadwinner, home-based parent…) may flow, although in different degrees and sometimes completely reversed. I do think that “complementary” includes “flexible” -- as Mrs Shirer clearly does in practice.

To critics, “complementarian” is code for sexist patriarchy, a license to keep women muzzled and homebound.

I am home by choice. Far from being muzzled, I have worked as a tutor (to my own children and others), as a freelance writer, a motivational speaker and a blogger. Indeed, how can anyone in western society be muzzled these days? If I want to say something, anything, it can be published within seconds on my blogs, Facebook, Twitter, or any of millions of online forums.

Conservative Bible teachers like Shirer have built a new paradigm for feminine preaching, an ingenious blend of traditional revivalism, modern therapeutic culture and the gabby intimacy of Oprah. This is the biblical-womanhood-industrial complex: a self-conscious alternative to secular feminism that preaches wifely submission while co-opting some feminist ideas to nurture women like Shirer to take the lead, within limits.

“Co-opted feminist ideas”? What idea did feminism ever promote (besides the bogus contention that abortion is a human right) that was truly innovative or unique to feminism? Concepts such as co-operation, mutual respect, justice, equality, feminine strength? These ideals hearken back somewhat further than the bra-burning 1970s—perhaps even to the teachings of a certain radical New Testament rabbi, who defended women against the prejudices of his time and warned men that even looking lustfully at a woman was a violation of her dignity -- and their own.

So Ms Worthen gets it exactly backward when she writes:

The only way to defeat secular feminism was to assimilate it. Conservative evangelicals stressed women's equal merit and urged men to lead by servanthood and sacrifice, like Christ himself.

To repeat: when men (and women) are behaving in a reasonable, loving, mutually respectful and supportive fashion, they are assimilating the teachings of Jesus Christ, not secular feminism.

It’s pretty clear that Ms Worthen doesn’t care for the style of ministry that people like Mrs Shirer provide, but style is not the issue here; the issue is sexual difference, and what it means in practice:

Liberal critics of Shirer’s theology don’t mind the weeping or the titillating language. What troubles them is the suggestion that women are intrinsically different from men and therefore destined to live a different — and subordinate — Christian life.

Women are intrinsically different from men, but it does not “therefore” logically follow that we are in any way “destined” to anything. The choice of “subordinate” in this sentence is clever but misleading. It is liberally (and literally) used all over the essay to evoke an illegitimate use of (male) power. But there is nothing essentially wrong with subordination -- don’t we all live with it in some form on a daily basis? Who doesn’t have a boss, a teacher, a professor, an editor or a project manager in his or her life?

The same applies in Christian life. Believers consider themselves subordinate to God, and if we belong to a denomination of any kind, we generally subordinate ourselves to church authority. But church authority represents the service Christ renders his members, and this is what Ms Worthen, though she acknowledges the idea, really fails to understand.

However, you don’t have to be a believer to accept the practicality of having an order of authority in the home. Many women can testify that it’s pretty easy to be subordinate to a husband who gives his wife and family love, respect, and every kind of support.

My husband is the head of our family; we believe it’s the best way to avoid serious conflict. We make most decisions jointly, because we do complement each other in knowledge, experience, and temperaments. But if we ever come up against a life-altering decision (careers, moving, so forth), the final decision is his. In my opinion, submitting to his decision is preferable to marital separation, not that the latter is very likely. He’s a good man; we have a good marriage. He has never yet made a decision I couldn’t live with.

In fact, the essay reveals that many women long for as much:

At the same time, “a lot of women would like a sort of benign patriarchy,” Hill said. “Women are tired of having to make a living for themselves, doing everything for themselves.”

Ms. Worthen seems to take offense that “Shirer describes her connection with God in ways she says reflect ‘a feminine heart’.” And she finds a Christian feminist who disagrees with that too:

“There is a sense in which their identity as a Christian is tied to first not who they are in Jesus as a human being, but their gender,” says Mimi Haddad, president of Christians for Biblical Equality, an organization that takes an egalitarian stance toward men and women. In Haddad’s view, “In Scripture, it’s your humanity” that matters.

Oh? Is that why we have feminist-oriented “women’s spirituality” retreats, feminist goddess worship, and feminist women’s studies courses in every university all over the western world? Because it’s only our humanity that matters? Hypocrisy indeed. If you are a feminist, you are allowed to possess a uniquely female way of understanding. If you are a traditional woman and you think men and women are hard-wired a certain way, you are stupid and oppressed.

“Biblical womanhood” is a tightrope walk between the fiats of old-time religion and the facts of modern culture, and evangelicals themselves do not know where it might lead.

Oh my, that sounds so dire. Where might it lead? Possibly to some people having more satisfying marriages? Possibly to women finding ways to minister in the church community—ways that satisfy themselves (and their peers) but not the official credo of feminism, which necessarily, inevitably wants so much more? Possibly to a drop in popular support for state-funded feminism and its plethora of perennially useless publications and programs? Gaia forbid.

Yes, women have been and continue to be oppressed –and worse—across times, places and cultures. But I think Molly Worthen of the New York Times is looking for oppression in all the wrong places. Modern secular feminists should get over their angst at seeing happily married, contemporary, suburban, evangelical housewives—even the ones who minister to packed auditoriums of cheering fans -- and spend their pent-up energy on something truly horrifying: female genital mutilation, forced marriage, child brides, stoning for adultery, sex-selective abortion, female infanticide, lack of decent maternal medical care, limited educational opportunities, dress codes that prohibit women from feeling sunlight on their faces…

Finally and fundamentally, the NYT essay seems to be flawed, because one cannot apply the ideas and values of secular feminism (or secular humanism) to how the church—any church—operates. You’re talking about approaching things from radically different perspectives. I wonder why Ms Worthen bothered with this exercise. She must be really concerned about those crowds of women who choose to listen to Priscilla Shirer. Women exercising choice in their lives: who knew that could be so offensive to feminists?


From here.

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

The United Religions Initiative

Lee Penn

Bishop William Swing of the Episcopal Church's Diocese of California thinks he is building a religious bridge to the new millennium, and he wants everybody on Earth to cross it with him. His United Religions Initiative (URI) is trying to create a kind of parliament of religions, "a permanent assembly, with the stature and visibility of the United Nations, where the world's religions and spiritual communities will gather on a daily basis, in prayerful dialogue and cooperative action, to make peace among religions and to be a force for peace among nations." As Bishop Swing has said, the world is moving toward "unity in terms of global economy, global media, global ecological system. What is missing is a global soul." And how will this global soul be found or created? By conferences, networking, fundraising, declarations, and press releases.

The URI to date has held three annual summit conferences, each time with more attendees, among them various Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Shintoists, Bahá'is, Sikhs, Hindus, Zoroastrians, New Age followers, Wiccans, and representatives of aboriginal religions. (There have been no representatives from the Vatican or from evangelical Protestant churches.) These conferences have called for a 72-hour worldwide religious "cease-fire" on December 31, 1999, and have issued a draft "United Religions Charter." In June of 2000, the URI plans to stage global ceremonies marking the signing of this Charter, for by then the URI hopes to have enrolled 60 million people in what it describes as "a Worldwide Movement to create the United Religions as a lived reality locally and regionally, all over the world."

Read it all here.

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Robert Spitzer: Evidence for God

SEATTLE — Jesuit Father Robert Spitzer wants to challenge the minds of college students who “are being bombarded with specious arguments that attempt to dissuade them from belief in God.”

But he is not limiting this outreach to students. The whole culture, he believes, has been inundated by misinformation. With recent discoveries providing “implications of transcendence in astrophysics, philosophy of mathematics and metaphysics,” Father Spitzer hopes to intrigue the minds of those who have been so disillusioned.

“No other decade in history has revealed more or better evidence for God,” he says.

Father Spitzer, who retired in 2009 as president of Gonzaga University in Spokane, Wash., has taught philosophy and metaphysics for 28 years. He founded the Magis Center for Faith and Reason in Irvine, Calif., and just published New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy.

The book is a response, in part, to the appearance of several new books in the popular press “championing agnosticism or atheism,” he says, which are adding to that confusion.

New Proofs presents “a brief synopsis of the considerable evidence for theism, provided by physics and philosophy during the last few decades, [creating for] readers … the strongest, rational foundation for faith that has come to light in human history,” he says.

The Magis Center is also producing a documentary God and Modern Physics. The film will interview prominent astrophysicists who “will reveal their research pointing to a beginning of the universe and supernatural design of its cosmological constants,” according to a recent Magis publication. The Magis Center also will offer Web-accessible videos, a high-school curriculum on the subject and Web-based college courses.

At a July 12 Seattle presentation, hosted by the Discovery Institute, Father Spitzer emphasized that his talk was specifically about “what contemporary astrophysics and cosmology is saying about God, creation and the superintelligence of God.” The book is not limited to that, though.

“What can science do, and what can it not do?” Father Spitzer asked. “Science is not like metaphysics. It is not like philosophy. It does not approach things deductively, but rather inductively from empirical facts.”

Read it all here.
 
Father Spitzer is right.  Evidence of God as revealed in the beginning to the ancient Afro-Asiatics (whose record we have in Genesis) is turning up in every discipline where serious inquiry is being made.

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Pope's Book: Values in a Time of Upheaval

As the Church celebrates Benedict XVI’s five year pontificate this month, I had a look again at Values in a Time of Upheaval, one of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s later books, published by Ignatius in 2005.

A selection of lectures he gave when he was prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the book offers his invaluable insights into the modern world, drawing on the role traditional Judeo-Christian values have played, and should play, in a pluralistic society.

He writes in the introduction that the talks pose more questions than answers in the hope that others might come up with innovative solutions. But answers are there, and profound ones at that.

Bearing in mind this was all his own work and not a result of collaborative efforts (though of course he occasionally draws on other expertise and research), the book is a testament to Joseph Ratzinger’s greatness as a teacher, prophet and Pope.

Read it all here.