Feeling Superior

I just ordered A Generous Orthodoxy by Brian McLaren and I expect that when I read it I will find that I agree with some of what he says and disagree with other parts. Why would it be otherwise? The only person on earth with whom I agree 100% is me! But since I don't live alone on this planet I need to find ways to get along with others. I know that some of the readers of this blog will be inclined to dismiss McLaren out of hand because he is part of the Emergent Church. Oops, there I go making mistake number one...assuming. So maybe none of you have a problem with the Emergent Church. And maybe if you do, you have something to share of value. No, wait, it's not maybe, it's definitely. Dialogue is the key and it starts in a simple belief; I (and my group) are not superior to anyone else (or anyone else's group).

What's all this have to do with McLaren? It is the topic of a really wonderful blog entry posted here. I'm moved to try even harder to be a better neighbor, how about you?

The Power of ONE

This morning I'm preaching on Isaiah 58. I'm doing a series on chapters 58 through 62 featuring the metaphors about light. It is a powerful read if you think about America today receiving the prophet's warning.

Today we will hear the words:

Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of injustice, to undo the thongs of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke? Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover them, and not to hide yourself from your own kin?

And if we heed the message, then what?

Then your light shall break forth like the dawn, and your healing shall spring up quickly; your vindicator shall go before you, the glory of the Lord shall be your rear guard.

There is good news in "right worship" (the literal meaning of orthodox). I believe there is also hope in individual action. The promise of "your light" breaking forth is not plural in the Hebrew, the promise is that your personal light will shine. Jesus would remind us not to put it under a bushel!

I'm moved by the wisdom of the ONE Campaign. Check it out here They are putting forth a belief in the power of ONE. Here is a part of the pledge they encourage each of us to take:

We believe we can beat AIDS, starvation and extreme poverty.

We recognize ONE billion people live on less than ONE dollar a day.

We commit ourselves - one person, one voice, one vote at a time - to a make better, safer world for all.

The power of ONE is the power of ONE person who believes that all the people of the world are ONE and that together as ONE we can build a better tomorrow. In this philosophy I hear the wisdom of the theology I proclaim that we are all ONE body with many parts, living our lives to the glory of the ONE God.

Human Sacrifice

Sadly, the commander-in-chief tonight called for more blood to be spilled on Iraqi soil in what he considers the defining ideological struggle of our time. He wants to fight fire with fire. He wants an eye for an eye. There is no doubt that he is on a crusade. He knows in his gut that crusaders can never retreat for there is no option other than completely conquering the enemy in order to suppress that ideology. He feels he is valiant in preserving freedom, protecting his tribe and spreading his unquestioned ideology.

What I heard in his speech tonight is that the bloody times that lie ahead are necessary and inevitable. I heard that innocents abroad will pay the price for domestic tranquility. I heard that this Christian president trusts only the power of the sword and not the power of the word, trusts only the power of human might, not the power of an almighty God of love. He shot across the bows of Syria and Iran, surely the place where the armies will march next if they can ever extract themselves from the violent quagmire of Iraq.

Mr. Bush, as your father would say, read my lips: violence only begets violence. If you insist on surging American power throughout the world at the end of a rifle you will increase the hostility toward our people. And those who suffer and then choose vengeance will have a legitimate claim for an American pound of flesh in the ideological battle of vengeance. And that, sir, is the problem with your version of this defining ideological battle, you have chosen to oppose the ideology of terrorism using their own weapons. If you want the author of freedom to empower you, then choose freedom as your tool. Offer to the world's hurting people succor from the great storehouse of American goodwill. Offer to the world the balm of humanitarian relief. Offer to the world the one gift that you can issue with the stroke of a pen, the end of hostilities.

Am I suggesting that we cut and run? Absolutely! Warfare has no winners, everyone loses. Even tonight you told us that we won't see victories like our fathers and grandfathers saw. Let us today accept the reality that things have gone horribly wrong in this conflict and more of the same will only bring more horrible wrongness. Moloch has drunk too deeply already of the human sacrifice you have authorized. I pray there is a way to stop the tremendous mistake you have called for tonight.

Damascus Road

President Bush has said that he intends to address his plans for the war in Iraq this coming week. It appears to be a poorly kept secret that the "new way" will involve sending 20,000 troops in what is being called a surge (meaning that it will only be temporary). Apparently some of these troops will come from those currently serving in Afghanistan, further destabilizing that volatile situation.

If all of this proves to be true it will be a sad state of affairs as the most powerful nation on the planet escalates a war in a place that has suffered greatly and poses no threat while increasing the chances of a hostile force, the Taliban, returning to power. I pray that this will not be the case.

Being a person of faith and an optimist by nature I see one glimmer of hope. Before Paul became an apostle of Christ, he was Saul, dedicated persecutor of Christ's followers. He had a sudden change, in a literal flash, on the road to Damascus. I know that George W. Bush is capable of a similar 180 degree turn because he has done that at least once in his lifetime. That critical moment for him was the time he decided that he was powerless over his addiction and turned his life around with the help of God. The thousands of American dead and the tens of thousands of Iraqi dead are victims of our nation's addiction to warfare. As Commander-in-chief, President Bush has the responsibility and authority to take the first step by admitting the mistake and making the new way in Iraq the way out of Iraq. It is a vulnerable, risky step, but a necessary one. It is also a valiant act of faith. May we all trust God enough to be our strength that we no longer need to trust in our weapons, remembering that the first step requires that we trust in a Higher Power to return us to sanity.

Evangelical Zeal

One surprising result of engaging in dialogue in the culture wars has been my shift in how I express my passion. In the past, I would regularly enter into a debate prepared to shout down the opposition. If not that extreme, at least I would not consider the other side to have anything worth offering. There is nothing so unusual about that, since that is the predominant model of debate in society today.

But I started this blog with the express intent of trying to change that for me and hoped that it might be an example for others. This process has forced me to find ways to express my passion without putting others down. Sometimes that is not so easy. At the end of the day I want the world to know where I stand and I want to say it in a way that is persuasive. I'm not naive enough to believe that everyone will agree with everything I say, but I do hope that at least some of what I preach will influence others.

One of the recent areas of dialogue has been around the area of absolute truth. I must say that I don't like some of what attends to preaching absolute truth since it can draw clear lines that exclude and if one of those absolutes is that God is love then how does exclusion fit with that? But the passion of spreading good news of truth that is bigger than us is a gift that Evangelicals have recently given me. Granted, the message I have passion for is markedly different that the one they preach, but I'm glad to name the common ground.

On Christmas Eve I felt the urge to touch hearts and squeeze guts just a little. This was the result. It was good to share a message with zeal, something I can thank those with whom I disagree for reminding me of.

Mystery

I shouldn't be surprised to find agreement with a Franciscan priest, since St. Francis has long inspired me. Nor should I be surprised that an appeal to faith in mystery would express quite well something that I also believe.

NPR has been airing weekly essays in a series called This I Believe. Today's was another gem. It was called Utterly Humbled by Mystery by Richard Rohr. You can read the entire transcript and/or listen to the essay here I was struck by this quote, "We love closure, resolution and clarity, while thinking that we are people of 'faith'! How strange that the very word 'faith' has come to mean its exact opposite.” Think about that for a minute; the contrast between the certitude of resolution (even about theological issues) and the nature of faith.

Father Rohr ends his essays with this profound paragraph:

People who have really met the Holy are always humble. It's the people who don't know who usually pretend that they do. People who've had any genuine spiritual experience always know they don't know. They are utterly humbled before mystery. They are in awe before the abyss of it all, in wonder at eternity and depth, and a Love, which is incomprehensible to the mind. It is a litmus test for authentic God experience, and is -- quite sadly -- absent from much of our religious conversation today. My belief and comfort is in the depths of Mystery, which should be the very task of religion.

Musicians, storytellers, and artists of all types understand the value of mystery, it is their stock-in-trade. I also believe that the best preachers know this as well. As we try to prepare ourselves once again to peer into the lowly, dirty, cold and smelly stable to see if there really is a baby in that manger, may we all value mystery.

ADDENDUM: I discovered that Father Rohr is a Red Letter Christian when I visited Jim Wallis' God's Politics blog. Yet more reason to explain the kinship I felt with him. I also checked out his organization, Center for Action and Contemplation, a place I will definitely visit when I get to Albuquerque. Here is a wonderful prayer I found on their web site:

A Prayer for Prophets

“I will send them prophets,” the Wisdom of God says, “but you will kill them and afterwards build monuments to them.”

—Jesus according to Luke 11:49 (alternate translations)

God of the Great Gaze,

We humans prefer satisfying un-truth

To the Truth that is usually unsatisfying.

Truth is always too big for us,

And we are so small and afraid.

So you send us prophets and truth speakers

To open our eyes and ears to Your Big Picture.

Show us how to hear them, how to support them,

And how to interpret their wisdom.

Help us to trust that Your prophetic voice

May also be communicated through our words and actions.

May we practice a spirit of discernment

And a stance of humility,

So that Your Truth be spoken, not our own.

We ask this in the name of Jesus the Prophet,

Whom we also killed and will always kill

In the name of our little truths.

We desire to share in Your Great Gaze.

Amen.

A Leg (or four) to Stand On

In an earlier post I alluded to the Wesleyan quadrilateral as a way to help grasp my understanding of scripture. The four sources Wesley cited for coming to theological conclusions were: Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience. I have to admit that I have not been Wesleyan in my theological development, rather that Wesley's quadrilateral has been a tool to help organize my theological thinking more or less "after the fact" (although I'm obviously never done developing my thinking).

After my radical break from a belief in scriptural inerrancy, I had to reintegrate the Bible into my beliefs. I realized that the most important check on my behavior, even when I believed in inerrancy, was the community of faith. By committing myself to walk with fellow Christians as they also struggle to find meaning and apply that to their daily lives that I am more likely to grow spiritually than if I were to lock myself in a room with my Bible. The application of Biblical truth to contemporary situations best happens in a group, not as individuals. If we are to take the Biblical image of the church as the Body of Christ seriously, then we must value all the input of all the members. Why should I expect to be the only person receiving God's revealed truth in scripture? Of course that is absurd. So the covenant community provides a check to any interpretation errors I may make influenced as my thinking will always be by my ego.

So when I learned that experience, both personal and communal, was a piece of the Wesleyan quadrilateral I felt an immediate resonance. I also resonated with the obvious inclusion of reason as a source. Our rational minds are wonderful gifts from God. I cannot imagine that God would expect us to use reason to improve our conditions in every area except in theology. Why should logic be excluded from the realm of the spiritual? In my personal experience, I recognize that the more I learn, the more I realize that I have yet to learn. The more I contemplate reality, the more I appreciate that it is filled with mystery. Reason and faith are not mutually exclusive. Indeed they each mutually enhance the other. But that is likely a topic for another post.

Finally, tradition is used to establish authority by every theological camp that I can think of. Even in the narrow confines of Fundamentalism there is the appeal to "the fundamentals." While the list of things considered to be fundamental is drawn from an interpretation of the Bible, it is not like there is a list to be found in a particular chapter and verse in scripture. No, that list comes as a result of reason being used to interpret the Bible and then passed along by tradition within the communal experience of the church.

The four legs of Wesley's quadrilateral are always at play in the lives of Christians who choose to affiliate with others gathered in churches. The differences between individuals and groups tends to be based on how much weight is placed on each leg. I doubt that any of us distribute the weight equally (certainly not all the time). For me, I'm biased toward the experience leg, specifically on the communal side. I don't throw out the Bible in this process, I just take the time to examine it with a variety of lenses.

Another Dove in the Flock

I read this blog post from a kindred spirit over at God's Politics. You know this really might be a movement!

Jim Wallis Speaks on Heartland w/ John Kasich

Nice exposure for Wallis, with the "typical banter" (as Wallis put it). What I want to know is why Kasich thinks that preachers should stay out of politics. Are some voices more legitimate than others? He seems to draw an interesting, somewhat arbitrary line where religion may speak to issues and where it can't.

Homeless Evangelicals

Here is a story that seems to have been flying under the radar in the blogosphere but really touches on issues raised here at the Culture Dove corner of that world. It seems that the Rev. Dr. Joel Hunter, senior pastor of Northland Church in Longwood, Florida was elected to head the Christian Coalition, but has since stepped down before taking office. The reason is that he wanted to expand the agenda of that organization. He wanted to address environmental and poverty issues, stating that "These are issues that Jesus would want us to care about." Apparently the board of the Christian Coalition disagreed. Hunter went on to say, "To tell you the truth, I feel like there are literally millions of evangelical Christians that don't have a home right now." Here is the Associated Press story from the Gainsville Sun.

In a more recent story in the New York Times, Hunter, author of Right Wing, Wrong Bird: Why the Tactics of the Religious Right Won’t Fly With Most Conservative Christians, asserts that many evangelical leaders hewed to narrow moral issues because they were “deathly afraid of being labeled a liberal by other Christians, the media, talk radio.” This rift has already caused a split in the states of Georgia, Ohio, Alabama, and Iowa.

I take no joy in seeing "the opposition" splinter. Just the opposite, I am saddened that a move toward some common ground has faltered. There is plenty of room for Christians to find agreement on social issues. Together we could make more progress than by wasting energy bickering over just the issues that divide. It is sadly ironic to consider some Christian looking to find a home during the season when we remember the story of Mary and Joseph struggling to find a place for Jesus to be born. May we all seek to offer Christ a home in our own lives by honoring those things that would concern him if he were to walk the mean streets of America today.

A Map for the Way

So, what can be done with this complicated human creation, the Bible? Is it inspired? Is it the word of God? I would say “yes” and “yes.” Is it the only way that God has communicated with humanity, or ever will? To these I say “no” and “no.” How do I know these things? I don’t know, and neither does anyone else, we only have our beliefs. Even those who say that the Bible is the only true, complete record of God’s instructions to the human race that is free from any and all errors in relation to any and all doctrines necessary for salvation, only do so out of a belief that that is true. I can’t put that amount of faith into a human creation. The facts that the books of the Bible were written by dozens of people over centuries; that a good portion of the earlier books were first passed on through oral tradition; that original texts are not extant; and that different groups of believers believe that different texts belong and others don’t all lead me to the conclusion that the Bible can’t live up to the extremely high expectations of those who claim it is inerrant. On top of that, there is the circular reasoning of arguing that the scripture is inerrant because it says it is. I could say that this blog is the word of God, filled with true doctrine that is free from error. If someone were to post a comment pointing out reasons not to believe that, all I would need to do is point to the fact that the blog itself stated that it was inerrant to prove the inerrancy of the blog. Doesn’t make too much sense does it?

On the other hand, the fact that the Bible even exists today as an intact, generally agreed upon text considered holy by a vast number of people is reason to believe that it is one of the greatest efforts in all of human history to attempt to speak about the relationship between the human and the divine. This is a grand story telling marvelous truths. Read as a whole, the Bible speaks of a divine plan in which God shows exceptional love to some rather unlovely sorts (i.e. people just like you and me). It also clearly shows that this God chooses underdogs and consistently makes a preferential option for the poor (you can hardly turn a page without reading about caring for the widow, orphan and/or sojourner). Some of the stories are riveting and awe-inspiring; what greater liberation story is there than the Exodus? It is in the details where things fall apart; not so much because of the details themselves but because of our tendency to nit-pick and lord over one another.

Jews have always had a wonderful tradition of struggling with the holy texts. They interpret and re-interpret and listen to each other’s sides, living with the differences in interpretation (this is the Talmudic tradition). Christians have not typically followed suit. We have a long tradition of excommunication (and even executing) heretics. But when we read the Gospels, we see Jesus move away from the law as restrictive, replacing it with the grace to live life abundantly. He calls for the giving of the full measure of our lives. If we are serious in our discipleship, following Jesus as revealed in the scriptures, then we won’t have much time at all for finding specks in the eyes of our brothers and sisters since we will have to pay to much attention to being lumberjacks getting the logs out of our own eyes.

The Bible may be only a human creation, but it is the creation of humans just like you and me, who longed to know God and to be godly in their living. It is a book that I can relate to. It is a book that inspires me to be better than I can imagine being on my own. It is also complicated enough that I am forced to use my God-given rational mind to understand it. It is also challenging enough that I know that I need to be among the gathered faithful to live out the life it calls me to. To follow Jesus is to follow “the way.” I need the Bible as the map, my mind to make choices, the wisdom of those who have gone this way before, and the company of fellow travelers to share the burden of the journey. All the pieces are necessary and the most important one is the one that is missing at the time.

The B-I-B-L-E

My theological journey has taken me from solid Calvinism and complete Evangelicalism including a belief in the inerrancy of scripture to someplace left of center influenced by Liberation Theology and the Social Gospel. The journey pivots on my relationship to the Bible. I suppose that nearly all Christians define themselves (knowingly or unwittingly) by their relationship to this collection of writings. The Bible is also clearly one of the most critical documents in the current culture wars, so I think it behooves me at the outset of this blog to attempt an explanation of my understanding of this vital document.

I have realized that a sometimes intractable obstacle to right-left dialogue is the often intransigence of the right on their understanding of scripture. I don't want to debate the issue of inerrancy as much as I want to explain my own position and how I got to it. My intent is to demonstrate that many of us who reject the principle of inerrancy still hold the Bible in high regard and use it as a guide for living. The implication for the culture wars is that there may be a number of valid Christian positions in the public square. I don't want to shout down the voices to the right of me, I just want my voice to be heard and validated as genuinely Christian.

Let me start with my reason for rejecting inerrancy. I had found myself "jumping through hoops" in sorting the cultural influences out of scripture (you know, things like seeing Paul not so much as a sexist but a product of his time) when I finally came up against something I couldn't find anyway to excuse within the confines of a belief in the divine authorship of scripture: cherem. For those of you not knowledgeable in Hebrew, that is the word used to describe the style of warfare used in the conquest of the Promised Land. Simply put, the principle is if you win victory over an enemy by your own power you are entitled to the booty (e.g. the land, the cattle, the gold, the people...) BUT if you are outnumbered or out-gunned and you pray to your god for victory and receive it then the booty belongs to the deity. The way that the god claims the spoil was typically through burnt sacrifice. I describe this generically since it was the prevalent form of warfare on all sides during that time. But that means that we read of a number of massacres (at least a half-dozen) in the Bible that are directly ordered by God. There is even a verse that I mercifully can never seem to re-locate that says that YHWH was pleased by the aroma of the burnt human offering.

Now I could have responded by saying "that was then, this is now" but that would fly in the face of the equally biblical principle that God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow (actually, there is a good evidence in the biblical story that God does change, but that is clearly not part of Evangelical theology). I found myself faced with a choice between obedience to a bloodthirsty god, a slippery slope of a potentially ever-changing god, or an acceptance of the Bible as a human document in which the victors write the history. I chose the last position as the most viable way to retain the reality of the personal relationship I had with God. That left me with the danger of "throwing out the baby with the bath water." It also meant that I could now read the Bible as our human attempt to understand what we can never fully understand instead of as God attempting to explain the inexplicable to mere mortals. The change in perspective is liberating, frustrating, exciting and frightening all rolled into one.

The good news is that I'm not alone in this journey. Many, many Christians today (as well as in the past) take this approach. In my next blog entry I'll address the way that other elements strengthen my faith and mold my theology. If you want a preview, consider the Wesleyan quadrilateral.

Voting Our Principles

Here is a fascinating observation from Tom Perriello of Senior Advisor and Co-Founder of the Catholic Alliance for the Common Good.

One of the things people are saying that I think is incorrect is that the Democrats won this election by running a bunch of conservatives and by running a bunch of moderates. If you actually look at who it was that was swinging in this vote, it was actually that there was massive turnout of a lot of people who were motivated by some of the deepest principles of progressive thinking, even in the red states.

What you had was, for example, people like Ted Strickland and Sherrod Brown essentially ran as what one person called “ethical populists.” You had people who were not running to the middle, but actually running to their principles. And what we found with religious voters is that they care much more about right and wrong than about right and left, which means that you can have some centrist candidates who do well, but you can also have some very progressive candidates that, by sticking to their values, they actually gain more than they would by running to the middle. Tim Cain won as governor in Virginia last year, which is my home state, by opposing the death penalty in a pro-death penalty state, because people cared a lot more about him standing for his principles than they cared about the issue.

So, I think when you look at the groups that really helped swing this vote, we’ve got to be -- the Democrats should be very wary of understanding who delivered this. So when they set the agenda for Congress, issues like the minimum wage, issues like healthcare and a new direction for Iraq are going to be key, if they want to lock in and sustain some of the victories they saw this year.

- from Democracy Now on Friday 11/10

No Monopoly on Morality

I heard a report that polling indicated that 47% of those who voted last Tuesday were self-described moderates (sorry I can't cite the reference with a link but it certainly sounds reasonable). Assuming that is correct, I believe that the important issue in this, or any recent election, is "the vast middle." Clinton was elected because a group of Democrats formed the Democratic Leadership Council and intentionally targeted the center. This frustrated liberals, politically it worked. Clinton remained true to his centrist "leanings" (I suppose that is an oxymoron) and won reelection. Bush and the neocons seemed to have visited the center to get elected and then moved back to the right. They had the war to campaign on for reelection. With the war no longer a selling point it would appear that Rove's mojo has run out.

While we have been shown maps of red states and blue states indicating a divided electorate, I think all the recent elections point to a very balanced electorate. So many elections have been very close so the "swing" voters make the difference. This election it seems that a lot of them swung blue. That is, assuming that one can draw such conclusions. The number of issues influencing voters and the personal characteristics of candidates make deconstructing the mind of the voter nigh impossible if you ask me.

Still, I think that these are days in which we would be wise to listen to one another. If we only view issues through the lens of polarization (would that be a polarized lens? :-) ) then we will miss the point that all of us, left, right and middle, as well as religious and secular, are making ethical decisions when we vote. Jim Wallis (whose father died suddenly this week, please remember him in your prayers if you are so inclined) has said "religion has no monopoly on morality." As a theological conservative with a liberal social agenda, he is in a prime position to speak to the current political climate. He is doing just that at God's Politics Blog

One interesting statistic about Christianity in America is that liberal Christians outnumber Evangelicals, although you wouldn't know it from the influence of the "talking heads" in the media. Here is a report from the United Church News:

A Pew Research Center poll, released on Aug. 24, shows 32 percent of Americans think of themselves as “liberal or progressive Christians,” while 24 percent self-identify as evangelical Christians.
Yet, when asked to identify religious-political leanings, only 7 percent said they were part of the “religious left,” compared to 11 percent who identified as being part of the “religious right.”
Evangelicals remain more cohesive, pollsters said, because members “share core religious beliefs as well as crystalized and consistently conservative political attitudes.”

The amount of influence for any group often has more to do with agitation than with the actual size of the group. Too often there is more heat than light. Fear has also too often been the quickest way to victory. Democracy is a tricky business, there is no distinction between winning with 50% plus one and winning on a unanimous vote. All of us would be happier to have those with whom we agree have all the power, but in this country we typically only have two candidates from whom to choose, so our vote often requires compromise...or choosing the "lesser evil." Unless we were to change our representative democracy to a parliamentary system, we won't have all voices heard. This will mean that voters who choose (as I do) third parties to represent their principles will be told they are wasting their votes.

Is it possible to find common ground instead of just accepting compromises? I would hope so. What I'm suggesting is taking divisive issues and work on whatever it is that all sides can agree on. A prime example is the abortion issue. Pro-choice groups don't call for an increase in abortions and Pro-life politicians have not been able to reduce abortions or to get them outlawed. In the midst of the deadlock over this wedge issue, much could be done to change the conditions that lead to abortions. Providing financial, psychological and other types of support to pregnant women and single mothers would be a good start. Making adoption easier would be another. Aren't these issues that both sides could support?

Owning Up

Before too many news cycles carry away the buzz about recent controversies (no doubt replacing them with new ones) I want to comment on two recent apologies, those of John Kerry and Ted Haggard.

Politics and the culture war will always bring the bright light of public scrutiny, and at times integrity takes a back seat to image. This was seen in Kerry's reluctance to apologize one week and then Haggard's initial apparent lies to cover up his indiscretions the following week. In the end, each man apologized publicly. While I don't want to compare the actions for which they apologized, I am interested in the nature of the two apologies themselves. You can read the full text of Kerry's apology here and the Haggard apology here.

Kerry's apology was brief. He seemed to say enough, but he qualified the apology somewhat. While he did say that he apologized to any who were offended, that followed his saying that he was sorry to be misunderstood. His were carefully crafted words, leaving open the question about the depth of his sincerity.

Thus was not the case with Haggard's apology. He didn't go into detail about his behavior, so the apology left open the question about what he was sorry for. But while he was not clear in his admission, his mea culpa was lengthy enough to leave no doubt about the depth of his sincerity.

The vivid differences between these two men's words says something about the state of public confession and contrition today. I can't help but sense the fingerprint of Kerry's handlers on his statement, but sense a real sorrow over his behavior in Haggard's.

It strikes me that the more sincerely one says "I'm sorry," the more likely the public will forgive and perhaps ultimately forget. Personally, even though Haggard's behavior was clearly far more heinous than Kerry's poorly chosen words, I feel sadness for Haggard and yet have some suspicion of Kerry. What is odd for me is that in general I agree far more with positions espoused by Kerry than those of Haggard. In all out culture warfare, I would be expected to be with those who defend Kerry and attack Haggard. But I refuse to succumb to knee-jerk judgment. But that doesn't mean that I don't feel empathy for the pain Haggard is obviously suffering at the moment. And I guess that is the problem I have with Kerry at the moment; he just doesn't seem to be genuinely concerned about the pain he caused.

And that is my concern regarding this episode in the culture wars. I want to see more people, whether Christian Right, secular fundamentalist, or anything in between, owning up to their behavior and the ways their behaviors impact others. Is it really so hard to achieve that level of maturity in the public square? Sure, there can be dire consequences to one's image and thus influence by admitting one's mistakes. But do we no longer believe that confession is good for the soul? Or could it be that we no longer really value the souls of those who dare to be public leaders?

Color me purple

While I'd be considered "blue" in the red state/blue state definitions (truth be told I'm not even blue since I'm a member of the Massachusetts Green-Rainbow Party)I love the concept of Purple Churches as explained by Diana Butler Bass.

Into the Fray

I've been reading with great delight David Plotz's Blogging the Bible at Slate.com. I've been motivated to enter the Fray, the readers' discussion boards.

Too much of that discussion ends up being offended Christians resorting to proselytizing and raging atheists calling Bible believers stupid. Actually, it isn't a large portion of the discussion, but any bit of that is too much for my tastes.

In a discussion about actual warfare (i.e. not simply the culture wars) I posted the following:

I have always been more interested in common ground than winning the high ground. I agree that too much war is either religiously motivated or at least religion is used to serve politically or economically motivated warmongering. If we could learn to get along as people of faith, war may indeed cease to be.

I remember about 20 years ago when a group suggested that a modest proposal for peace would be for the Christians of the world to agree not to kill each other. That would be a good start, but, of course, we need to see the truths taught by other faith traditions as well and extend that peace effort.

What btD calls cynicism, I might consider open-mindedness - at least in relation to my own search for truth. Once a religious practitioner (and I am one) accepts that he/she may not have a corner on the truth a wonderful world of other truth stories (myths in the best sense as Joseph Campbell would remind us) opens up to instruct the seeker. What I continually find is how the truth in other stories points to the same truth taught in my own tradition. Often, I find that what I see in another myth is simply less obvious in my own paradigm.

Once I took Campbell seriously and decided to avoid "getting stuck in the metaphor" I was able to engage in these kind of enlightening discussions.

I'm sorry for this being out of context, but it is an example of what I am striving to accomplish with this blog. You can read the thread that my response started here.

Getting Started

It has now been six weeks since I created the template for this blog. As you can see, I have been very tentative in stepping into these waters.

The reason for my caution is that I want to stay in the tension of the middle of the current culture wars. All around the blogosphere I see fierce dichotomy. It is difficult to offer an opinion without be characterized as belonging to the opposite camp. In the culture wars the dichotomies are regligious/secular, conservative/liberal, Christian/atheist. I find myself on the continuum, not either end. I'm a liberal Christian. I have passionate beliefs about social justice that come out of my faith. I also respect the intellect that I believe God has placed in humans, so I think that science is not at odds with religion. I hold that since America is a representative democracy that I have a duty to add my voice to the public forum and a right to be heard and proportionately represented (albeit within a system where the winner takes all).

While I always want my side to prevail, I also value the system that can make that happen. Dirty tricks and "working the system" may be effective ways of advancing a cause, but they also work to destoy the system that makes it all possible. I want this blog to be a place for culture war pacifists; a place where there is a cease fire in place regarding name-calling, finger-pointing and partisanship-for-the-sake-of-partisanship.

I may not always be able to live up to my own standards, but at least that is my intent.