Democrats listen to religious voices

Here is an interesting article. The Democrats invited a number of religious leaders - including some genuine travellers in evangelical circles like Donald Miller and the head Bishop of the Assemblies of God Church, along with Orthodox Jews and others who may even disagree with Democrats on various issues to speak at a religious leaders caucus meeting at the Convention this week. The religious leaders were allowed to speak freely and that is exactly what they did, going beyond merely pointing out how religious faith informs Democratic values, but also challenging Democrats where the party's values and the faith of the speakers are at odds.

Religious leaders pointed out that the pro-abortion policies of the party and the anti-religious rhetoric by some on the left were very problematic for many people of faith who might otherwise give more serious consideration to Democrats.

I think this is a healthy conversation to be having right now (though perhaps even better in a non-election year?).

One thing that I really like about Barrack Obama is that he seems to really understand and respect the connection that must logically exist between faith/morality and legislation rather than simply dismissing religious political activists or 'value voters' as "theocrats" (as we sometimes here from secular leftists). So this invitation and discussion may be further evidence of that quality.

In reading about political life in some countries of Western Europe, one gets the impression that religious voices are totally marginalized in favor of a secular-inclusive orthodoxy that has little tolerance for religious conscience.

But, as many of the leaders in this article point out, we need not be naive as to why the Democrats have become so interested in listening to religious voices...

Time for Some Campaignin'

Back in '04 JibJab released their hilarious and famous "This Land Is your Land" election satire of the Kerry/Bush race.

Now in an EVEN MORE press-hyped election year, they are back at work. I invite you all to enjoy "Time for some Campaignin"

As is often the case with satire, in addition to being really funny, this video makes some interesting critiques of everyone involved in our campaigning process - and the process itself. So I hope you will laugh - hard - and then get to thinking as well!

Enjoy!

Two articles on politics

One is just a news brief on some pro-life protesters at the DNC this week. I thought it noteworthy because (it may just be my imagination, but) such pro-life protesters seem to make the news quite rarely. In this case, they wanted to set the world record for largest protest sign with letters that could be seen 10 miles away.

The next is a scholarly article from the New England Journal of Medicine on the Obama and McCain health care reform plans. I just listened to a very interesting interview with the author.
He seems to think that McCain's plan is extremely problematic politically because of the unpopular attempt to shift from employer-funded to private healthcare plans. On the other hand, Obama's plan has the unpopular (potential) mandate which would presumably include some penalties for those who do not sign on (and penalties are not something candidates are eager to discuss) on the one and and, perhaps more importantly, it would require huge increases in spending from an already inflated government enmeshed in deficit spending.

My prediction: Neither one of these plans has a chance of getting through Congress. So it is likely that the candidates will attempt to make them major selling points during the debates.

Studies on TV and sexual content

I just ran across this post on a compilation of several studies from various 'pro-family' organizations on the amount of sexual content on network TV and also the ratios of favorable depictions of traditional sexual behavior within a marriage vs. favorable depictions of extra-marital or deviant sexual behavior.

Here is one quote: "By the time a child reaches age 8 he or she will have seen 58,400 scenes of sexual content"

Honestly, I begin to wonder if one can even be a responsible Christian parent AND allow children to watch television as the sexual envelope is pushed further and further and further. This is something that distresses me a great deal because it is so prevelant, the thought of trying to 'turn back the tide' of sexual images that our pop culture has immersed us in is rather overwhelming to me.

Read the full article here.

Varying views on the demonic

A few weeks ago I wrote a post proposing the need for the United Methodist Church (and other 'mainline' historic Protestant churches in Western cultures) to take seriously the challenge posed by the existence of the unseen spiritual forces and beings that are wicked and set against the purposes of God. I also proposed, more specifically, that the UMC could provide special resources for teaching on the demonic and training some clergy to function as designated exorcists within the Annual Conferences. Not too much conversation was generated.

But, it turns out that I'm not the only person in the UMC at least thinking about these issues. Here is a fascinating article from the UMPortal on the various views of the existance and/or meaning of Satan among United Methodists. The article points to the same incident that I mentioned from the recent General Conference when an African delegate was scolded by the presiding bishop for saying that the devil inspired certain behaviors as illustrating the real divide - and lack of understanding - that exists along cultural lines within the Church. As one Korean doctoral student is quoted as saying: "The only Christians who don’t believe in demons are Western scholars" (such disbelief therefore lacks any sort of Catholicity to undergird it - and one reason I DO believe in the demonic is that I believe in the Holy Catholic Church).

The article also points to a growing openess to the idea of a spiritual being called Satan among younger Americans - among postmoderns in particular, who often have a greater openess to the trans-rational and mystical in general than do our Modernistic parents and grandparents.

There are two particular quotes in the article I would like to respond to.

First one pastor says that: “I have a problem with understanding Satan as a separate individual, because ascribing powers to that individual makes it seem to be a separate god, I believe Satan is really more of an analogy concerning evil than a separate cause of evil.”

Now I think that this is a legitimate concern. We run the risk of dualism, of implicitly asserting that there are two equal and opposite gods: one good and one evil. But the Catholic/Ecumenical Christian tradition teaches that Satan is a creature: a fallen creature, much like us and - like us - he/it is a fallen creature who has used his influence (probably both intentionally and incidentally) to affect other creatures in ways that distort the will of God. I believe, C.S. Lewis' discussion of the reality of Satan in Mere Christianity is one of the best Rational accounts that I have read on the subject - and one that pays attention to just this problem of potential dualism.

The second quote comes from a Presbyterian seminary professor: At the heart of one’s view of the devil is the question of how to interpret and apply ancient Scripture in modern life. Most mainline Protestants don’t take Scripture literally, and so are reluctant to embrace the idea of Satan as a personal being, says Susan Garrett, professor of New Testament at Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary.

She is quite correct that Biblical interpretation is near the heart of this issue. However, the dichotomy she then constructs: "mainliners don't take scripture literally" (and presumably, Fundamentalists do) is really...well, an oversimplification at best. This is one of those dichotomies that otherwise intelligent and thoughtful people go around spewing constantly, when, if we stopped to think about it for just a few seconds, we would see the obvious need for a more nuanced approach. Do you know many mainliners that do NOT take the story of David and Bathsheba literally? What about the accounts of Jesus' travelling around or of his being flogged? On the flip side, do you know many fundamentalists that take the parables of Christ 'literally'? What about the dreams of Daniel?

This reductionist split between "group A that does not take the Bible literally" and "group B that does take it so" is simply one more hindrance to deep and thoughtful insight as well as genuine mutual understanding within the Church. And I hear it from both traditionalist and revisionist Christians - much to my dismay. The truth is of course that all of us take the Bible 'literally' (that word itself has some problems that I'll not get into here) sometimes and all of us take it 'non-literally' sometimes. The key is determining when each way of reading is the appropriate way for the particular text at hand. It is here that I fear we tend to simply be uncritical followers of cultural (or sub-cultural) assumptions (whatever they may be).