Thy Kingdom Come by Randall Balmer (Battles Over Schools, Evolution & Environmentalism; Political Expediency & Hypocrisy)

Thy Kingdom Come provides insightful history lessons on a number of hot button issues involving the Religious Right. Balmer describes the growing debate over school vouchers and inadequate financial support for public schools. He goes into great depth to explain the continuing cultural scars to fundamentalists from the humiliation of the Scopes “monkey trial,” as well as the more recent quest for legitimization via the label of “intelligent design.”

Balmer also notes that one would intuitively predict Creationists would be passionate about conserving God’s creation, but that has not been the case in recent years. He explains how the Religious Right came to align themselves with conservative, pro-business politicians that worked aggressively to fight against any legal efforts to protect the environment. He also describes how some Evangelicals are beginning to rebel against this approach based on biblical principles of stewardship.

In his “Conclusion,” Balmer reflects back on the bottom line of the various themes he has explored. He concludes that the Religious Right has distorted the teachings of Christ by ignoring clear teachings on protecting the vulnerable in society and peacemaking in favor of politically expedient themes with flimsy biblical support. He notes the hypocrisies of leaders of the Religious Right including Tom DeLay, Ralph Reed, William Bennett, and Randy “Duke” Cunningham. Balmer concludes that the ultimate aim of the Religious Right is to establish a “homogenous theocracy” analogous to that in seventeenth-century Massachusetts. But historian Balmer describes the lesson of Puritan New England as being clear:

Religion...functions best outside the political order, and often as a challenge
to the political order. When it identifies too closely with the state, it
becomes complacent and ossified, and efforts to coerce piety or to proscribe
certain behavior in the interests of moral conformity are unavailing.

Moreover, Balmer describes the Religious Right as more interested in moralism than morality, and are frankly “frightened by pluralism.” Consequently, the Religious Right is waging war on the First Amendment “in the interest of imposing its own theocratic vision” despite the irony that “no group has profited more from the First Amendment and the disestablishment of religion in American than evangelicals.”

Balmer ends the book with an exhortation to fellow believers:

[t]o reclaim their birthright as evangelical Christians and examine the
scriptures for themselves—absent the funhouse mirror distortions of the
Religious Right. For those equal to the task, I suggest a form of shock therapy:
juxtapose the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), arguably the highest expression
of Christian ethics, with the platform of the Republican Party.

Luke 11:9-10 (Darby Translation)

And I say to you, Ask, and it shall be given to you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you.
For every one that asks receives; and he that seeks finds; and to him that knocks it will be opened.


John 9: 25, 30, 33

Then he answered, I do not know whether He is a sinner and wicked or not. But one thing I do know, that whereas I was blind before, now I see.
The man replied, Well, this is astonishing! Here a Man has opened my eyes, and yet you do not know where He comes from. [That is amazing!]
If this Man were not from God, He would not be able to do anything like this.

Luke 18:9-14 (The Message)

He told his next story to some who were complacently pleased with themselves over their moral performance and looked down their noses at the common people: "Two men went up to the Temple to pray, one a Pharisee, the other a tax man. The Pharisee posed and prayed like this: 'Oh, God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, crooks, adulterers, or, heaven forbid, like this tax man. I fast twice a week and tithe on all my income.'
"Meanwhile the tax man, slumped in the shadows, his face in his hands, not daring to look up, said, 'God, give mercy. Forgive me, a sinner.'"
Jesus commented, "This tax man, not the other, went home made right with God. If you walk around with your nose in the air, you're going to end up flat on your face, but if you're content to be simply yourself, you will become more than yourself."

Janet Parshall’s America

Our family does not watch a lot of television, but our radios are turned on frequently. We tend to stick to the left side of the dial, alternating between NPR and Christian radio stations. Last month, I attended a CLE on the other side of town, and listened to a local Christian radio station during the long drive home. The CLE had ended at mid-day, and on weekdays that tends to be a busy time for me. Generally I’m not in the car then and don’t have time for the radio. As a result, I happened upon a program called “Janet Parshall’s America” for the very first time. I almost could not believe what I was hearing. When I tuned in, Ms. Parshall was extremely angry and was venting about President Obama’s anti-Christian bias. In that our president is a professed Christian who was baptized several decades ago, I found this frustration perplexing to say the least.

While I was in the car and listening to the program, Ms. Parshall talked about a luncheon of past White House social secretaries before Obama took office. They were meeting with Desiree Rogers (the in-coming social secretary) to welcome her and support her in her new role. According to Ms. Parshall, Ms. Rogers had shocked the group by indicating at the luncheon that the Obamas were considering not displaying a creche that had been displayed in a public room of the White House (not in the private family quarters) by many past presidents. Apparently, the Obamas had concerns about offending people of other faiths. Ms. Parshall indicated that the creche was eventually displayed in the Obama White House, but seemed to dismiss it as simply bowing to public pressure (by indignant Christians?).

Ms. Parshall also talked with great anger about the president’s preferences for Muslims, who were given priority in getting H1N1 vaccinations before leaving for the Hajj. She also mentioned President Obama had issued proclamations to Muslims during some religious holiday. Ms. Parshall equated these preferences and the hesitancy over the creche as evidence of anti-Christian hostility.

Frankly, I was not aware of the White House creche. I do not follow White House decorations and celebrations. I missed that Oprah special. It does not really matter to me one way or the other, but certainly I would appreciate concerns about offending non-Christian Americans with a creche in a public room of a building that is owned by our country’s taxpayers. If the United States one day has a Buddhist or Muslim majority, I don’t think I’d be thrilled by prominent displays of those religions in public buildings.

Moreover, it seems like a basic public health policy to give Americans traveling on the Hajj priority for a vaccine against a highly transmittable virus that they could bring back to our country. It also seems like very basic political common sense to issue proclamations to any sizeable demographic on days of importance to those groups. I’d be surprised if President George W. Bush and his predecessors did not issue similar celebratory proclamations to Muslims as well.

As a more general matter, I just don’t understand the apparently continuing furor against President Obama and the suspicion of his faith by some conservative Christians. Mr. Obama was baptized as a Christian in 1988, well before he entered politics. He was an active member of Trinity United Church of Christ for about twenty years. If that was all a facade to woo Christian voters, it was quite an elaborate hoax and it apparently did not work too well. Why would anyone would fail to accept someone’s profession of faith at their word? I have always accepted President Bush’s assertion that he is a Christian. Why wouldn’t others accept President Obama’s? I don’t understand what is going on.

I also don’t understand how the White House creche “issue” can be cited as evidence of hostility to Christianity and not just sensitivity to non-Christians in a pluralistic democracy. The American people elected Barack Obama to be our president, not our head pastor. He was elected to govern all of us, not just the Christians.

To me, the most concerning aspect of Ms. Parshall’s program that day last month was that it seemed to be a desperate, even silly attempt to come up with some reason to dislike and oppose President Obama. I’ve perused Ms. Parshall’s website, a link to which is provided below.

http://www.jpamerica.com/

The website is quite interesting. Ms. Parshall’s radio program is labeled a “ministry” but conservative politics are pervasive. In listening, her radio program was very reminiscent of Rush Limbaugh. She certainly had the angry tone down pat. Beyond gender, the main difference between Mr. Limbaugh and Ms. Parshall was Ms. Parshall’s quoting of Scripture and references to prayer. I have actually listened to Mr. Limbaugh on numerous occasions and don’t recall him ever quoting Scripture or talking about prayer. Maybe I just missed those broadcasts.

From her website, I take it that Ms. Parshall’s show is not always as political as it was the day I happened upon it. Looking at her past program topics, some do not appear to be political at all. Indeed, I caught a little of her program earlier this month, and she seemed much less angry as she spoke with former Redskins coach, Jim Gibbs.

It is interesting because when I was looking at Ms. Parshall’s website, the summary of the show on December 11, 2009 (the day I first caught her radio program) mentions nothing of President Obama’s anti-Christian hostility, the White House creche or the president’s Muslim bias. The show is apparently a three hour program, and I listened to about half an hour of it, all of which focused on such concerns. I’m not sure why the program summary does not mention that part of the program.

http://www.jpamerica.com/showsummary.aspx?show=12/11/2009

Ephesians 4:31 (New American Standard Bible)

Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice.



1Peter 2:13-15

Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority,
or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.
For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men.

“Christmas with a Capital C”

The other day I was in my car listening to one of the local Christian radio stations that I have pre-programmed. I heard a song called “Christmas with a Capital C.” Typically, the music on that radio station is loving praise and worship style music. But this particular song was so ugly in tone that it really shocked me. I’m not sure why any Christian radio station would air it.

Inter-spliced with the music were excerpts from a stand-up comedian’s rant on the tendency of people (particularly in retail settings) to wish others “happy holidays” instead of “merry Christmas.” The comedian talks initially about how Christmas was a cultural phenomenon that we all used to participate in together regardless of our own specific religious beliefs because it was good for the country. There is then a sarcastic reference to “Mr. Lowenstein,” which to me seems to be a hostile anti-Semitic remark, but perhaps others might interpret the reference in a more benign way. The comedian later talks about Christmas being part of the religious heritage of our country.

It is offensive and hurtful to me when people try to dilute the Christian faith into a cultural phenomenon. The Super Bowl is a cultural phenomenon. The blood sport of American political discourse is a cultural phenomenon. The Disney mega-franchise is a cultural phenomenon. There is not anything wrong with cultural phenomena. But to me, Christianity is much more. As a result, I continue to be baffled as to why any Christ follower would want to dilute the religious significance to impose Christian holidays like Christmas on non-believers to make such holidays a part of the mainstream, secular culture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAckfn8yiAQ

Ephesians 4:1-3

Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called,
with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love,
3being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It by Jim Wallis (Wallis's View on Fundamentalism)

Jim Wallis states that at heart he is a nineteenth-century evangelical born in the wrong century before the movement was “humiliated as a result of the famous Scopes trial in 1925.” Before that time, fundamentalism was often socially allied with the Left to support economic reforms that would benefit its mostly working-class constituency. However, Wallis observes that modern fundamentalism has moved to a theocratic movement, which “is really a betrayal of the biblical faith that regards political power much more suspiciously.” Wallis states that like the Taliban and al Quaeda the religious Right “desire their religious agenda to be enforced through the power of the state.” Wallis characterizes this as “primarily, a religious mistake.

Wallis expresses that with the move to theocracy, modern fundamentalism too easily justifies violence as a tool for implementing its agenda.” He also notes that “fundamentalist arguments for violence quickly become more political than religious.” He notes, “It’s always striking to me that when I listen to the Christian fundamentalist justifications for violence I don’t hear them asking that question, ‘What would Jesus do?’ From a fundamentalist Christian point of view, shouldn’t that be the key question to ask? What is more ‘fundamental’ to Christianity than Jesus? Perhaps the teachings of Jesus most unpopular with Christian fundamentalists (and other Christians too) are his statements about loving our enemies and not just seeing the ‘specks’ in your adversary’s eye, but also the ‘log’ in your own.”

In reflecting on our nation’s reaction to 9/11, Wallis criticized “American Bush theology” consisting of a struggle between “good and evil—we are good, they are evil.” Wallis stated, “we are not the good. That’s bad theology. Jesus teaches us to see the beam in our own eye, and not just the mote in our adversary’s eye. George Bush is a Methodist, but he sees no beams in the American eye.” Wallis contends, “We must act so that the world will not be remade in the image of the terrorists; and we deny the terrorists their victory when we refuse to be changed into people of God has not called us to be.”

Wallis also gives examples to support his conclusion that George Bush has made the same mistake “over and over again of confusing nation, church, and God. The resulting theology is more an American civil religion than Christian faith.” For example, at Ellis Island, making a speech to mark the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Bush stated, “This ideal of America is the hope of all mankind...That hope still lights our way. And the light shines in the darkness. And the darkness has not overcome it.” Wallis points out that the last two sentences are derived from the Gospel of John in the New Testament. However, in the Bible, the light is the Word of God and the light of Christ. By contrast, Bush’s reference of light is to America and its values.

Wallis suggests that this “bad theology” is being used to justify empire building and that the United States is beginning to resemble the Roman Empire. Of course, such an analogy is particularly poignant coming from a Christian like Wallis. The Roman Empire persecuted Jews in Jesus’ time, and also persecuted Christians after Jesus was crucified. Wallis repeatedly uses the term “Pax Americana”—a play off the term “Pax Romana.” As a more effective and theologically more enlightened approach, Wallis suggests following the prophet Micah, who emphasized that common security was the most effective means of self-defense.

Micah 4:3-4 (New Living Translation)
The Lord will mediate between peoples and will settle disputes between strong nations far away. They will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will no longer fight against nation, nor train for war anymore. Everyone will live in peace and prosperity, enjoying their own grapevines and fig trees, for there will be nothing to fear. The Lord of Heaven’s Armies has made this promise!

John 1:1-5 (New American Standard Bible)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
He was in the beginning with God.
All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.
The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

Focus on the Family’s “Stand for Christmas” Campaign

On its website, Focus on the Family has recently indicated it is about to launch its annual “Stand for Christmas” campaign. The conservative Christian group has been upset that some companies leave the word “Christmas” out of their advertising or fail to mention “Christmas” by name as it greets customers. Below you will find a link to Focus on the Family’s announcement that the 2009 “Stand for Christmas” campaign will get underway soon.

http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000011444.cfm

Oddly enough, the past website posts on the campaign no longer worked when I was researching and drafting this blog post. As a result, I’ve instead provided a third party media description of the campaign from the Rocky Mountain News:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/nov/16/focus-family-puts-retailers-naughty-and-nice-list-/

In the past, “Stand for Christmas” has published lists of retailers that are characterized as either “Christmas-friendly,” “Christmas-negligent,” or “Christmas-offensive” based on their use of the word “Christmas” in advertising and in stores. When I first heard of this campaign last year, I was frankly horrified. I became aware of it when listening to a local Christian radio station, and I was even more horrified by the enthusiastic response of listeners calling in to vow a boycott of stores that did not receive a “Christmas-friendly” label.

I too have been disgusted by what Focus on the Family refers to as the “secularization of Christmas.” However, to me, that secularization happens when we throw the word “Christmas” around too loosely, and it becomes more associated with an accumulation of material goods than with the birth of our Lord. I don’t see a connection between the birth of Jesus in a humble manger, and tying a big bow around a fancy car as an extravagant gift for your spouse. I think it blasphemes God to use the miracle of his son’s birth to encourage people to line up in a frenzy on Thanksgiving to await a turn to participate in a (sometimes deadly) stampede in a big box store. Even when no human being loses his or her life, where are the “family values” in such an experience?

While Focus on the Family is offended when sales clerks wish shoppers “Happy Holidays,” it offends me when retailers use the term “Christmas” in any way to justify their end of year marketing. To be clear, I certainly don’t begrudge the retail sector their end of year sales, which are critical to their ability to survive a competitive sector of the economy. But I just don’t appreciate them using Jesus in a sacrilegious way. I’d much prefer “holiday” advertising to “Christmas” advertising.

Though we are all Christians, the folks at Focus on the Family and I disagree on this issue; we seem to have a fundamentally different perspective on the significance of Christmas in American society. As I understand, the “Stand for Christmas” campaign is based in large part on the notion that the United States is a Christian nation and the roots of our holiday marketing are the religious holiday of Christmas. Perhaps I’m mistaken, but my understanding is that Focus on the Family wants to reemphasize those roots and stress the notion that we are a Christian nation (whatever that means). I disagree with that approach for several reasons.

First, I am pro-pluralism and anti-theocracy. I love Jesus, but think it is antithetical to Christianity that anyone would be forced to share my enthusiasm. It is a basic premise of Christian theology that God does not force himself on us, and instead we are each given free will to decide whether or not to follow him. Moreover, I am confident that if anyone studies Christianity, they too would embrace it. But I’m not in any way threatened by people who choose not to. Such a choice saddens me for a variety of reasons, but it’s not in any way threatening.

Second, Christmas is a sacred, beautiful holiday, and it is very important to me that it be preserved as such. It is not beneficial to anyone to have non-believers forced to wish store patrons “Merry Christmas” out of a type of political correctness. Moreover, it is frankly disgusting to me that Jesus’ birthday would be tossed around as an excuse to entice more customers into stores or to rack up debt on one’s credit card. That is not what Christmas means to me.

Matthew 21:12-13

Then Jesus went into the temple of God and drove out all those who bought and sold in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves. And He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a ‘den of thieves.’”