The Lutheran Zephyr 2.0

"Judeo-Christian"?

I'm exploring the term "Judeo-Christian."  Any suggested reading for background and history of this term?

In recent years I have found this term to be problematic.  What exactly is "Judeo-Christian?"  Who uses the term?  What does use of this term mean in the American context for a diverse nation based on laws and freedoms, not ethnic/religious identity?

A few times on this blog I have wondered if use of this term wasn't a form of religious arrogance on the part of Christians:

Do Jews ever speak of "Judeo-Christian" values?  I've only ever hear Christians (conservative Christians, at that) use this term, and I wonder if it represents an attempt by majority Christians to claim a broader mandate for their narrow social agenda.  By using the term "Judeo-Christian" conservative Christians imply that their social agenda is in keeping with the Jewish people today and with the Jewish tradition spanning several thousand years.  This seems terribly arrogant, if not worse.

- quoted from the bottom of this post about an effort by conservative Christians to elect "godly Christians" to office, envisioning "an American society that affirms and practices Judeo-Christian values rooted in biblical authority"

For example: it is usually Christians, speaking of a "Judeo-Christian" heritage, who argue for placing the Ten Commandments in public parks or in courthouses.  Rarely have I heard Jews make such arguments.  If it is largely Christians who use the term "Judeo-Christian," does the term truly speak to things shared between Jews and Christians?  And worse, if this term is overwhelmingly used by Christians and not Jews, is its use in any way antisemitic?  Insensitive or arrogant, at least ...

From what I can tell this term surfaced a few times in the early 20th century, but didn't become somewhat common until the 1940s, and has been used extensively by Christian conservatives since their political rise starting in the late 1970s.  For one Jewish perspective on this term (and a little bit of history, too), read this: Regarding the Term "Judeo-Christian"

And just on Wednesday I heard another concern about the term "Judeo-Christian" - that within the Abrahamic faiths the term places Judaism and Christianity together in a union, over and against Islam.  From a discussion about Barack Obama's visit to Cairo on public radio:

I find it very disturbing when I hear people, especially in the West - I also hear this in the Arab and Muslim world, but more often in the West - [when] I hear people talking of the "Judeo-Christian heritage."  Look, the Jews lived in Islam and have contributed to Islamic civilization for centuries! And then you get people talking about "the Judeo-Christian," as if, you know, the Jews and the Christians have always been a separate civilization and culture, separate from the civilization and culture of Muslims.

I think that one of the interesting things that could come out of the visit of Barack Obama to the Middle East is perhaps to trigger a debate among Muslims and among Christians and Jews in the West as to what role the Jews have played in Muslim culture and civilization, as opposed to just talking about Muslims over the last several decades being anti-Jewish.

Look, the West does not have to give Muslims lessons about being anti-Jewish.  Muslims didn't have the Holocaust, Muslims didn't have the pogroms that we saw in Europe in the 18th and 19th century.  The anti-Jewish attitude that we have seen, and it does exist, and the anti-Jewish propoganda does exist in the Muslim world, is in large part related to what Obama is now trying to have people debate, a solution to the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict.

- Abderrahim Foukara, Washington burea chief of Al Jazeera Arabic, on The Diane Rhem Show, Wednesday, June 3 - "President Obama in Cairo"

I don't deny that some things are shared between Christians and Jews, and that there may be an appropriate, narrow usage for the term "Judeo-Christian."  However, I find its wide application to things political, cultural, historical, and moral - interestingly enough, I rarely find the term used by theologians - to be problematic for Jewish-Christian relations and, indeed, for the ways we understand the relationship between the Abrahamic religions and their cultures.

Any thoughts?

Political, but not Partisan

When I returned to blogging a few months after my ordination I vowed to stay away from politics, rather wanting to focus this blog on church, theology, and other matters.  Yet in the past few days I have found myself consumed with the situation surrounding Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court, both on this blog and on Facebook.  As Scott asked on an earlier blogpost, "Chris - thought you were done with politics?"  Yes and no.  

Many people speak of being "Spiritual but not religious."  Perhaps some of my posts on this blog could be considered "Political but not partisan."

That is, I have given up blatantly partisan writing ... in fact, I have deleted most of my partisan Vote-for-Bob type older posts, and you will not see such posts in the future.  I no longer write on this blog in direct advocacy for politicians or their parties.  However, there are other issues that are "political" in nature that call my attention and on which I do and will continue to employ a few pixels here.

One such issue is the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor ... actually, I'm less interested in her particular nomination than I am concerned by the tone of the discussion that has surrounded it.  Both because of some things she has said in the past, and also because of her historic nomination as the first Latina named to the Supreme Court, issues of race, ethnicity, culture, and identity have returned to the national discussion, and to me these are issues of central importance to our nation and its understanding of justice ... and are issues to which our Christian faith speaks.  So in my blogpost about Sotomayor's comments (and in my Facebook postings) I have tried to go deeper into the issue ... reading and reflecting on her whole speech (rather than responding to one line taken out of context), and thinking about what it means to be a multicultural nation dedicated to justice for all.

(FYI, four years ago I wrote about the nomination of then-Judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court, and the concerns about his religious faith that surfaced at that time - Our Discomfort with Faith.  Then, as with the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor now, I have tried to look at some of the issues that the nomination brings to the national scene, not necessarily the nomination itself.  By the way, I was generally supportive of the Roberts nomination, as I am of the Sotomayor nomation.)

I know that there are general partisan camps into which many of my perspectives fall, and that many reading this blog will disagree with my perspectives on these "political but not partisan" issues.  That's fine.  There is nothing wrong with having different perspectives and ideas on these matters.  Please leave a comment, and we can have a good conversation.  But my goal is not partisan advocacy ... rather, it is to offer reflections on important issues in what I hope is a strong yet thoughtful and honest manner.

Peace to you.

Sonia Sotomayor's 2001 speech

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Believe it or not, that line was part of a much longer speech.  The full text of Judge Sonia Sotomayor's controversial speech can be found here, via the New York Times: Lecture: "A Latina Judge's Voice".  Too bad that little attention has been given by the media to the speech, but that instead they have focused only on a single isolated line from it.

Please read the full text to see that this quote, while perhaps overstated, is given at the end of a long speech describing the positive impact that a diverse judiciary has on cases affecting minority groups. In this speech Judge Sotomayor points out that the presence of cultural minorities and women on the bench (and in the legal profession in general) has resulted in greater justice for women and minorities ... ie, "better conclusions" (to use her words), better rulings for minorities than have been historically handed down by courts comprised exclusively of white males.

Read the whole speech, and judge for yourself.

Peace.

"Heritage Shapes Judge's Perspective"

Much is being made of Judge Sonia Sotomayor's ethnicity and her ocassional comments about the role that her family background and cultural heritage play in her judicial practice.  Heritage Shapes Judge's Perspective was the headline for a front-page piece about Judge Sotomayor in Wednesday's Washington Post, under a smaller topical heading entitled, Ethnic Identity.  The article highlights her ethnic heritage and the influence it has had on her law career.

Question: who is the last white male to be nominated to the Supreme Court to have similar headlines written about his ethnic heritage, to have questions raised about the way his family or cultural background shape his judicial perspectives?  We don't question the ethnic or family influences of a white male, but why not?   Are we to believe that a white, male judge is not influenced by his upbringing in suburbia or private schools, that the manner in which he looks at the law and court cases is not influenced by his experience of being raised by parents who were college educated and well connected?  Of course not!  

Surely the cultural experience of being a white, upper class male shapes how someone looks at the law, just as the cultural experience of being a working class urban latina shapes how Judge Sotomayor might look at the law.  But our society is confortable with the white male middle/upper class perspective on law and governance, and anxious perhaps about the perspective a Bronx-raised Latina might offer to the Court and our nation.  Shame on us.

A Justice Sotomayor might (at times) see in the law in a different light than does a white male justice from a priveleged background.  What makes some anxious (perhaps subconsciously) is that in some way Sotomayor may chip away at the white male hegemony over legal interpretation ... that she may contribute in some way to a fresh and legitimate way of looking at the law, a way that appreciates that the law must serve the interests of Americans in the suburbs and the city, that the law must serve the daughters of recent immigrants just as much as it serves the daughters of the American Revolution.  Messing with the status quo is never easy.  But by naming someone whose life story is significantly different than the majority of Justices in the Court's history President Obama is doing precisely that - messing with the status quo.  Good for him.

A legal system that is by the people and for the people can and should be interepreted by a panel of Justices that looks something like the diverse people it serves.  Assuming that the members of that panel are highly qualified - and there is no doubt that Judge Sotomayor is qualified - we should be excited, not anxious, by the increasing diversity of the Court that serves "We the People."

Proud to be a Patriot

(In honor of Memorial Day, Proud to be a Patriot, republished from May 27, 2006)

If there is one thing we liberal-leaning Christians do worse than evangelism, it's patriotism.  Most of us left-ish Christians think it is our job, in the tradition of the prophets, Jesus, and martyrs of every age, to speak truth to power and make the revolutionary call for the mighty to be thrown down, the powerful to be toppled, and the lowly to be lifted up.  To this end, we revel in identifying the multiple specks in the eyes of George W. Bush, the Republicans, and their Conservative Christians allies.  We despise them and their symbols, making mockeries of their campaign logos and disavowing everything they embrace.

One problem, however.  They embrace the flag.  It is on the lapel of every Republican lawmaker.  It is in the churches, homes, and on the cars of Conservative Christians.  The flag stands for everything American, and the Conservatives claim to have a firm grip on it. 

Of course, the flag is for all Americans, but the Conservatives have co-opted the flag (not unlike the way they have co-opted the Bible) and they have largely succeeded in turning it into a partisan emblem.  But they have done this with our help.  Our liberal ability to be suspicious and critical of the government has led many of us to suffer from an inability to profess proper patriotism.  We throw out the baby with the bathwater, confusing what is patriotic with what is partisan.  The flag is NOT an emblem of war-wanting, empire-seeking, tax-cutting, rich-loving, first-amendment-reducing, gas-guzzling, Texas-swagger, power-hungry Republicans. Shame on them for stealing the flag, and shame on us for letting them.

The flag represents our country, its Constitution, its people.  This flag flies over Americans of all types - rich and poor, black and brown and white, male and female, non-Christian and Christian, law-abiding and criminal, legal citizen and illegal immigrant, and so many more.  This flag points to the freedoms and priveledges emblazoned in the oldest written national constitution in the world - a document that restrains the reach government so that people might live and work and speak and gather and worship and innovate and seek opportunity free from government meddling (try doing that in most other countries).  Wrapped up in this flag is a story of freedom unfolding, a story that continues today.

That is why I am proud to be an American.  I fly the flag on most national holidays (see section six of the flag code - though I don't consider Christmas and Easter to be times for flag-waving - see post on God & Country and a follow-up) and I vote in nearly every election.  As a Lutheran, I recognize the God-blessed vocation of government to restrain evil and provide order to society, and I am thankful for those who serve in goverment. 

On this Memorial Day weekend I am thankful for those men and women who serve in the armed forces, and especially for those who gave their lives serving.  They put their life on the line for the sake of the flag and all it represents, and for that reason I fly the flag in their honor and memory.

Religious Clergy and Legal Weddings in Virginia

In preparation for conducting my first weddings as a pastor I'm reading the Code of Virginia (Title 20 [Domestic Relations] Chapter 2 [Marriage Generally]) and learning some interesting tidbits, especially in regards to the role that ordained clergy play in performing weddings:

• Any "regularly appointed pastor in his denomination" may perform wedding ceremonies in Virginia (though this leaves open the question about retired pastors or other pastors who are not "regularly appointed.") (see § 20-23)
• The law specifies no fee for clergy to obtain the order for authorization to perform wedding ceremonies, but in Arlington County (at least) there is a one-time $29 fee.  
• People whose religious communities do not have clergy can also be married within their religious communities, but that'll cost someone from their community a $500 bond with surety (see § 20-26)
• Non ordained persons may also perform wedding ceremonies, given that they receive an order from a judge and put up a $500 bond (with or without surety) (see § 20-25)
• Officiants are not allowed to charge more than $50 for the ceremony itself (see § 20-27)

As some of you know, I have some serious concerns about church/state matters, worried that both get compromised when they get too close to each other.  But in conducting a wedding as an ordained pastor I simultaneously proclaim the blessings of the church and execute the court-issued marriage license in the same liturgy, making the marriage legal in the eyes of the state.  I am uneasy about this, and would much prefer a system wherein couples first get married by an official of the courts and then later bring their legal marriage to the church for its blessing (which, I understand, is how weddings are performed in much of the world).

But that's not our system, and I'm not going to buck it.  For a variety of practical and pastoral reasons I'm not going to insist that couples get married before a judge prior to a church wedding, nor will I invite a judge or bonded non-ordained person to conduct the "legal" part of the marriage ceremony within the church service.  Yes, I've considered these options, but I've concluded that it is not worth it.  Instead, as I suggested in the past in response to this dilemma, through introductory remarks and/or the homily I will make clear that marriage is both a legal and a sacred bond, with both legal and sacred responsibilities and privileges (which resonates deeply with our Lutheran understanding of the Two Kingdoms ...).

The wedding day is not just about love and sentiments, or even the Spirit that has brought the couple together.  Rather, the wedding is an opportunity for couples to make promises that are legally binding and held in sacred trust, to hear the Word of God in Law and Gospel, and to receive the blessings of God and support of the gathered community.  It is a beautiful yet multifaceted occasion requiring careful attention be given to its diverse aspects ... I hope and pray that I am up to the task!

On choosing a Supreme Court nominee

Ever since Justice David Souter announced his intention to retire at the end of the current term of the Supreme Court, speculation has been rampant that President Obama will nominate a jurist who is a woman, an African-American, or a Latino in an attempt to bring greater gender and/or cultural diversity to the Supreme Court.

And oh, how that speculation has rankled so many.

"Let's be color-blind," opponents say.  

"The nominee should be chosen on the basis of their legal record, not their cultural background or gender."  

"This is reverse discrimination."  

It is as if large sectors of the white male community are outraged that President Obama would seek to place someone on the Court who is qualified for the job but who is neither white nor male (a Court which, including Justice Souter, currently has seven white males among its nine members).

But just this week we've been reminded that our past is colored by significant wrongs and evils in which we were not blind to issues of race, religion, or gender.  John Demjanjuk, an 89 year-old retired autoworker from Ohio, is now in jail in Germany awaiting trial for war crimes allegedly perpetrated during World War II.  It wasn't that long ago that people were thrown into furnaces because of their religion, or denied jobs because of their gender, or denied the right to vote or marry whoever they chose or live where they desired because of their race.  It wasn't that long ago.

Ours is a nation of laws, and that is why we need the best legal scholars sitting in the bench.  However, legal scholarship is not the only appropriate criteria for nominating somoene to the bench, for our nation's laws have been written, interpreted, and applied in the real world, one in which extra-legal biases exist and thrive.  We need people of diverse extra-legal experience - from professional experience to cultural backgrounds to gender - on the Court.  For laws are neither written nor interpreted in a vacuum, nor do they exist solely for the sake of scholarly debate.  Rather, our nations laws and its Constitution serve not their own interests but the interest of those who are named in the opening words of our nation's Constitution: We the People.

And so, if in choosing a Supreme Court nominee President Obama has a preferrential option for someone who is experienced at law and intellectually qualified, and who is also a member of a group that has historically been marginalized, that's fine with me.  For our nation's laws must serve the interests of all who pledge allegience to the flag, of all who live in this land, of all who constitute We the People.

Today is the National Day of Prayer

My three frequent readers - or what's left of them after I've all but fallen off the blogging cliff - know that I have some severe concerns about the relationship of church and state, particularly when the two get too close to each other.  And so since today is the National Day of Prayer (established in 1952 and coordinated by a task force currently chaired by Shirley Dobson), I offer links to past posts expressing concerns about the blending of faith and patriotism, and outlining what I feel to be appropriate ways Christians can engage political and civic matters.

• Praising God, Honoring Country

One of my favorite posts ... an outline for how Christians can and should praise God and honor country, while recognizing the differences between and maintaining the integrity of both faithful praise and patriotic honor.  A follow-up: More Thoughts on God & Country.

• Why I Don't Like the National Day of Prayer

A little piece outlining my concerns about this very day.  Written in 2008.

• I frequently and severely criticized Barack Obama on church/state matters when he was running for office, including:

Matthew 25 Network's Obamessiah Complex

Faith, Politics, and Obama

"Barack Obama is a Strong, Christian Family Man"

• Too Much Religion in this Race

This post commends Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee for trying to turn the focus from religion to politics in the GOP Presidential primary.

• Luther on Government in Psalm 82

Less focused on the church/state issue, this post looks at Luther's writings on Psalm 82 in search of a "Lutheran" political philosophy.

Consumer Capitalism and Christian Ministry

Tony Jones makes a comment today about Christian publishing and marketing that didn't set right with me.  Over at his The New Christians blog he writes:

For a decade, Doug [Pagit] and I have been speakers at the National Youth Workers Convention and the National Pastors Convention, which primarily serve as platforms for the authors of Youth Speciaties and Zondervan, respectively.  Our initial solo effort was the once-in-a-lifetime book tour, the Church Basement Roadshow.

What bugged me was his description of these massive ministry training events as "platforms" to sell books.  When I receive the emails and brochures, these events are billed as places to learn about ministry, be renewed in faith, and share ideas with other church leaders.  Yet here I read that these events "primarily serve as platforms" to sell books.  Are these events nothing more than elaborate sales shticks?  Am I being hoodwinked?

Similarly, I was critical of the sales/marketing aspect of Tony's Church Basement Roadshow in a post over the summer.  I wrote back then:

And I'm impressed, too, by the entrepreneurial spirit of these guys.  Yes, this show is part revival, but it is also part book tour.  There's a $10 cover charge for each show.  There are various institutional sponsors undoubtedly providing financial and/or in-kind support.  And surely while you're at the show you'll be encouraged to purchase a few books.  As a former sales representative for Augsburg Fortress Publishers - and as one who took a bookstore display on the road to synod assemblies and church conventions - I'm impressed by their imaginative marketing.

But I remain more baffled than awed.  A pay-to-enter "revival" is much less a revival than a marketing enterprise calling consumers rather than converts, pocketbooks rather than pious souls. 

I don't begrudge people the opportunity to produce a Christian book and get paid to do it (see 1 Corinthians 9:14, Luke 10:7), or to travel around to promote the book . . . but what's the driver here - Gospel proclamation or bottom-line profits?  These goals - Proclamation and Profit - are not mutually exclusive, but they do create a tension and can easily be at odds.  As I commented on Tony's blog today:

Should the publisher produce materials that will lose money but further the Gospel? Should the publisher sell materials that appeal to a broad audience - generating revenue for the publishing ministry - but which might be thin on Gospel? And most importantly, we can probably agree that faithfulness does not directly correlate to profitability. The marketplace is not the best determinant of what is faithful and beneficial to the church, yet publishers must make money to keep their doors open. It's an imperfect and very difficult business to be in. These questions are posed simply to highlight potential pitfalls and show how careful we must be when connecting ministry with consumer capitalism. That's all.

The intersection of Christian faith and capitalist enterprise is a difficult one to navigate, for sure.  I'm generally uncomfortable with the glitz and shine and consumer appeal of the largest church publishers (Group, Zondervan, Youth Specialties, etc.), fearing that they often cross a line I'd rather not cross (while simultaneously doing good work, as I highlighted in my comments on Tony's blog.  I'm a Lutheran, after all - I can see the sinner/saint in most things!). 

What do you think?  Are the best business decisions necessarily the best ministry decisions?  Should a Christian publisher risk going out of business for the sake of the Gospel?  Perhaps what I'm really asking is, to what extent should Christians engage the patterns and practices of capitalism in carrying out their Gospel ministry?  Do we sometimes sacrifice the Gospel so that we can keep our doors open and our bank accounts filled to a certain level?  Does institutional preservation become a greater goal than growing the Kingdom?

Of course, all of these questions could be asked of congregations themselves . . . how do we use our resources?  In what ways do we seek to "market" ourselves to the community?  And in doing so, do we comprimise on the Gospel so that we can get butts in the pews and money in the offering plates?

A seminary professor said to me once, "You know, if we all truly followed Jesus, we'd end up on a cross like his."  Of course, it's in our nature to avoid the cross at all costs . . .

No Fan of Homeowners Associations

I've lived in communities ruthlessly controlled by Homeowners Associations (HOAs) for the past few years . . . and I can't move out soon enough.  Their silly rules barring certain color paints, the display of political yard signs, or the presence of trucks with lettering and ladders - ie, blue-collar contractors - are unfair and contradict our nation's greatest intentions and values (yes, I've lived in communities with these rules).  In fact, many HOAs barred the flying of flags - yes, including American flags!  Congress thankfully intervened on that score.

Today's Washington Post features an article about a man who painted a Hindu religious symbol on his driveway for his son's coming-of-age celebration.  The HOA wants him to remove this painting, even though the man's immediate neighbors couldn't care less about the artwork (in fact, it's quite beautiful).  Somehow, I doubt that the HOA would be as concerned with a painting of a creche at Christmas time or cross at Good Friday . . .

Either way, I believe that HOA's should be minimalist in their rules and regulations - concerning trash, presence of junk on front lawns, noise levels, etc..  But regulating vehicles, speech (religious or political or any other kind), and paint color is a bit rediculous, and unAmerican, if you ask me.