Editorial on Pope Francis - Is Francis Moving to the Left - Part 2

On May 20^th the Daily News Record carried an editorial regarding Pope Francis entitled “The Papal Seal” (see part 1 posted on May 29th on my blog for the text). While I’m not a Roman Catholic and it’s not my intention to defend specific pronouncements by Pope Francis or any other statements, I do defend the Pontiff’s responsibility to speak to various issues that impinge upon where life and faith intersect, and for those pronouncements to be given from a biblical perspective as viewed from a Roman Catholic theological perspective.  


While some religious officials, such as the Reverends Huckabee and Al Sharpton to name two, join political parties and become deeply involved in the body politic and should be evaluated within such a framework, the vast majority of clergy, from the lowest ranks to the highest, do not do so. To judge religious leaders such as the Pope from within political philosophy or a partisan politics does a disservice to them and the Bible.

By evaluation Pope Francis through a political dogma’s lens the paper’s editorial board has done a disservice to the Pope and all religious leaders.

Religious leaders must be apolitical, speaking to faith and life issues without a concern for political dogma. They must be free to speak to the consciousness of their adherents, the nation and its leadership. One set of comments may be in keeping with one party while another set repudiates the same party’s position. Our religious leaders must be free to speak out on host of moral issues, not from a right versus left perspective, but from the perspective of their understanding of faith. Their voices if used in a balanced manner helps our nation by asking us to pause as consider the morality and the impact of various political proposals.

What may be expedient for a particular industry and reap them riches, that pending legislation may be far from being moral. As we look at distant and the history of more recent years we must concede that what may be popular at a moment may be contrary to the moral and faith teachings of an idea’s most forceful proponents.


Using the structure and general thrust of the May 20^th editorial I hope that the following will give those of faith a momentary pause. Coupled with giving some pause my intent is to note the significant danger that exists when politicians and news reporters/editors place a religious official into political box or upon them a particular philosophy. Religious officials need to apply Scripture to life, and do so apart from political dogma or affiliation. The flip side of the coin is that when religious leaders align themselves too closely with a political party/doctrine, the result is a compromising of the gospel since the gospel ends up being twisted to fit into a the framework of a particular dogma, and the religious official remains silent when questionable moral positions or actions are taken by the party to which one has pledged allegiance.
   =========================

Is the People’s Preacher Jesus Moving to the Left?

There’s little question that Jesus of Nazareth – by virtue of his humility, spirit of inclusion, and desire to rid our Holy Temple and our Synagogues of their bureaucratic sclerosis, and even corruption – has rallied many common folk to his standard, if not the Yahweh standard. But, at times, we’ve been given to wonder if this humble preacher is appealing to the wrong people – and if he is, at heart, a man of the left.


Why such cause for wonder – and consternation? Consider these recent developments. This popular preacher from Nazareth, the self proclaimed messenger of God on earth, has reached out to the radical elements of the street, whose unorthodox theology seems animated more by the diktats of common street theology, and remnants of pagan mysticism than by the teachings of Moses and the learned teachers of the Law; he welcomed avowed tax collector and godless sinner, Matthew, to become part of his inner circle; and he gave his official imprimatur to prostitutes, adulteresses and other sinners who openly violate the Law, and has repeatedly distanced himself from the noble cause of resistance to Rome and fighting for liberty from tyrannical Rome.


The first two developments can be attributed – and readily explained – to Jesus acting as a good shepherd, tending to lost elements Yahweh’s flock, whether they be fallen-away Hebrews or, in the minds of conservatives, misguided ones. Even so, the tax collector Matthew casting himself in the role of the repentant son beggars belief – and sincerity – given that he long ago through his tax collection duties and tactics renounced the faith of his fathers for a total immersion in Caesar’s dispensation.


But alignment with the Samaritans and the Romans – is a veiled repudiation of the people of Israel – is not simply an apolitical act, but also one that suggests little discernment aforethought, and indicates that he is neither Yahweh’s prophet nor the righteous preacher as he and others claim. We understand in this street preacher’s eagerness to embrace others who claim to worship God – that in recent days he has told two stories about Samaritans as illustrative parables – but doesn’t he realize that by embracing such people he is compromising the true faith Moses entrusted to God’s people. The real threat to the well-being of God’s people and the Temple is from illiterate and unskilled preachers as is this Jesus. What’s more, by advocating a two kingdom view of the world with the heavenly kingdom and the fallen earthly kingdom being distinct yet coexisting together, and in his careless leftist handling and application of the Law Jesus of Nazareth is, at least implicitly, endorses the acceptance of a fallen sinful world as a normal reality, one where the earthly kingdom can refuse to even acknowledge Yahweh’s existence and Law.


All those strange imprimaturs prompt us to ponder whether past statements from Jesus were not aberrations. For instance, in the last year in response to the burdensome heavy taxes paid to Rome, he said, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s.” He defends the unrighteous Roman government and its unjust taxation policies. Jesus, by healing on the Sabbath and allowing his followers to violate the Sabbath is teaching people to violate the Law.  Jesus again demonstrates his leftist nature by saying “Blessed are the poor,” elevating the state of being poor, creating the ground for class warfare, while in other addresses firmly condemning the wealthy for being successful. He demonstrates that he is man of the left by gleefully undermining the sacredness of the Sabbath laws, tossing out businessmen at the Temple who are merely providing a service to sincere worshippers who have traveled great distances and who lack the necessary ability to give a heart-felt sacrifice to Yahweh.


Has the Jesus ever understood the fullness and righteousness of the Law, how our religion stands far above all other religions as a beacon of hope and salvation afforded by carefully keeping of the Law and our faith in Yahweh? And what, pray tell, is the alternatives to the faith provided to us through Moses in divine Law? Surely not a watered down system of monotheism believes that “includes” an apostate belief in Yahweh but stifles opportunity and squelches human potential of true salvation afforded to us in the Law and sacrifices given in the Temple.

Public Housing Rules

I recently read an interesting letter to the editor commenting upon those in public housing obeying the rules. The letter reflects a general strongly held viewpoint that is having a strong sway in American politics, a sway that has greater influence than their raw numbers would indicate.

The letter entitled, “Public Housing Must Have Rules That Are Obeyed” reads, “Of course, ‘these people will smoke, drink, and do whatever they want in subsisted housing,’ if they don’t have a manager to enforce rules and regulations.

 “It seems that people in public housing think, ‘Well, I pay rent, I can party, smoke, drink and do what I want to.’ What happened to the rules and regulations? Yes, stop smoking in public housing, really everywhere. Think of the lives that could be saved – lung disease and other things that smoking causes.

 “They should get better managers to enforce all rules and regulations. You go into public housing knowing they must be obeyed.

 “I would think anyone who pays $55 a carton would want to quit for themselves as well as everybody else’s health.”

 

Many comments and observations could be drawn from this short letter regarding the author’s views regarding law and human rights. Following are a few comments upon the letter.

The letter’s author views those in public housing as being unemployed, lazy and generally unproductive citizens. Unfortunately such dangerous stereotyping is held by a significant portion of our communities. Yes, there are people in public housing who reflect the picture, but they are not the norm as I’ve discovered in working with and assisting people who live in public housing. While there are exceptions while there are those who are unemployed, including the disabled, in public housing there are far more productive citizens who are employed, but employed in low waged jobs. They are those who are drive our children to school on school buses, our receptionists, clean our offices, cook and serve our lunches, who look after our children in day care, are sales staff at discount stores, etc.  

I wish that we could all agree that the cost of housing in many areas is out of reach for those earning a low hourly wage, and that because we are not willing to pay 10 to 15% higher costs for a TV bought at a discount box store or 15% to 20 more for our fast food meal, public housing is a necessary burden we carry.  What we save on fast food and in discount stores becomes a larger burden on our taxes for public housing to help support these low wage workers that serve us every day. We pay one way or the other, and as a society we want low cost products from retailers who keep their overhead low by paying a very low wage.   

The letter clearly states that the lays the problem of smoking, drinking and holding parties in public housing to the lack of rules enforcement. The thought that such rules as being unjust or improper escapes the letter's writer. Evidently he is comfortable with the government limiting and denying American citizens rights held by other citizens, and that those rights should be denied to them solely because they live in public housing. In other words, if you enter public housing, you become a second class citizen. What should we then deny these citizens next? The right to travel? The right to watch television or own a car? The right to vote?  I would disagree with any rule in public housing which limits or denies legal behavior in the privacy of one’s home the rights allowed other citizens to the same behavior. This is supposed to be a nation where all citizens are treated equally. Since America is a nation that prides itself on personal liberty, we must be slow to limit those liberties.

The author of the letter reflects the all too common tendency of holding that as one has experienced life or religion in a particular manner, or reasons in a particular fashion, that too should others think in the and experience the world, event or religious experience in the same way. And if you don’t have the same experience, then you are deficient at some point and you need to correct yourself. It is a version of my view is better and more righteous than yours. Since humanity and life is not so simple, measuring/judging others primarily upon one’s own experience is a most dangerous enterprise.

An Underlying Difference Between Portman and Salmon on Gay Marriage

While both Senator Rob Portman and Representative Matt Salmon have a gay son, each takes a different posture on the right of gays to marry. Understanding how each man’s view the issue and their sons differently helps one to understand why they differ.

In listening to his son and observing the son's life, Portman has concluded that his son is not emotionally ill and that the son is not socially dysfunctional or rebellious. He recognizes that as with many out of the closet gays, his son has and will endure ridicule and attacks, be shunned, looked down upon and ostracized, not something an emotionally balanced person one would seek to endure. Hence, he has concluded that his son is gay not by choice but by nature. One can well understand that right of gays to marry is a logical extension for Portman once he concluded that his son is gay by nature, that his son cannot help be attracted to and love with a person of the same gender.  

By contrast Salmon's position is simple and shaped by his religious beliefs. Though he loves his son, he cannot accept or approve of his son having sex with a man. For Solomon, being gay is a deliberate choice. Salmon holds that as God is just and that Scripture views gay sex as evil, a person cannot under any condition be viewed as gay by nature, for it would mean that God unjustly created a person with a nature for which he condemns them. While Salmon loves his son, for him the son’s sexual activity is a chosen yet unacceptable behavior, not part of the son’s nature. Tens of thousands of parents each year are faced with an adult child engaged in unacceptable non-criminal activities, such as, habitual lying, habitual and constant laziness, being irreligious, etc., but they like Salmon continue to love the child without accepting the sin. While not explicitly saying so, one can read between the lines, that for Salmon to embrace his son's lifestyle would be an act of denying what he professes as being his Christian faith.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/04/01/rep-matt-salmon-gay-son-hasnt-changed-my-views-on-gay-marriage/?wprss=rss_homepage

America's Religious Changes Impacting Elections

It is evident that the ethic profile of the United States is changing, but so is America’s religious profile.  In the 1950s church attendance across all denominations was strong, with three out of four Americans attending church services at least three times a year. In this same decade over 85% of Americans considered themselves to be “religious”. In the mid 60’s dramatic shift that lasted for a little over two decades commenced with the growth in the conservative Baptist and evangelical churches as people left mainline churches for conservative congregations.  

In August 2012 the Washington Post reported the number of Americans claiming to be “religious” had decreased from around 73% in 2005 to around 60%. That same article noted that atheists make up about 5% of the American public, up from around the 1% level of the late 80s.  

As noted in a past post, the evangelical church is in decline, a decline that will become starkly evident over the coming decade. Many evangelicals argue the decline is a result of a lack of religious fervor and conviction in their churches and society as a whole. They argue that the church and nation is decline because prayer has been taken out of the schools, gay marriage and rampant disregard for biblical teachings.

While lack of broad fervor may be a factor in the decline of the evangelical church, it is a minor factor. The two primary causes for the decline are entangled somewhat. First, the group that flooded into the evangelic churches between 1965 and 1985 as a reaction to social changes occurring in that era are aging rapidly. Their children and grandchildren are not attending evangelical churches at the same rate. While not the only cause, significant declines in attendance, particularly amongst those below the age of 30 follow on the heels of periods of strident political activity within the evangelical church.

My intent here is not to judge one way or the other the appropriateness of such action on a particular issue or set of issues. My intent is to note that there is a correlation between the evangelical church’s manifest fervor on particular issues and the younger generation remaining within or being attracted to the evangelical teachings. What is evident is that there was a cost to the evangelical churches the more they became politically engaged on a host of social, cultural and financial issues. It increasingly appears that their political activity has left those who came into adulthood since the early 1990s feeling that the evangelical church has no answers for them. While some of the younger generation are returning to mainline churches, for a more balanced approach, more often than not the younger generation are not looking to any organized faith for sucker and guidance.

Hence, the evangelical finds itself with an aging membership. In many congregations the largest age block are those over the age of 60. Attendance is slowly declining, and will become more rapid as their largest block of members start to enter nursing homes and pass away.     

This shift was evidenced in this past election, an election which on so many levels Romney should have won by a spread of at least 7. With this economy, if the values and the demographics of the late 80s and early 90s were in place Romney would have won easily. Then the evangelical church, the heart of the Republican base, was strong and the younger generation was still somewhat religiously connected.

November’s exit polls showed that those who claim to have faith of some manner but with no specific religious affiliation, called “nones” in the data, made up 12 percent of the electorate in 2012. This is up by 3 points from 2000 and double the 1980 level. Further, the number of people who say that they do not attend church or house of worship stood at 17 percent. The Republican base is shrinking.

 

That this level the “nones” make up a voting block as large as the Hispanic. These “none” broke for the Democrats by over 40%. If one adds into the mix the atheists, the voting block becomes more significant. The block will only grow.  America is becoming more pluralistic. Hopefully the Republicans can make the adjustment.  

Religion and Politics

The founders of the United States were wise in creating the separation of church and state. They were far from being anti-religion for nearly all attended church services from time to time. Church attendance and religious discussions in public were common practices. This did not mean that like today people of different faith backgrounds readily accepted one another as friends, co-workers and married across denomination backgrounds, and spoke well of denominations that were outside their own stream.

The culture in the 1770s and 1780s was vastly different than our cultural of broad acceptance of people of other Christian denominations. Marrying outside one’s denomination was far from being widely accepted. A Baptist marrying a Roman Catholic created a family scandal. Baptists viewed Methodists with suspicion. People tended to live, work and socialize within their faith tradition.

It was from this cultural milieu that those who signed the Declaration of Independence and shaped the American Constitution came. Coming from a diverse array of faiths, and some non-practicing any faith, they cautioned against the mixing of politics and religion. While they recognized that value faith played in the daily lives of themselves, family, friends and neighbors, they were also well aware of the problems that are created when one’s personal faith is a highly dominating factor in determining public policies. They were unlike the French revolutionaries who, in reacting against the abuses of the dominant religion of their culture, were anti-religion and created national policy that was strikingly anti-religion.

In shaping the national documents and in setting forth public policy the founders set aside their own religion’s doctrinal positions. Admittedly their religious believes shaped their thinking and moved their hearts to be more passionate on some issues than another, but they did not seek to entrench specific and narrow religious dogma or statements into public policy. For example, while all were of the Christian faith in background, and most in practice, they did not enshrine into the founding documents or in early documents that Sunday was to be a non-work day or speak in any manner to compel people to attend church, or that Christian values should be taught by the state to its citizens. They knew from oberservation and experience that when religion battles to be a dominate voice in shaping public policy in general that the consequences for the community, nation and citizenry as a whole has detrimental consequences.

Instead, these Christian men, many with strong religious convictions, established a religious neutral nation, a nation where people of different faiths can and should participate in public discussion and the shaping of public policy without any one faith stream dominating another. In an era when there is much pandering by various politicians to those of a particular religious persuasion, it is worth recalling the significance of the United States being founded as to be a nation that is religiously neutral and tolerant.

Evangelical Church and Racism

Ever so slowly I'm working my way through Robert Putnam’s "American Grace", in which he examines the nature of religious life and its interaction with politics throughout the last one hundred years. Putnam’s work is filled with survey data, demographic trends and basic observations which gives one much food for thought. The work articulates in a coherent manner volumes of data confirms various of my observations and conclusions...one of which is that the evangelical church entering a period of significant decline. Also the book is making numerous new connections such as the correlation between religious attendence declines in young adults and the level of politically activity the evangelical church.

Putnam demonstrates that following WWII religious life in North America across all denominations underwent a dramatic increase. Soldiers returning from the horrors of war attended all churches at a much higher rate than prior generations. The mainline churches plateaued and then started to decline in the late 1960s, a decline that has only slowed in the last decade.

As mainline churches went into decline the evangelical and fundamentalist church grew (the two groups though similar are not identical). Interestingly the Canadian churches saw some of the same patterns as their American brother and sisters, but not to the same degree. The Canadian fundamentalist churches did not increase as much as the evangelical churches and the Canadians growth came in three surge waves versus the four and larger surges experienced by their American counterparts.

As the mainline church suffered dramatic declines that corresponded with each growth surge experienced by the evangelical church, the evangelical surge was primarily transfer growth. Hence, the evangelical surges were for the most part movement of existing church attenders than the “conversions” of unchurched “heathens.”

Putnam demonstrates that the surges in the American evangelical and fundamental churches corresponded with four sociological-political events; the birth control pill and sexual liberation, ERA/feminist movement of the mid to late 70s, civil rights movement, and the Roe v. Wade ruling. As mainline churches being less judgmental about the use of the pill and sexual liberation, they suffered lost of people and the more dogmatic evangelical and fundamentalist churches gained. Roe v. Wade and mainline churches talking about empowering women to become business and church leaders (an female ordination), drove another group of conservative leaning families out of the mainline churches to evangelical and fundamentalist churches that provided clear directives and kept the issues simple.

If one looked at it from a marketing perspective, a perspective evangelicals would reject, evangelical churches captured these families by shaping their message to appeal to those who need less equivication and more rigid frameworks. The evangelicals distinguished themselves by speaking against each of issues (ie: contraception is contrary to divine law, a woman’s place was in the home raising the family, women in the military on the front lines blurs the distinction between men and women, sex must be saved for one’s marital partner, etc.). Though the language and postions on various issues has changed, the evangelical buzz from that age continues to be part of its core language is that they stand for “traditional family” values and preach only the Bible.

Putnam’s data clearly indicates civil rights with the integration of schools and the office was also a major cause for the shift. While mainline churches marched with Dr. King and other civil rights activists, encouraged their members to support integration, evangelical leaders for the most part took a contrary postion. They not only shied away from advocated for civil rights but it was not uncommon to hear pastors and evangelical leaders speaking openly against civil rights or quietly despairingly of integration and reinforcing stereotypes. For the Canadian reader, this is the one element which was for the most part missing from the Canadian scene.

Evangelicals would argue that their different message was not a marketing decision but as being faithful to the preaching of the Word. I concur that it was not a marketing choice. Yet as on all but abortion the evangelical church has changed its message significantly on each of the three areas, faithful preaching of the Word rests on shaky ground. Even on abortion the mainline church membership and pastors have as diverse positions just like the evangelical members and pastors. Rather than marketing and faithfulness to the Word as being the cause, the root is that evangelicals (and fundamentalists) are naturally disposed to being more politically conservative and that in the two decades of significant social shifting, the more conservative elements in the mainline churches found greater identification with their more conservative evangelical friends. Hence, in turbulant times the strength of bent of one's politics tended to determine where one worshipped.

As noted, the Canadian scene was different regarding civil rights. Not only did I not experience despairing comments about race relations in my evangelical congregation, its leadership spoke that equality between races was a biblical principal. Our congregation was not alone as high school friends in other evangelical churches were hearing the same message. Hence subtle despairing comments I heard in my Kentucky dorm and heard at the college from my peers, and some faculty, was perplexing. Though the college leadership acknowledged that integration must happen, its steps were measured least they offend their more conservative alumni and funders.

Today I understand the issues more fully than I did then, that racism was part of the American evangelical and fundamentist scene throughout the 60s, 70s and early 80s. It was more blatant in the 60s and more subtle later, and though rarely as blatant or as widespread, thirty years later it still exists in a subtle manner. Though the majority of the criticism and caricatures of President Obama does not involve racism, one has to be void of sight and intelligence not to understand that some caricatures and criticism are racist in nature and motivation, and that too many of those individuals fill leadership positions in a fundamentalist or evangelical church on Sunday.

As remanents of racism continues to linger as a part of the evangelical church I was not surprised by this story about an evangelical church voting to ban an interracial couple from membership and participating in a worship service… http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-12-03/church-interracial-ban/51607194/1