The Lutheran Zephyr

Faith, Politics, and Obama

I could write a missive about this issue, but I won't (I'm too busy preparing for my Approval for Ordination interview, which will take place on Friday).  But during one of my breaks from interview preparation I stumbled upon this disturbing piece of literature from the Obama campaign (hat tip to Blog from the Capital for the link):

Oh, boy do I get worried when politicians use their faith to promote their politics - whether from the Republicans or the Democrats, this kind of comingling of faith and politics bothers me.  I care not that Obama is a "Committed Christian" and more that he could be a good President.  And last I checked, being a "committed Christian" is not in the job description for the Presidency of the United States.

Much more to say on this issue, but I've got to run.

** UPDATE **

The Trail, The Washington Post's political blog, examined this flyer in Obama Emphasizes Faith in Kentucky a few hours after my post.  Check it out, and add The Trail to your feedreader.

Why I Don't Like The National Day of Prayer

My blogging friend Eric, who blogs over at The Heart of a Pastor, disagreed with - took offense at? - my characterization of the National Day of Prayer as "an ill-advised blend of patriotism and religion" and an event "merging patriotism with the practice of faith" in last Thursday's post, National Day of Prayer, or Ascension Day?   He writes, "having a day when people across denominational lines can gather together to pray is a good thing . . . The NDOP is a time to pray...plain and simple."

I do not disagree that having a day when people across denominational lines can gather together to pray is a good thing.  Yet one of the reasons I do not like the National Day of Prayer is the political dynamic that takes place, particularly at celebrations of the National Day of Prayer in state capitals and in Washington.  It often becomes a pious photo-op for politicians, a chance for political and religious leaders alike to claim some faith-based agenda for our nation, and to speak of the "Judeo-Christian heritage" of our nation. 

[Question: how often do Jewish leaders speak of the "Judeo-Christian heritage"?  "Judeo-Christian heritage" seems like a phrase that Christians use to sound inclusive while really attempting to claim a religious, moral, and historical priority in the retelling of the American Story.  But I digress . . .]

As I mentioned in a past post (see #5), I support setting aside special times to pray for our nation.  Prayer is good.  Pious political posturing?  Not so good.  (Don't ask me - ask Jesus).  Perhaps my friend Eric and others who participated in National Day of Prayer events did so with faith, integrity, and humility.  Perhaps such events took place without the political posturing of elected officials.  I certainly hope so.  But plenty of such events are tainted by politics and blurred by a civic piety that unites God and country in an unholy alliance.

Beyond the political posturing that takes place, the whole ethos surrounding the National Day of Prayer is troublesome to me.  Check out their website.  It has a banner that changes graphics, one of which reads:

Prayer!  America's strength and shield.  The Lord is my strength and shield; my heart trusts in Him, and I am helped.  Psalm 28:7"

I disagree with the fundamental premise of this statement.  Prayer is the strength and shield of people of faith.  The strength of our nation lies in its Constitution, its laws, and its (socially, culturally, politically, and religiously diverse) people.  We are not a country based on a prayer or a shared religion, ethnicity, culture, or common heritage (in contrast to many "old world" countries which are/were much more monolithic).  We are a country where freedom and laws, not bloodlines and heritage, define our common purpose and identity.  When we try to inject explicitly Christian lingo into our national identity, we misrepresent what this country is about (and we risk diluting our Christian faith, as well).

This National Day of Prayer (1952), along with the National Prayer Breakfast (1953) and the insertion of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance (1954), are all products of a political era in which America was locked in a Cold War with the "godless" communism of the Soviet Union.  As we defined ourselves over and against the Soviets, we wrapped ourselves in a civic-minded piety in which God was on "our side" against a "godless" enemy.  I described the problem with this kind of piety in a previous post, Christian Prayers in Government Chambers: Music to the Devil's Ears:

And so from the lips of government power brokers this God of Country is proclaimed, a God that loves freedom and democracy - and market economies? - and which loyally stands at the side of our government. It is a God that nary challenges the Powers-That-Be, much unlike the God active in the tradition of the Hebrew prophets, Jesus, the martyrs, or advocates of social change over the centuries.  No, this is the God of Guantanamo and Abu-Ghraib, and if belief in this God of Country gains currency in our society it poses a significant threat to the teachings of our churches and the consciouses of our citizens.

More to write, perhaps, but it's getting late and my mind is going to mush.  G'night.

Rev. Wright at the National Press Club

I'm getting fed up with the racism that is flying over the airwaves and online in response to The Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright's sermons and comments in recent days.  I strongly, passionately, and vehemently encourage anyone who has questions about Rev. Wright to read this transcript (via Fox News) of his presentation and Q&A at the National Press Club.  I found very little in his remarks to be objectionable.

And as for Obama . . . nice move, bucko, throwing your pastor under the bus.  Whatever happened to your different kind of politics?  Argh.

The Non-English Exodus from Prince William County

"The resolution is clearly working," said Corey A. Stewart (R-At Large), chairman of the Prince William Board of County Supervisors. "It is driving down the non-English-speaking portion of the schools and saving us millions of dollars. They're going to other jurisdictions and costing them money."

From N.Va. Hit with Cost of School Migration: Pr. William Policies Drive Immigrants to Inner Suburbs, in today's Washington Post

Chairman Stewart has been leading the charge against illegal immigrants in Prince William County, claiming that their presence adds to the cost of county services, reduces property value, and leads to increased crime.  Under new the resolution, during routine traffic stops or investigations police officers now check the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally. 

(Since I am white and middle class, I doubt my immigration status would be checked during a traffic stop.  My dark-skin, dark-hair Ecuadorian neighbors, on the other hand, would be the target of such a check.  Can we say "racial profiling"?)

Yet Chairman Stewart's language in the above quote is telling.  "The resolution is clearly working . . . it is driving down the non-English-speaking [population]."  Note that he did not boast that the resolution is driving down the illegal immigrant population, or that crime is down due to enforcement of the new resolution.  No.  He is clearly pleased that the "non-English-speaking" population has left his county.

Of course, many of those non-English speakers are US citizens - children born in this country to immigrants (legal or illegal), and legal resident or citizen Latino families who find the cultural climate in Prince William County to be unwelcoming.  But Chairman Stewart is not concerned about driving tax-paying immigrants and citizens from his county.  No, his goal is to "drive down the non-English-speaking" population - no matter their legal status.

Can't we call this what it is - racism?  How does this guy get off saying such things while remaining in public office? 

I would love to see - and be part of - a mass civil disobedience demonstration in Prince William County in which a culturally diverse crowd of hundreds of people block intersections or access to the county government building and, upon arrest, all demand that their immigration status is checked.  Flood their systems.  Throw their racism right back at them.

In a nation of immigrants - where the freedoms of the Constitution, not the cultural hegemony of any one group, define our great nation - how can we do this? 

33 died. Only 32 remembered.

Today is the anniversary of the Virginia Tech shooting, and folks here in Virginia and throughout the country are keeping the Virginia Tech community, along with the families of those killed, in their thoughts and prayers.  State flags are flying at half staff.  At my church preschool today, about a dozen people wore Virginia Tech shirts or pins. 

We remember the 32 victims of the shooting.

But 33 people died that day.  Victim number 33, of course, was the shooter, Seung Hui Cho.  Nonetheless, at memorial displays and commemorative bell ringings, the count will stop at 32.  In popular perception, there were 32 victims that day.

But it is not enough to say that 32 were victims of violence, for victim number 33 also died of a gunshot wound.  There are 33 families mourning the loss of loved ones today.  33 body bags were needed on the Blacksburg campus last April.  33 people died.

Ignoring Seung Hui Cho risks ignoring the root causes of the tragedy in the first place - poorly diagnosed and treated mental illness, and easy access to guns.  We make him into a monster, not a victim, and thus his death is not to be grieved but to be received with gratitude and relief.  When we ignore Seung Hui Cho, we ignore why 32 others died and we diminish their memory.

On this day let us remember in prayer all those who died, and ask God to bring comfort and hope to their families.

Let the bells ring.  33 times.

Why the "Compassion Forum" Bothers Me

I don't have cable television - and thus no CNN - and I did not see the "Compassion Forum" on Sunday night, the discussion about faith and compassion with Senators Clinton and Obama.  But I've read some of the news coverage, including a skim through the transcript. 

The whole concept just bothers me.  I'd gladly ask questions of faith when my synod elects a bishop or when my congregation votes to call a pastor.  But why ask questions about faith to the person who wants to live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?  I just don't see the point.

Kudos to John McCain - the Republican - for not showing up.  For once, we have the Democrats pandering to religious leaders while the Republican shies away from speaking of faith.

Clinton and Obama may each have strong faith.  They may also have passionate perspectives on the Designated Hitter.  They might also have opinions about whether Bob Dylan's performance at the Newport Folk Festival was an unfortunate sellout or a siesmic shift in the history of rock and roll.  But these are not the kind of issues that will come across the President's desk in the Oval Office.

Here's one question posed to Senator Clinton:

BROWN: Let's talk about your faith. And we warned people the questions tonight would be pretty personal. So I want to ask you. You said in an interview last year that you believe in the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. And you have actually felt the presence of the Holy Spirit on many occasions.  Share some of those occasions with us.

Huh?  How is this relevant to the Presidency, to leading our military in war or our government in providing for the common good?

And here's a question posed to Senator Obama:

MEACHAM: Senator, do you believe that God intervenes in history and rewards or punishes people or nations in real time for their behavior?

Again . . . huh?  How is this relevant?  We're electing a Commander in Chief, not a Pastor in Chief.  Give me a break.

To be fair, many of the questions were not explicitly about theology, faith or the Bible, but about social justice, freedom, and hunger, and other issues related to compassion around the world.  These (otherwise valid) questions could just as easily been asked in a normal presidential debate, but in the context of a discussion of faith (on the campus of a Christian college) these questions took on a greater hue of morality and faith. 

But again I ask the question - why?  Why do we need to ask faith questions of our political leaders?

Some will say that this kind of forum helps us understand who the person is, how she or he makes decisions, and what kind of leader they will be in the White House.  Perhaps this will help voters of faith relate to the candidates.  After all, voters in 2000 said that they found George W. Bush more likable than Gore.  Likability, relatability are important qualities these days in politics.  Whole lot of good that criterion did us.

When McCain, Clinton or Obama is sworn in next January as President of the United States, they will pledge to uphold not religious truth or faithful doctrine, but the Constitution and laws of this land.  Please, let us quiz our candidates on matters of law and governance, politics and policy, not faith and theology.

Perhaps in a few days I'll respond to the "substance" of the forum, to the candidate's answers and what their answers reveal about their personal faith and their politics.  And too, perhaps, I'll look at what impact having such a conversation has on political discourse and the separation of church and state. 

But . . . what if we had an atheist candidate?  If religious conversation is now a pre-requisite for becoming president we've set up an unconstitutional, uneasy, unnecessary, and unhelpful expectations for candidates to speak in terms of faith while they're running for the presidency.  That is, the Compassion Forum represents a kind of religious litmus test.  This can't be good for democracy and the first amendment.

And I also fear that this forum is bad for religion - for the political pandering it inevitably seeks, the religious lip service it inevitably generates, and the narrow presentation of faith that such a forum inevitably offers.  Is this good for anyone?

I pray and I vote, and I'm passionate about both.  But when I vote, I don't care if my president prays.  That is not why I elect a president.  Rather, when I vote I care that she or he can do a good job carrying out the tasks of the presidency.  And nowhere do I see faith or religion in the president's job description. 

Forums such as the "Compassion Forum" risk blurring the lines between religion and politics, and hurting both in the process.  And that bothers me.

My Letter to the Editor

When I lived in Philadelphia, it was a virtual habit for me to write letters to the editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer.  After eight months living in Washington, DC, my first letter to the editor of the Washington Post has been published.  In response to Left Out in Lacrosse - a piece about suburban Maryland schools that don't offer Lacrosse programs - I wrote my letter, Children Who Really Miss Out.  It was published today.

Clinton's Troubling Politics of Choosing Church

"We have a choice when it comes to our pastors and the churches we attend."
- Senator Hillary Clinton, in response to a reporter's question about Barack Obama, his church, and its fiery former pastor, The Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, Jr. (from AP article Clinton Would Have Left Obama's Pastor)

These words sent a chill down my spine.

We have a choice when it comes to our pastors and the churches we attend.

It wasn't enough for Senator Clinton to critique Pastor Wright.  It wasn't enough for Senator Clinton to critique Pastor Wright's role as an unpaid adviser to Senator Obama's presidential campaign.  No.  These words are much more than that.  These words go to the core of religious and political identity, and suggest that religious identity should answer to political identity.

We have a choice when it comes to our pastors and the churches we attend.

With these words, Senator Clinton has declared a political litmus test on the faith and religious membership of politicians and, indeed, on all Americans.

We have a choice. 

I guess we had better make the politically correct choice.  Perhaps Senator Clinton can publish a list of approved churches and approved ministers so that I can be sure that I have made the proper religious choice.

We have a choice.

On the surface Senator Clinton is right.  We who worship and affiliate with religious communities choose where we worship and with whom we affiliate.  But attending church is not a simple choice, and not one that many of us make based on political considerations.  The relationship between a believer and her faith, between a church member and her congregation, between a congregant and her pastor is not defined by a political litmus test.  Many of us attend churches and belong to faith communities despite political and theological disagreements with church and denominational leaders.  Agreement on isolated issues is not the basis of Christian community.

We have a choice.

Should Roman Catholics who support family planning and abortion abandon their faith because they worship in a church and listen to priests who ardently oppose abortion from their pulpits?  Should Roman Catholic Republicans abandon the Church because the social agenda of their church is often at odds with the GOP's policies?  Before I join a congregation, should I ask for a sampling of past sermons to evaluate the political implications of the pastor's preaching?

We have a choice.

Faith is not a matter of choice (Ephesians 2:8-9). For many of us, membership in a church (a local congregation or, for some, membership in a broader communion, denomination, or "Church") is deeply connected to faith, and as such is not so much an element of choice as one of belongedness, of being in the Body of Christ (expressed locally in a congregation) - a belongedness, a being that is a gift of God.  And so if my membership in a church is partly - largely - a gift of God, and if membership in a church is part of my participation in the Body of Christ, then how is receiving a gift of God and participating in the Body of Christ a choice?  No occasionally loud-mouthed preacher is gonna wreak the gift of God or destroy the Body of Christ.  God's presence, Christ's Body is bigger than any one preacher, than any collection of sermons.

We have a choice.

Yes, we have a choice whether to listen to preachers shout "God damn America," or who sing "God bless America."  And Senator Clinton and I would make different choices, it seems to me.  Give me the preacher who calls the nation on its sins any day over the preacher who confuses God and country.  Give me the preacher who stands in the tradition of Old Testament prophets calling political leaders to task rather than the one who fails to be moved by the suffering this great nation often leaves in its wake.  Give me the preacher who considers Religious Faith before National Patriotism, Creed before Pledge, God before Country.

We have a choice.

We have a choice between a candidate who uses religion as a wedge issue, and another candidate who uses religion as a source of hope. 

I've made my choice.

"Tradition" is not the Millennials' problem

I recently attended a discussion for church leaders on ministry with Millennials (the so-called Generation Y, or those who were born from the late 1970's through to the turn of the century).  Within the discussion it was assumed that members of this generation do not like "traditional" worship, "traditional" Sunday School, "traditional" Bible studies, the "traditional" way of doing church.

But there's a difference between "tradition" and the way we customarily do things in the church.  Is it "tradition" they don't like, or is it the (often poorly executed) way we do things in the church they don't like?

• That is, do Millennials not like 17th century hymns because they're old and supposedly irrelevant to today, or do they not like such hymns when they're played and sung as funeral dirges and inappropriately revered as the highest pinnacle of religious and musical achievement?
• Do they not like traditional liturgy because it is (supposedly) rigid, or do they not like traditional liturgy because we do a poor job at planning and executing the liturgy faithfully?
• Do they not like preaching because they are suspicious of authority figures and/or are attuned to a world of constantly-changing multimedia presentations, or do they not like preaching because most preachers are not very good at it?
• Do they not like traditional Bible studies or Sunday School because such Bible studies are rigid and dogmatic, or because they're usually poorly planned and unwelcoming?
• Do they prefer to sleep in on Sunday mornings because that's their nature, or because we haven't given them something worth waking up for?

I'm convinced that our churches need to worry less about post-modern ministry techniques than we do about simply doing our "traditional" (modern, ancient, whatever) ministry techniques a whole lot better.  It has been my experience - as a church leader, a church member in non-leadership roles, and an observer of "effective" and "healthy" churches - that churches which engage in intensive planning and preparation, churches that show up on Sunday morning and midweek Bible study ready to proclaim the Gospel, are often doing just fine. 

It's when we're planning Sunday School lessons in the car on the way to church that we get in trouble.  It's when we're writing sermons exhausted late on Saturday evening - when the time for reflection, review and editing is rapidly waning - that we get in trouble.  It's when we throw untrained people into leadership roles that we get in trouble.  It's when we have no cohesive vision to pull this whole church enterprise together that we get in trouble.

Everyday Millennials go to rather traditional schools or universities or workplaces, and they thrive within these "traditional" institutions.  They know how to do the "modern" thing.  That is, they don't live in an exclusively "post modern" world (oh my, just imagine what that would be like!). 

I don't deny that the church can learn a few things from the postmodern project.  I'm just not convinced that we need some turn-the-church-on-its-steeple radical reformation.  Perhaps we just need to build a better steeple.  Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Buying Green to Assuage our Guilt

Today's Washington Post has a wonderful article decrying "green commercialism."  Greed in the Name of Green, by Monica Hesse, has an even more poignant subtitle: To Worshipers of Consumption: Spending Won't Save the Earth.  After showcasing a number of ridiculous green products that environmentally-aware consumers can purchase, Hesse quotes Paul Hawken (formerly of Smith & Hawken):

"Really going green," Hawken says, "means having less. It does mean less. Everyone is saying, 'You don't have to change your lifestyle.' Well, yes, actually, you do."

Yes, we do have to change our lifestyle.  We can't just buy our way to a healthier environment or a cleaner conscience.  It requires a real change - not just in what we buy, but in our buying altogether.  We have to buy less, consume less, waste less, a proposal that goes against just about ever fiber in our American consumerist being.

FYI, I made a similar argument a few months ago in a post critiquing the selling and buying of so-called "carbon off-sets," Carbon Offsets: Good Stewardship or Grand Scam?