For several months Ugandan law makers have been debating the merits of a bill designed to slow the spread of AIDS in their country, Key provisions include the institution of the death penalty for some homosexual acts by both gays and lesbians. The full text of the bill is available here. Shockingly, many of the powers in Uganda that are pushing this bill are supported and funded by American Evangelicals.

Admittedly, I usually try to deal with lighter fare here in Le Blog, but some issues lend themselves to comment and other demand our attention. This is the latter. First, if you are unfamiliar with what is happening in Uganda, take a few moments to familiarize yourself with the issue by visiting NPR and listening to this recent story. When you've finished and are familiar with the relevant questions, read on.

I don't know that I can contribute much to your thinking on this issue. My hunch is that you are at this moment either entirely outraged at the behavior of some of these American Evangelicals or you are not. And if you are not, I doubt that I can convince you to be so. We either know the Jesus of the Gospels or we do not, and he is either an exemplar of moral virtue for us or he is not. I am, to put the matter bluntly, morally dumbfounded at this moment. I do not know how to respond in words or with reason to any self-identified Christian and follower of Jesus Christ who believes that the man crucified between two thieves would wish to see gays and lesbians executed.

So, since I cannot articulate an intelligent response, I'll simply make the following observation.

The routine, ordinary days of life pass by and accumulate without much notice. We commute through our days by the habitual byways. We do our work. We do our chores. We love our wives, our children, our families, and our friends. Most days pass by rather uneventfully; but, some days do not. And, on these days we might get a glimpse of who we really are. Mukul Asadujjaman, a New York City cab driver, recently had one of these rare days.

In these economically challenging times, it is hard to turn down a good deal. Who really wants to pay more for an item when it can be bought for less? It’s completely logical to buy the desired product for the cheapest price available. If the item can be purchased online for $8.99 plus $3.99 for shipping for a total of $12.98, why would it make sense to buy the same item at a local retailer for $16.99? Sure, one has to wait for the item to arrive in the mail, but the inconvenience still translates into savings. For the consumer, obtaining the desired item at the cheapest price just makes sense. And, in this context, it really doesn’t matter if the savings are found through an online retailer, a big-box store, or a locally owned, independent retailer—savings are savings, and the money saved can now be used for a myriad of other needs and wants. But, things may not be as clear-cut as they first appear. Savings may not be savings, or said differently: short-term savings may be long-term losses. Adelle Bank’s article “Christian Retailers Seek Federal Probe of Competitors” provides insight into this confounding situation as she covers the financial crunch experienced by independent Christian retailers.

With the advent of the New Year comes the task of selecting the year’s goals and determining how these goals will be achieved. As this process unfolds, the habits, activities, and programs of the previous year are scrutinized with an eye toward identifying that which worked well and that which turned out to be a hindrance. The upcoming year is likewise scanned for adventitious occasions and signs of potential hazard. Plans for maximizing benefit, minimizing hardship, and making up deficits are sketched and prepared for implementation. This process, begun with much excitement and vigor may start to feel overwhelming as the plans materialize. Bryan Walsh’s article “Global Warming: Why Branson Wants to Step In” for Time.com provides a motivating and informative example of a person who has recognized a pressing need and has responded with bold initiative in the New Year.

With the Christmas season nearing its apex, many of us have been experiencing a blizzard of questions about gift giving. Decisions about who to give to, how much to give (and how much to spend), and what to give have been whirling around our minds like snow-flakes driven by a piercing wind. Few are able to evade the path of this blizzard. Parents and teens, young professionals, pastors, church boards, and denominational committees alike experience the storm. Like a blizzard, gift-giving is paradoxical. It has inherent dangers, for example, misreading a loved one’s tastes, and it has the stillest, rapturous beauty of seeing another beam with pleasure and gratitude in response to a fitting gift. One type of question may slip behind the veil of frosty flakes and resist conscious reflection, and that is the question of motive. Why do we give what we give? Why do we give to those whom we give? What do we expect in return? How gratuitous are our gifts? Tovia Smith’s timely article “‘Selfish’ Giving: Does it Count if You Get in Return?” provides us with a chance to reflect upon the practice of giving and the motives of giving.

“But why did those people hurt baby Jesus?”

It’s a tough question to answer, and I guess that’s what I get when I let the Gospel tunes of Johnny Cash so deeply influence my young son.

As I’m sure many of you have been doing these past few weeks, my wife and I have spent a little time each night playing with the Nativity set with our son. We have a little plastic toy one with smiling shepherds, serious looking kings, graceful angels and assorted farm animals. We tell the story of Mary and Joseph traveling on the donkey and the kings from the east following the star. As I mentioned around this time last year, the Christmas story is so compelling that it only needs retelling. Embellishment seems almost to detract from it. So my son enjoys the characters and puts the baby Jesus on the backs of the sheep and has him ride the cow. But even as he plays and we look on smiling, his little mind is churning and thinking about the words to one of Cash’s tunes that I listen to in the car. It’s called “It was Jesus” and the lines in question are as follows:

“Well he healed the sick and afflicted, and raised them from the dead,

So they stuck him on an old rugged cross and put thorns upon his head.”

And so my son turns to me and asks, “Which one of them puts the horns on baby Jesus’ head?”

Where to begin?

On some days, work feels like a seamless repetition. Every task: copying, writing memos, attending meetings, responding to email requests, all take on a sense of endless repetition. All feel like shadows of something more real; faint echoes of sounds whose sonorous beginnings ceased long ago. The reasons for pushing through such days are many: the bills get paid, the family is fed, and the mortgage moves one month closer to satisfaction. But, on such days, there can be a craving for deeper meaning. The new book Spirituality, Inc.: Religion in the American Workplace by Lake Lambert III explores the contours of this quest for deeper meaning in the workplace.

As the Christmas season approaches, it is easy to become entangled in the thorny briar patch of a thousand to-dos. “I’ve got to find the Christmas tree stand in the garage.” and, “I’ve got to swing by the post office and buy more stamps for the cards.” and, “I’ve got to make those treats that grandpa likes so much.” and, and, and … Thankfully, Charles M. Olsen’s article “Waltzing to the Eternal Rhythms” may still the writhing that sends the thorns deeper into our favorite Christmas sweater by offering a reflection on the power of holy days and ritual seasons to frame our lives.

Olsen observes that “holy days and seasons create sacred space in the cycle of the year” that present individuals and congregations with a myriad of opportunity. Sacred seasons offer us the chance to contemplate the activity of God in the world, to search our sacred stories for insights and meaning, to weave our joys and pains, struggles and successes into the fabric of our tradition.

What exactly is “thanks” or “thankfulness”?

Is it a feeling, an emotion, a set of actions, or an attitude?

These are harder questions to answer than it might at first seem. I’ve been pondering them these past weeks as my wife and I work on teaching our three year old to say “thank you” and teach him to pray at meals and at bedtime. This is a relatively easy task, no more difficult than teaching the boy to wash his hands or sneeze into his sleeve. But as he adopts the habit of saying “thank you” to waitresses and clerks, his parents and teachers I wonder if anything deeper is going on. Is he just salivating at a ringing bell when he automatically responds “Merci” to the lady who hands him a croissant or do his actions connect with other feelings and ideas? I wonder. But I don’t wonder only about him. I also wonder what “thanks” itself means. What are we doing when we pause this week to say or think “thank you?”

We distinguish between authentic speech and rote repetition. I am unimpressed when an automated voice responds, “we are experiencing higher than normal call volume at this time, thank you for waiting.” Can a computer be thankful? I’m unmoved when the blank eyed stoner cashier at the local Esso gas station says “thanks, come again” without looking up from his magazine. Most of us, I conclude, see some meaningful distinction between the mere act of vocalizing “thank you” and saying those same words with feeling or intention. But does this mean that thankfulness is itself an emotion, a feeling? If so, then what does it mean for us to say that we SHOULD be thankful? How is this different from suggesting that we should feel emotional love toward someone?

I'm sorry dude, she's just not that into you.

What do we do with those left over coffee hour cookies and cakes? What about the left over hot dog and hamburger buns from the church picnic? If their condition is acceptable, maybe we distribute them or take them home or put them in the freezer for a later day. But, when their condition is questionable, the easiest thing to do is throw them in the trash along with the coffee grounds, half-eaten burgers, and the fries that were accidently overcooked. What if there was a better way to handle our leftovers and our waste? What if, through minor changes in our practice, we could make this food work for us and our planet?

In times when the world’s economy is turbulent, when jobs are being cut and homes are being lost, good news can be scarce. But, good news is available because compassionate and creative people do not halt their constructive activities. The recent article “Low-Cost Brooklyn Housing Sees Few Foreclosures” by Jim Zarroli draws attention to one such instance. Zarroli’s article highlights the Nehemiah project, a collaborative enterprise launched by East Brooklyn Congregations. These churches have come together to stabilize and invigorate devastated neighborhoods by building affordable housing in Brooklyn and the Bronx.

Let’s be honest, many of our nation’s sportswriters probably wrote two versions of their game story last Sunday; one for if he won, another for if he lost? This story called for drama, and the narrative angles were too complex to await the conclusion of the actual game. And if you don’t know what I’m talking about it’s because you’ve had your head buried in the sand this past week. Last week Brett Favre, Superbowl winning quarterback and one-time favorite son of Green Bay, WI returned to the frozen tundra of Laubeau Field…but this time he jogged onto the field in the purple jersey of the hated Minnesota Vikings

Packers 26, Vikings 38

E tu Brette?

“Purple Judas,” that’s the name that sticks.

This story, however, isn’t primarily about Favre, the aging quarterback who refuses to retire (or at least refuses to retire without unretiring every couple of months), the gifted athlete with the grey speckled beard, who will not leave the field of battle so long as his surgically repaired arm has one desperate Hail Mary left in it. No. The protagonist of this made for TV male-o-drama is as much the fans of Green Bay as it is the old gunslinger. It’s their hurt feelings and sense of betrayal that drives the story and makes those of us not residing in the upper Midwest look on with wonder at the emotional spectacle. A good old fashioned story of betrayal and infidelity draws our attention and warms our blood. No one likes a traitor, even if the traitor was released by his former team in favor of a younger player with more of an “upside.” But our innate sense of loyalty comes at a cost—sometimes infidelity, disloyalty and a willingness to switch sides is exactly what is called for.

Good without God? Is it possible? Is it possible for a person to disbelieve in God and still be moral? A recent ad campaign targeting Boston commuters answers this question with a resounding “Yes!” and David Abel, staff writer for the Boston Globe covers the story in his article, “New T Ads Reach Out to Hub’s Nonbelievers.”

The complete ad, set against a blue, cloud speckled sky, runs thus: “Good Without God? 40 million Americans are.” The month long campaign, initiated and funded by the Boston Area Coalition of Reason, may be seen on 200 subway cars throughout the month of November at a cost of $11,000.

American liberal-evangelical Christians are caught between two extremes. Conservative and liberal branches repeatedly attempt to define Christianity according to polarized stances on moral and social issues that leaves moderate liberal-evangelical Christians torn between two directions. Moderate liberal-evangelicals, who constitute the majority of Christians in the United States, resist polarization because they recognize the complex nature of moral and social issues. Liberal-evangelicals “know how radical, how challenging, how joyful the Christian gospel really is,” yet they do not find such faith fully represented by the extreme positions. This dilemma faced by American liberal-evangelicals has captured the attention of international Christians. In a recent issue of Insights, (the monthly magazine for the Uniting Church in Australia, New South Wales synod) Andrew Irvine reviewed Lost in the Middle? and Found in the Middle! for his Australian audience.

Irene Khan, Secretary General for Amnesty International, is encouraging world leaders to think about poverty from a new perspective. In her new book The Unheard Truth: Poverty and Human Rights Khan argues that the solution to poverty in the world lies in the establishment of human rights for the impoverished instead of solely focusing on improving their economic condition. Improved economic conditions like the construction of health facilities and schools and higher crop yields are beneficial, but are not enough to eradicate poverty.

‘Discrimination, state repression, corruption, insecurity and violence are as much defining features of poverty as the lack of material resources,’ states Khan in the article “The Unheard Truth: World Leaders Must Change Debate on Poverty and Human Rights.” In order to effectively confront and transform the worldwide crisis of poverty both features fueling poverty must be addressed since they are interrelated.

Within legislative and congregational bodies across the United States, questions about same-sex marriage and civil unions are being vigorously contested. Booming voices can be heard from all corners of the debate. But what is the real extent of public support behind any of the positions being advocated?

A recent survey conducted in August 2009 by Princeton Survey Research Associates International mutes the volume of these robust voices and captures the opinions of 4,013 ordinary Americans. The population surveyed were men and women 18 years and older from across the nation. These adults represent a host of diverse perspectives shaped by political, religious, educational, and racial influence. These 4,013 adults where asked about their views on same-sex marriage and civil unions, the morality or immorality of homosexuality, and the level of discrimination experienced by gays and lesbians. The surveyors estimate the margin of error to be plus or minus 2.5% in respect to these topics.

WARNING! DANGER! POISON! Such words should be stamped on the cover of the modern translations of the bible. According to the Conservative Bible Project, modern translations like the NIV are saturated with corrupting liberal bias. These translations are dangerous because they promote a socialist agenda, embrace gender equality, and present Jesus as a political liberal. Furthermore, these modern, liberal translations “improperly” encourage “the ‘social justice’ movement among Christians.” These translations are polluting our churches, our society, and our government.

How can such a threat be confronted? By translating the Bible according to conservative values of course!

The world’s attention is turning toward the health of the environment. We are looking for ways to make our homes and churches greener. But it can be difficult to discern what we as individuals, households, and church communities can do to contribute to the solution.

Daniel McGinn’s article “The Biggest Green Companies in America” published in the September 28, 2009 issue of Newsweek, sheds light on our dilemma. McGinn reports on the new initiative by Newsweek to rank the 500 largest companies in the United States based on their environmental impact and sustainability programs. The recently released rankings, called the Newsweek Green Rankings, are the result of a year-long collaborative enterprise between Newsweek and three environmental research companies, KLD Research & Analytics, Trucost, and CorporateRegister.com.

The old joke runs like this…”I have friend who used to be a Southern Baptist, but he converted to Unitarianism. So now he has his doubts…but he’s very insistent about them.”

My wife has stopped trying to change me. She knows that deep in my bones I’m not only an Evangelical of the Liberal sort, but I’m also an incurable evangelist. If I like something—the Red Sox and Patriots, the Adirondack Mountains, CAO Brazilia cigars, homebrewing, Vermont microbrews, Willie Nelson, Bill Monroe, sardines, Isaac Asimov novels, and Ale-8 ginger ale—I can’t help but try to convince everyone else to like it as well. She calls it being bossy, but I like to think of myself as a sharer; one who finds something that works and makes me happy and wants others to have a part in that same joy.

Historically, Evangelicals have wrestled with a similar dynamic. To outsiders we may come across as pushy know-it-alls, but confront most Evangelicals about their proselytizing efforts and you usually get one of two answers. True, many think of themselves as working to keep souls out of hell. But many others conceive of day to day evangelism as the simple effort to share their joy with others. The last thing I would ever want is to strip Evangelicals of this joy in sharing.

But should everything be shared?

I have my doubts, but I’ll keep them largely to myself

Atop Sunrise Rock in the Mojave National Preserve stands a white cross. The cross was originally erected by Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) in 1934 in order to memorialize the fallen American soldiers of World War I. In 1999 a request was made to place a Buddhist memorial alongside the cross. The National Parks Service rejected the request on the grounds “that federal law prohibits private parties from installing memorials and other permanent displays on federal property without authorization.”

In light of this decision, the National Park Service declared that the cross would be removed as well. This 1999 decision sparked a lawsuit that is now being heard before the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Salazar v. Buono. At the heart of the case lies a question about the “Establishment Clause” of the Constitution, that is, the separation between church and state. Does the presence of a religious symbol on public land represent governmental support for a particular religion? Jesse Merriam’s article “Salazar v. Buono: Can Government Give One Religion's Symbol Prominence in a Public Park?” provides an accessible overview of this pertinent case.

WWTD—What Would Teddy Do?

While this question is unlikely to spawn any adolescent evangelical fashion trends, it does have some cache these days. In the wake of the passing of the Senior Senator from Massachusetts many of his former colleagues in our nation’s legislature are reflecting on his legacy, his tenacity, and his lifelong commitment to healthcare for all Americans. The healthcare reform debate has stalled on the predictable shoals of partisanship and the relatively new phenomenon of vitriolic town hall meetings. And it was amidst these events that Senator Edward Kennedy died, was eulogized, and is remembered. How best, both his Democratic colleagues and Republican friends/rivals are asking, ought we to memorialize him? How can we honor his memory as we work to reform the manner in which we pay for health care? How would he have proceeded, were he still with us? What would Teddy do?

Frankly, it’s surprising to see so many legislators and commentators from both ends of the political spectrum agree that the WWTD question is relevant. It’s surprising to hear so many of Kennedy’s political adversaries speak his name in almost reverential tones. It’s surprising to hear the Blue Dogs and GOP stalwarts agree to follow a trail that the deceased “Liberal Lion” might have blazed. But it isn’t surprising to see that they answer that key question—What would Teddy Do?—in very different ways. As Christians know all too well, even when there is a consensus of reverence for the past words and deeds of a great person, there is little chance of that consensus translating readily into a plan for future action. WWTD? WWJD? So often we just do not and cannot know.

My favorite philosopher, Charles Sanders Peirce, was fond of reminding his fellows and readers that the world has a way of correcting (sometimes brutally) our false ideas. Misjudge a staircase and you get a bruised knee, misjudge the weather and you get wet, misjudge the market and you go broke. In the long run, Peirce argued, the world ultimately corrects our false hypotheses. So correction hurts, but subjecting ourselves to correction is the only way in which we ever grow, learn and improve ourselves.

Given this state of affairs, Peirce recommended that the prudent course of action was for the wise person to subject herself to constant non-catastrophic correction: listen to critics, perform controlled experiments, and test new theories in controlled environments before adopting them wholesale. The best way to be right in the long run is constantly to listen to voices and heed data that suggest a course correction. The surest way to guarantee failure is to listen only to opinions and heed only data that confirm one’s own assumptions and hypotheses. Today, we know this phenomenon of “isolation from correction” by another name: the media echo-chamber.

The frequent Fox News viewer might almost be forgiven for thinking that President Obama was not born in the United States, that health care reform will lead to Nazi death camps for beloved grandparents, and that America is fast becoming a Leninist dystopia. Viewers who also spend hours listening to Rush Limbaugh and reading op-eds from Gingrich literally might not know any better. They rarely hear opinions from the other side that aren’t simple strawmen or caricatures. And yes, the same phenomenon exists on the far Left. Just google Lyndon La Rouche or “911 conspiracy” for plenty of examples. I refuse to provide actual links to this nonsense be it on the Right or on the Left.

Day 2, On the Banks of the Jessup River, 6 miles north of Piseco, NY.

I had been making almost record time all day. It was only 3:00 PM and I’d covered nearly 15 miles through the woods. My 50 lb. pack was starting to chafe a bit, but the relatively clear and smooth trail was helping me stay on schedule. At the river crossing I shrugged off my pack and broke out the camp stove to prepare a meal of chicken bullion, soy nuggets, Raman noodles and lentils—It’s much better than it sounds! As I sat waiting for the water to boil I met some new people.

I’ll spare you their names, but they were a father and son from less than 50 miles away. They were a bit startled to see someone else this far back in the woods, but since this was the spot where the Northville-Lake Placid Trail and the Jessup River intersected I wasn’t shocked to see them. I was shocked, however, to see the high-powered rifles they carried and the handguns slung at the father’s side.

I find that it’s best not to startle anyone in the woods so I always try to announce my presence while still at some distance. “Howdy,” I called while they were some 30 yards down stream. They came along and we had the obligatory chat about the weather and the trails. They’d hiked in from a side trail and when they saw me eyeing the weapons they were quick with an explanation; “It’s red squirrel season.” Well, I wasn’t going to argue with their claim. If they said they were after red squirrels then that red squirrels it was! Though I’d like to see what’s left of a red squirrel when they’ve brought one down. The boy was carrying a 44 and the father had a 30-06. Both had scopes. For those of you unfamiliar with the finer points of squirrel hunting, going after red squirrels (two thirds the size of grey squirrels) with those weapons is like using a baseball bat to swat a fly.

I finished dinner quickly and hit the trail once more, hoping to put some serious distance between me and these fellas before I pitched my tent for the night.

On Wednesday August 12, India was added to the latest edition of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom’s (USCIRF) “watch list.” This means that an official United States congressional organization has fingered India as guilty – guilty of endangering religious freedom.”

News sources pinpoint recent anti-Christian and anti-Muslim violence in India, having gone unpunished, as the primary reason for this charge. In other words, India—a “majority Hindu state”—has been accused of failing to protect Christians and Muslims. The USCIRF thinks India has allowed a “disturbing increase in communal violence against religious minorities” to go unchecked, reports Reuters.

The U.S. Congressional watch list includes other countries, such as Afghanistan, Belarus, Cuba, Egypt, Indonesia, Laos, the Russian Federation, Somalia, Tajikistan, Turkey, and Venezuela.

Recent headlines have been dominated by President Barack Obama’s plans for heal care reform. There is no shortage of debate over this issue. However, many may be surprised to find religious groups making faith-based claims in opposition to the reform efforts.

Is health care a concern that relates to faith? Some right-leaning religious groups think it is, and that Obama’s plans are in direct opposition to “God’s will.” The religious left has responded, and moderates may be left wondering what to make of all the fuss.

RedOrbit reports that “liberal evangelicals, including some Protestant and Catholic” are joining forces in support of Obama’s health care reform effort. On Monday August 10, “40 Days of Health Reform” was launched in order to counter the “unexpectedly fervent conservative” resistance resulting from Obama’s proposal. The liberal-evangelical group intends to create an internet call-in program featuring streaming video of Obama and religious leaders, as well as prayer meetings and nationwide television ads. The call-in website will be up and running on August 19.

Baptist Pastor Walter Hoye has made headlines for his anti-abortion activism. According to the Los Angeles Times Hoye is a “soft spoken” man who frequently stands outside a CA abortion clinic and waits for patients to arrive. When they do, he tries to convince them to walk away. On one such instance last May, he was arrested. Standing outside the clinic, wearing his “Got Jesus?” ball cap and holding the sign he always brings with him (which reads “God loves you and your baby. Let us help you”), Hoye was arrested for breaking a law intended to protect women entering clinics with an 8 foot “bubble” or buffer-zone.

In January 2009, he was convicted of breaking the Oakland buffer-zone ordinance. Considered a nuisance to patients, the Family Planning Specialists Medical Group—the clinic where he “tried to talk women out of ending their pregnancies”—filed charges against him. Hoye considers this a freedom of speech issue (other anti-abortion activists call it “sidewalk counseling.”) But abortion rights supporters call it “harassment.”

Nationalism and religious extremism have collided in an Islam-Patriotism versus Christian-evangelism showdown between two friends. Recently in Istanbul, a Turkish Christian was held hostage at knife point by a Turkish Muslim who threatened to slit his throat because his conversion to Christianity was a threat to the “Turkish flag.” Compass Direct News reports that nationalism and Islamic extremism motivated the incident and may be behind other such incidents.

The young Muslim, 24-year-old Yasin Karasu, held Christian convert Ysmail Aydin hostage “in a busy district on the Asian side of Istanbul” in broad daylight in front of a crowd. Karasu called Aydin a “missionary dog” while holding a knife to his throat and threatening to kill him. “This is Turkey, and you can’t hand out gospels,” he yelled. “These godless ones without the true book are doing missionary work,” he continued.
 
Turkey’s population is reportedly “about 99 percent” Muslim, and most Turks consider Islam to be “strongly connected with being Turkish,” notes Compass News.

On Saturday, August 2, Dale Neumann was convicted of second degree murder for praying instead of calling an ambulance. “Reckless homicide” is the official charge, following the death of his daughter Madeline (also known by her middle name Kara), who died as a result of undiagnosed diabetes and lack of medical care. When Madeline grew ill, Neumann and his wife Leilani—convicted of the same charge earlier this year—prayed (they are pictured at right). When she grew worse, he refused to call an ambulance, believing that God would heal her. The couple now faces 25 years in prison.

TimesOnline reports that Madeline was “so ill she was unable to walk, talk, eat or drink but instead of taking her to hospital, the Neumanns prayed at Madeline’s side as she died on the floor of their rural home in Wisconsin,” in 2003.

At his hearing Neumann said that he believed God would heal his daughter. “God promises in the Bible to heal … If I go to the doctor I am putting the doctor before God” and “I am not believing what [God] said he would do,” he declared.

Scholars have long debated the differences between theological studies and other academic disciplines. An age old point of contention is whether theological claims are based on some form of knowledge. Associate professor and chair of religion at Brandon University, K.L. Noll (pictured at right with the moose), recently posted an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education that addresses these questions. And his article is stirring up quite a bit of reaction.

In his article, The Ethics of Being a Theologian, Noll argues that theology and religious studies are qualitatively different disciplines. Disturbed by the fact that people often confuse the two, he wants to clarify the distinction between them. He says that the academic study of religion advances knowledge; it is “the study of people” and does not claim divine revelation or facilitate so-called enlightenment. Rather it exposes presuppositions of truth claims made about the divine from the perspective of “secular, academic wisdom.” Conversely, theology “does not attempt to advance knowledge”; it is “a set of words about a god” from the perspective of “sacred, esoteric wisdom.”

On July 20, 1969 something extraordinary occurred. For the first time in history a man walked on the moon. This event affected every nation, revolutionizing the way people see the earth and the value placed on science.

Though most are familiar with the famous phrase uttered by astronaut Neil Armstrong, some fear its significance has been forgotten. The phrase, “That's one small step for a man; one giant leap for mankind,” ushered in a new era—a scientific era.

ANGOP International reports that landing on the moon “was seen as the high point of a U.S. space program fueled by a decade-long space race with the former Soviet Union.” The effort was initiated by President John F. Kennedy when he vowed in 1961 to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade.

It’s truly amazing the trouble a little box can cause. The little box I’m thing looked like this “[] ” and beside it was an innocuous word: outreach.

But oh Nelly the trouble that little box causes!

What an idea! Maybe we could increase giving to the church by giving folks the option of checking the outreach box. Then they would know that their funds were going to cover our church’s larger missions. It would help us support more ministries and missionaries!

We’ll return to the church budgetary process in a moment, but first a word from the NY Times. Headline: Health Bill Might Direct Tax Money to Abortion.

As the debate over healthcare reform stretches over the August break and into the autumn, a chorus of voices are beginning to ask about the possibility of federal funds being used to provide abortions. Current law prohibits such action, but if the entire healthcare system is rebuilt and more Americans get their care through the Federal government, it is unclear how this might influence all manner of women’s health procedures.

Predictably, activists on both sides are beginning to flex their rhetorical and financial muscles. However, the issue that interests me is the argument being made by abortion foes. Allow me to paraphrase: it’s bad enough that abortion is legal…do not dirty our hands by using our money (federal money) to pay for this horrific procedure. Many on the political Left might recognize this argument, since it was anti-war activists during the Vietnam era who popularized it. It became a badge of honor for some aging hippies (something I myself wouldn’t mind becoming someday) to have the IRS garner their wages, since they refused to pay taxes when those taxes were going to buy gun ships and ammunition. “Not with our money you don’t!” cried the hippies. “Not with our money you don’t!” argue twenty-first century anti-abortion activists. Ok. I’m not actually interested in writing about political strategy or budgetary concerns. I’m concerned about what happens when this kind of thinking enters our congregations. “Not with my money!” cry the congregants who don’t like the new Sunday school curriculum. “My tithes should go only to outreach!”

I spent several eye opening hours in the library this week doing some personal research and tracking down sources for teaching projects. For a while I’d been looking for a particular Newsweek cover article on Evangelicalism and I finally tracked it down. This doesn’t sound like much, but the article was from October 25, 1976. At that time Carter and Ford were making their final push before the November election and I was 8 months old. So as I dug through the microfilm cabinets and enjoyed some journalistic time travel I also managed to make some trenchant observations about 1976.

1) Based on the ads, women love men who have big mustaches and drink J&B.

2) Feathered hair and Marlboros make women hot...also based on ad observation.

3) 33 years (about as long as Jesus lived) after Newsweek declared 1976 the “Year of the Evangelical,” certain key problems still plague us. The descriptive phrase that jumped out at me described Evangelical writings as “not a call to Christian servanthood, but an upbeat stress on what God’s power can do for you.”

I love Evangelical churches and I love that they “work,” but I wish we could be more critical about what “working” means. Works for who? Works to what end? Works at what cost?

Protesters in the streets are not the only topic of international attention on Iran these days. What many claim is religious persecution—of non-Muslims—has hit the headlines. For over a year now, seven Baha’i leaders have been imprisoned in Iran. Sources insist that the reason is solely based on their religious beliefs. Set for trial and facing the death penalty, the prisoners wait. But the world is responding.

On July 9, 2009 the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) issued a demand for the release of these prisoners awaiting trial. Calling the trial “theocratically supported repression,” the USCIRF considers this a matter of urgency. And they credit Iranian-American journalist Roxana Saberi (pictured at right) for bringing this situation to their attention.

Peter Heltzel, assistant professor of theology at New York Theological Seminary and ordained Disciples of Christ minister, has written a book on the relationship between evangelicalism and American politics, and how that relationship is changing. Jesus and Justice: Evangelicals, Race, and American Politics is a must read for ministers, seminary students, and lay persons who desire to engage important issues of our day.

This book discusses evangelical social movements such as Focus on the Family, the National Association of Evangelicals, Christian Community Development Association, and Sojourners. Heltzel investigates the way in which evangelical understandings of Jesus Christ drive their political action. Tracing the influence of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Carl F. H. Henry, and others, Heltzel shows how their impact has culminated in a new prophetic evangelicalism.

Dan Kim, a theology student at Boston University, has created a workshop examining the causes of disunity within Korean immigrant churches. The workshop illustrates how a radically inclusive liberal-evangelical perspective could offer insights and potential solutions to this problem. Kim’s observations are not just relevant to Korean churches, however—there is a lesson here for people from many groups and denominations.

Kim first examines the root causes of the schisms between churches. While many issues like differences in opinion on leadership or fiscal policy may cause a split, Kim concludes that many unaddressed cultural differences between first-generation (not highly Americanized) and second-generation (Americanized) immigrants lie at the root of these splits.

Sally Paddock is a theology student at Boston University. In this curriculum, she presents a creative and useful examination of Christian ethics in liberal-evangelical perspective. While it is written for high-schoolers, Paddock’s curriculum is thoroughly accessible and suitable for readers and learners of all backgrounds. She articulately examines what role the Bible should play in determining what Christian ethics are while also providing the tools to understand our own moral intuitions, and how they color each person’s interpretation of the Bible.

Jay Ford, a Boston University theology student, has contributed a four week study guide for N.T. Wright and Marcus Borg’s book: The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions. This study guide is meant to create the possibility for dialogue between liberal and conservative Christians on the differing views on Jesus.

Normally, the topic of Jesus is ignored by both liberals and conservatives as either pointless or damaging, but a thoughtful dialogue allows each group a better understanding of the other, and puts important issues at the forefront, rather than ignoring them. Ford provides helpful ideas for discussions, questions and conversations on many of the differences between philosophies and opinions that Wright and Borg’s book presents.

Boston University theology student Andrew Linscott has produced a useful resource for church school teachers, bible study groups, or pastoral discipleship leaders. “Interpreting the Bible between the Extremes: A Resource for Intentionally Moderate Churches,” is a study guide for intentionally moderate Christians. Written to offer a moderate balance between the right's literalistic approach and the left's neglect of the scriptures, this guide encourages rethinking our approaches to the Bible.

Each of the four sections of the guide includes analysis of historical and theological difficulties that arise in interpreting the Bible, and questions to guide group discussion. There are also two intruging and realistic case studies to stimulate thought in a practical way about the meaning of the Bible for Christians. Linscott's study promotes interactivity and dialogue, which are invaluable virtues for group leaders.

Overall, Linscott wants to encourage taking the “Bible more seriously.” However, the burden of the study is to show that this requires Christians to think critically. Linscott also notes the importance of interpretive methods. The historical-critical method is one that can either be a wonderful tool or an end in itself. To avoid the distortions that can arise in the latter case, Linscott suggests that “the critical approach must ultimately give way to a positive approach which affirms meaning.”

Boston University theology student Elizabeth Keyes has produced an excellent introduction to youth ministry. Her guide contains valuable insights on how a youth leader should organize a group and run meetings effectively. Keyes even includes several good games to run with energetic teenagers. She includes a sample schedule for a youth group meeting, and explains why this particular arrangement is effective.

The website Radical Faith: Exploring fundamentals of faith in a changed world has reposted an article on “Paedophiles and Priests, Carnality and Clerics” (originally posted at dechurched.com). Written by Bryan Winters, and employing the old-fashioned spelling for “pedophile,” this article discusses the way in which the abuse of power by clergy, specifically with regard to sexual offenses, warrants a rethinking of “whether or not we are justified in elevating Ministers and Priests into positions of power in the first place” (the amusing picture accompanying the article is at right).

Winters discusses “one of the issues facing modern Christianity” as the problem of churches abusing their power. One such abuse involves Churches defending pedophile priests. He suggests that “clerical councils around the world” try to pull the wool over the eyes of “today’s wired, wavering, low attention span” population through various “clean up campaign[s]” that cover for clerics and church leaders.

A new bill is up for U.S. senate vote, and Southern Baptists are not happy about it. The Matthew Shepherd Hate Crimes Prevention Act (S.909), a bill endorsed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (pictured at right), is intended to protect “victims of crimes based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability,” reports Politico.com.

The title of the bill includes the name of Matthew Shepherd, who was “murdered in 1998 in Wyoming because he was gay.” Announcing Senate consideration of the Bill this Tuesday, July 13, Reid appeared with Judy Shepherd, Matthew’s mother. “For the last decade, Matthew Shepard’s name has been associated with hate crimes. When this bill passes, his name will thereafter be associated with justice,” said Reid.

Days ago Barack Obama and Pope Benedict XVI met at the Vatican Palace. The fact that Obama was welcomed in Rome is notable, considering the history of his reception by Catholics; and the abortion issue is the primary point of contention. Though this historic meeting included discussions of the recent G-8 summit topics such as economics, environmental concerns, and global tensions, most Catholic reactions to Obama’s meeting with the Pope seem to have centered on pro-life issues.

Catholic Online reports that Patrick Whelan, president of Catholic Democrats, thinks Obama’s economic policy fosters a pro-life stance. He said that “Obama’s economic stimulus package” is the “best thing for the unborn,” because poverty is a factor in abortion statistics. Other Catholics such as Denis McDonough, Obama’s deputy national security adviser for strategic communications, emphasize points of agreement between Obama’s views and their own. He notes that the president holds beliefs that “many Catholics recognize as fundamental to [Catholic] teaching.” One example is Obama’s “fundamental belief that each person is endowed with dignity,” which is a cornerstone for the President’s foreign policy. It is also a core belief within Catholics human rights thinking, and fundamental to the Catholic pro-life position.

On the heels of recent July Fourth celebrations, church services, and flamboyant patriotic speeches, Americans have returned to regular work schedules this week. But some of us are left with questions of how the relation between God and country should be understood. Since some of the holiday’s songs, such as “God Bless America,” merge the two so closely, it is no wonder that the world often identifies America as a Christian nation. For many American Christians, however, this is a problem.

What is the role of Christianity in America and how should liberal-evangelical moderates understand the relationship between their religious beliefs and U.S. politics? Political and religious leaders differ on this issue. However, many agree that merging faith with politics is dangerous. Has Christianity been too closely identified with patriotism? The views of a reverend and a senator may shed some light on this issue.

After three weeks the raging flames of national pride have finally abated.

Not only does life in Quebec deprive the American sojourner of his precious Diet Wild Cherry Pepsi—available so far as I can tell only in the U.S.—but it subjects him to yet another day of national pride: St. Jean Baptiste Day, June 24. Now some might find it odd to celebrate the life of a rigorous ascetic and martyr with public drunkenness but this curiosity was soon surpassed by the strangeness surrounding Canada Day, July 1. On Canada Day the residents of Canada celebrate gaining their nominal independence from Great Britain by flooding over the border into the U.S. to buy cheap goods and eat at American restaurants. But despite all of this, the manner in which the Canadians celebrated their national holidays struck me, for one thing was missing. No where in the proceedings was divine blessing recognized, invoked or besought. This of course stands in stark contrast to the frequent references to God and divine approval of the American project that so pepper American celebrations on July 4. It’s hard to imagine the Toronto Blue Jays stopping every evening mid-seventh inning to sing “God Bless Canada.” It would be…untoward i.e. un-Canadian.

As I mentioned last year while reflecting on all of the God talk surrounding Independence Day, we Americans have an interesting (perhaps even schizophrenic) theological relationship to the notion of America’s pseudo-divine character. On the one hand we note the genocide against native Americans, the enslavement of Africans and the internment of Japanese Americans (someday soon we may ma add “and the torture of captives”), but we usually follow these quick recognitions of past wrongs with a too quick, “But despite all that we’re still the best country in the world. I mean, look at all of the people who want to come here to work and study.” Our flaws, we tend to think, are mere hiccups along the way. What really matters is the fact that we have been selected by God to do something of world-historical importance. When our ancestors sailed here (ignore the cargo holds full of rum, guns, and slaves) in search of religious freedom they began a project of realizing God’s plan. We were to be a nation set apart, a beacon on a hill, a calm voice for truth and freedom amid the raging seas of history. With this godly charge the American experiment was launched and so our history (the stuff written in text books) has usually included the notion of American Exceptionalism: We aren’t like other nations. The same rules don’t apply to us. Truly a recipe for disaster!

On June 27, 2009, Rev. Peter Morales was elected the eighth president of the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA). Having wrapped up his recent campaign, the organization's new leader is now gearing up to implement the vision that won him the office. But what is his vision?

As the leader of the most liberal denomination in America, questions about Morales’ vision, and where he stands on the right-left spectrum, are not without consequence. Unlike many in the UUA, Morales is comfortable using the word "evangelical" in the classic sense of someone committed to the good news. Is Morales a liberal-evangelical moderate in a liberal religious organization?

Morales’ vision for the UUA seems to imply a moderate middle perspective. He wants to “reach all those people who are looking for a non-dogmatic, liberal religious community.” He also wants to partner with “other progressive and justice-seeking religious groups.”

I worry about condemning hypocrites because someday I may want to be one myself.

The media loves a good story of a politician professing one thing and practicing another.  Throw in sex, a foreign mistress, and the possibility of misspent public funds and they go positively haywire. Even the normally staid commentators on public radio had a hard time not tripping over their double and triple entendres when Governor Sanford of South Carolina—a state not unfamiliar with oversized political characters and stories—announced that he had spent recent days in Argentina with his mistress trying to figure out what to do about his marriage and family.

The story has only recently been knocked off the front pages due to the death of Michael Jackson, but it will continue to generate headlines as Sanford’s opponents work to remove him. And when these headlines appear, I will yet again be troubled by the prevalence of the word “hypocrisy.” I last gave this word serious thought when the Reverend Ted Haggard, a very public evangelical voice against gay rights, was publicly excoriated for a dalliance with another man. The problem I have with labeling these men hypocrites—and I took the time to look in several dictionaries and the label is technically accurate—is that it seems to suggest a contrast term. In other words, by calling someone fat, young, ugly, or liberal are we not implying the possibility that they might be skinny, old, pretty, or conservative? So if hypocrisy is “the practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess,” (American Heritage Dictionary) is there any contrast term?

Liberal-Evangelical moderate Christians are all too familiar with the "left versus right" way of thinking. Often ecclesiological and political debates among Christians are assessed in these terms. But as moderate, Christ-centered, radically inclusive Christians, polarizing labels are often frustrating. Perhaps an alternative to left-right thinking is possible.

Reporter Arianna Huffington of the Dallas Morning News has written a series of articles wherein she suggests such an alternative. She claims that a new revolution in thinking is underway. Huffington thinks that, in the arena of political differences, the U.S. culture at large no longer thinks in right versus left categories. Rather, she argues, we now think in terms of right versus wrong.

In her article, “Will gay marriage end left vs. right?” Huffington argues that gay marriage is the latest political issue wherein the new right-wrong thought pattern is evident.

On Thursday, June 4, 2009, President Barack Obama gave a landmark speech in Cairo, Egypt (right). Obama’s stated purpose was to “seek a new beginning” for “the United States and Muslims around the world.”

Obama discussed seven issues that are sources of tension.

• Violent extremism in all of its forms.
• Israelis, Palestinians, and the Arab world.
• The rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.
• Democracy.
• Religious freedom.
• Women's rights.
• Economic development and opportunity.

Following his discussion of these issues, Obama said,

The issues that I have described will not be easy to address. But we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world we seek - a world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God’s children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together.

Recent events raise the question as to whether or not right wing extremism is gaining momentum in the U.S.

Days ago, James von Brunn (pictured at right) killed a security guard in the U.S. Holocaust Museum. Not long before that, late term abortion provider Dr. George Tiller was shot at church. Further, a group of “skinheads” in Wichita have been accused of plotting to assassinate President Obama. These incidents featuring right-wing extremists appear to be unrelated. But are appearances deceiving? Could heated conservative rhetoric be fanning the flames of the rage driving these incidents?

NPR’s Talk of the Nation with Neal Conan recently discussed this question. Conan interviewed Kathleen Parker (syndicated columnist for the Washington Post Writers Group) and Jamie Kirchick (assistant editor of New Republic and author of “The Religious Right Didn’t Kill George Tiller” for the Wall Street Journal), among other pieces. Parker and Kirchick have quite different points of view on the question.

On May 31, 2009, Dr. George Tiller (pictured at right) was shot and killed. The New York “Daily News” reports that Tiller, “one of only three American doctors who performed late abortions on women with deformed fetuses, was gunned down inside his Wichita church as he chatted with a fellow usher about taking his grandkids to Disneyworld.”

Tiller had been called “Tiller the baby killer” by anti-abortion activists. Having been shot prior to this incident for his pro-choice stand, Tiller “often wore body armor--but not to church.”

Reactions to the Tiller slaying from denominations on both the liberal and conservative wings are flooding the media.