from the desk of Pastor Bob
God-talk and moral values
by David Batstone
Over the past week a bevy of pundits in the national media have sought to make sense of the "moral values" indicator that emerged as a crucial deciding factor in the election. No doubt about it, abortion and gay marriage were wedge issues that separated the sheep from the goats (or more accurately, the elephants from the donkeys) in the voting booth.
We would misunderstand the debate on faith and values, however, if we limit our gaze to specific moral issues. It's also critical to examine the theological worldviews that stand in conflict and guide people of faith in divergent directions.
Many evangelicals and Catholics, for instance, report that they voted for George Bush because they perceive he has a personal faith in Jesus Christ. John Kerry talks about faith; George Bush professes it. Kerry looks to faith to inform his perspective, Bush asks God to guide his steps.
Perhaps an example will help to further illustrate this point. I shared the podium at a conference in Switzerland recently with a man who works in the banking industry and identified himself publicly as a Christian. A week or so later I wrote to him, saying that it was wonderful to meet an individual who shares my engagement in the world of business and seeks to follow the path of Jesus. He responded by e-mail a few days later with the following: "On our commitments, just a clarification. My commitment is not merely to the 'path of Jesus' but also and primarily to Jesus Himself."
Why did he get nervous with my language? He is suspicious that a rational application of Jesus' teaching will take priority over a direct experience of the Almighty. In other words, Jesus is more than a great teacher, but the very presence of God.
Why, in turn, do I get nervous when I hear his response? All too often I have seen a "personal relationship with God" used to justify behavior that is a radical departure from the life of Jesus. Of course, I believe that a personal experience of God's grace is a foundation of the spiritual life. But I also believe as a Christian that I only deepen my own spiritual experience when I follow the path of Jesus.
Case in point: George Bush believes God told him to level a military strike against Iraq. Once such God-on-one directions are accepted, there is no common ground for moral discussion. After all, maybe God is speaking to him in a manner unique to my own mystical experience. That, to me, represents a dangerous theology. It places an individual's own God experience outside of the shadow of the cross.
On a different vector, it is now clear that both conservative and liberals see morality as public. It is strange, though, how uniquely they apply their values. Conservatives tend to be economic libertarians - that is, individuals and corporations should be free to practice their economic lives without government intervention. Hence, they revere tax cuts practically as a faith issue. Conservatives do not trust individuals to make moral decisions with their bodies - elevating same-sex marriage, abortion, euthanasia, and stem-cell research to be the central tenets of "family values."
Liberals are all in favor of regulating economic activity, on the other hand, in large part because they do not trust the avarice of either individuals or corporations. Yet they tend to be libertarians on social values, convinced that personal moral behavior that deals with sex/body is no one's business but their own. How do conservatives and liberals make sense of these contradictions in their own positions?
On yet a third vector, people of faith do not understand God operating in the world in the same way. The vast majority of fundamentalist and evangelical Christians see themselves embroiled in an apocalyptic battle against evil. They are on God's side, and they are fighting Satan's emissaries in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Hollywood.
Progressive Christians do not shy from a spiritual battle against those forces that do great damage to human dignity and the environment. But they do not see history as inevitable, nor is God hell-bent on bringing about the end of the world. While specific acts can be called evil - for instance, the massacres in the Sudan - they do not aim to color a map of the world into two hues, the children of light and the children of darkness.
All to say, Christians in the U.S. today do not simply disagree on a hierarchy of values. They read the Bible quite differently and express their faith in Jesus in radically distinct ways. I award Thomas Friedman, columnist of The New York Times, with the pithy phrase of the week past: We are "two nations under God."
Pastor Bob Retorts:
Well it has been a while since I've been able to sit down and read or even pen a few lines. However, (note I did not use anyhow?) this morning I have a few moments without chaos.
A lot has changed since my last comments and I now find myself a proud citizen of Jesusland. This isn’t all that bad, even with my concerns about a Theocracy, given I could be a citizen of the U.S. of Canada.
Why you ask, because I’d only got to Canada for one reason and it’s the same reason I’d go to France, to kick some frog ass! You see I have no use for frogs of the mammalian sort. They give frogs of the amphibian sort a bad name.
People are not repelled by amphibian frogs by nature but by their association with the French via the derogatory "frog." This, by the way, actually has nothing to do etymologically with amphibian frogs but does have something to do with some word in the French language that the French called themselves in the past.
Anyhow, I think most will agree that the French in general have been nothing but a thorn in the side of humanity since their inception as a self proclaimed nation. Thus the explanation of why the generally loving and peaceful Pastor Bob would say something as hateful as, "kick some frog ass."
Ta Ta for now,
Pastor Bob
Pastor's Final Thoughts:
Be regular and orderly in your life, that you may be violent and original in your work.
-- Clive Barker, Jihad
Ummm,
Thanks, Right Rev. Bob....
JQP
by David Batstone
Over the past week a bevy of pundits in the national media have sought to make sense of the "moral values" indicator that emerged as a crucial deciding factor in the election. No doubt about it, abortion and gay marriage were wedge issues that separated the sheep from the goats (or more accurately, the elephants from the donkeys) in the voting booth.
We would misunderstand the debate on faith and values, however, if we limit our gaze to specific moral issues. It's also critical to examine the theological worldviews that stand in conflict and guide people of faith in divergent directions.
Many evangelicals and Catholics, for instance, report that they voted for George Bush because they perceive he has a personal faith in Jesus Christ. John Kerry talks about faith; George Bush professes it. Kerry looks to faith to inform his perspective, Bush asks God to guide his steps.
Perhaps an example will help to further illustrate this point. I shared the podium at a conference in Switzerland recently with a man who works in the banking industry and identified himself publicly as a Christian. A week or so later I wrote to him, saying that it was wonderful to meet an individual who shares my engagement in the world of business and seeks to follow the path of Jesus. He responded by e-mail a few days later with the following: "On our commitments, just a clarification. My commitment is not merely to the 'path of Jesus' but also and primarily to Jesus Himself."
Why did he get nervous with my language? He is suspicious that a rational application of Jesus' teaching will take priority over a direct experience of the Almighty. In other words, Jesus is more than a great teacher, but the very presence of God.
Why, in turn, do I get nervous when I hear his response? All too often I have seen a "personal relationship with God" used to justify behavior that is a radical departure from the life of Jesus. Of course, I believe that a personal experience of God's grace is a foundation of the spiritual life. But I also believe as a Christian that I only deepen my own spiritual experience when I follow the path of Jesus.
Case in point: George Bush believes God told him to level a military strike against Iraq. Once such God-on-one directions are accepted, there is no common ground for moral discussion. After all, maybe God is speaking to him in a manner unique to my own mystical experience. That, to me, represents a dangerous theology. It places an individual's own God experience outside of the shadow of the cross.
On a different vector, it is now clear that both conservative and liberals see morality as public. It is strange, though, how uniquely they apply their values. Conservatives tend to be economic libertarians - that is, individuals and corporations should be free to practice their economic lives without government intervention. Hence, they revere tax cuts practically as a faith issue. Conservatives do not trust individuals to make moral decisions with their bodies - elevating same-sex marriage, abortion, euthanasia, and stem-cell research to be the central tenets of "family values."
Liberals are all in favor of regulating economic activity, on the other hand, in large part because they do not trust the avarice of either individuals or corporations. Yet they tend to be libertarians on social values, convinced that personal moral behavior that deals with sex/body is no one's business but their own. How do conservatives and liberals make sense of these contradictions in their own positions?
On yet a third vector, people of faith do not understand God operating in the world in the same way. The vast majority of fundamentalist and evangelical Christians see themselves embroiled in an apocalyptic battle against evil. They are on God's side, and they are fighting Satan's emissaries in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Hollywood.
Progressive Christians do not shy from a spiritual battle against those forces that do great damage to human dignity and the environment. But they do not see history as inevitable, nor is God hell-bent on bringing about the end of the world. While specific acts can be called evil - for instance, the massacres in the Sudan - they do not aim to color a map of the world into two hues, the children of light and the children of darkness.
All to say, Christians in the U.S. today do not simply disagree on a hierarchy of values. They read the Bible quite differently and express their faith in Jesus in radically distinct ways. I award Thomas Friedman, columnist of The New York Times, with the pithy phrase of the week past: We are "two nations under God."
Pastor Bob Retorts:
Well it has been a while since I've been able to sit down and read or even pen a few lines. However, (note I did not use anyhow?) this morning I have a few moments without chaos.
A lot has changed since my last comments and I now find myself a proud citizen of Jesusland. This isn’t all that bad, even with my concerns about a Theocracy, given I could be a citizen of the U.S. of Canada.
Why you ask, because I’d only got to Canada for one reason and it’s the same reason I’d go to France, to kick some frog ass! You see I have no use for frogs of the mammalian sort. They give frogs of the amphibian sort a bad name.
People are not repelled by amphibian frogs by nature but by their association with the French via the derogatory "frog." This, by the way, actually has nothing to do etymologically with amphibian frogs but does have something to do with some word in the French language that the French called themselves in the past.
Anyhow, I think most will agree that the French in general have been nothing but a thorn in the side of humanity since their inception as a self proclaimed nation. Thus the explanation of why the generally loving and peaceful Pastor Bob would say something as hateful as, "kick some frog ass."
Ta Ta for now,
Pastor Bob
Pastor's Final Thoughts:
Be regular and orderly in your life, that you may be violent and original in your work.
-- Clive Barker, Jihad
Ummm,
Thanks, Right Rev. Bob....
JQP
posted by John Q. Public esq. at 3:58 AM
<< Home