Entries Tagged as ''

Free Moroni!

Some churches will stop at nothing to oppress the rights of their faithful. I get that. We all have different spiritualities and some of us like a little oppression once in a while. Some are masochists in the bedroom, and others are masochists at prayer. Whatever floats your boat, I guess.

But I think you have crossed the line when you start oppressing the spiritual rights of the angelic orders.

Out in Utah, a coffee house in Taylorsville called “Just Add Coffee” is selling T-Shirts of the angel Moroni with coffee being poured into his trumpet. Mormons believe Moroni appeared to their founder, Joseph Smith, and revealed to him the location of golden tables that, when translated, became the Book of Mormon.

The double joke here – in addition to an angel drinking coffee – is that Mormons are not allowed to drink coffee and other caffeinated beverages. So, the Latter Day Saints do not think the T-Shirt is very funny. (This, BTW, is in spite of the fact that “Just Add Coffee” is in Utah, the shirts are selling like mad, and probably more than a few Mormons are buying them.)

The Mormon Church has begun legal proceedings to stop “Just Add Coffee” from producing these T-Shirts.

But I am not sure this is theologically cogent. Mormons are not allowed to drink coffee. I get that. But what about angels? Maybe angels are allowed to drink coffee. Does the Book of Mormon say? I doubt it. Angels can do lots of thinks humans cannot – fly, smell like flowers, look into the depths of the glory of God, live without eating or sleeping or going to the bathroom, and never die.

I really do not think that the Mormons should be curtailing the right of Moroni to have a nice, hot cup of Joe when the mood hits him. He’s got lots of work to do and – like most angels – he probably never sleeps. A little pick-me-up in the morning may be just what he needs.

What is wrong with Mormons that they will deny this simple pleasure to the one who –through the prophet Joseph Smith – founded their whole spiritual clan?

Perhaps if Mormons drank a little caffeine, they would lighten up.

 

Carts, Horses, and Racism

     COSROW, The United Methodist Commission on the Status and Role of Women, has recently called for a new initiative within the denomination regarding sexism and racism. I am all for this. On the whole, I like COSROW.

      One comment and one comment alone. Their press release through the United Methodist News Service on march 20th, 2007, began with the following sentence: “A commitment to justice for all and continued efforts to exorcise sexism and racism are needed if The United Methodist Church is to meet new mission goals.”

     Are you kidding?!

     I like the general sentiment, but they say they have this new commitment to justice for all and end to racism are needed BECAUSE of the new mission goals of the UMC. Effectively they are declaring that they like justice now because of the UMC’s mission goals. That’s why the new initiative comes about.

     Let’s read Galations 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” This has been the Word of God since Paul penned it in the first century.

     When a Church board tells you to worry about justice that is a good idea. When a church board forgets to mention it, it is still a really damn good idea. If a church board tells you to fight against justice, it is still a good idea to work for justice. As the God commands: “Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.” Justice is always a good idea, whether or not someone tells you to do it. After all, whether anyone tells you to do it or not, God is always and everywhere tell you to be about the business of justice.

   This is all one more reason to side with God first and your church second. Measure your church by the Word of God, not the other way around. If your church doesn’t get around to commanding justice for 2,007 years maybe you should do it anyway. Deus vult! God wills it!   This is all one more reason to side with God first and your church second. Measure your church by the Word of God, not the other way around. If your church doesn’t get around to commanding justice for 2,007 years maybe you should do it anyway. Deus vult! God wills it!

Hillary and Atonement

 

Hillary in Prayer
Wailing Wall, Jerusalem

Much will be said in the next few months about the godlessness of Hillary Clinton and how she does not represent values which are compatible with people of Christian faith. These are often comments meant to imply the “unholiness” of Hillary Clinton, how she is against God, and is somehow a false Christian.

The following article comes from the Christian Broadcast Network. It was posted on March 9, 2007. 

CBNNews.com - Senator Hillary Clinton said in an 1994 interview that she believes in the “atoning death of Jesus Christ.”

CBN News has discovered a number of past statements that Clinton has made about her Christian faith. In 1994, she was asked by Newsweek magazine, “Do you believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? She answered, “Yes.” She was then asked whether she believed in “the atoning death of Jesus?” Once again her answer was, “Yes.”

Senator Clinton is a lifelong Methodist who has always said she takes her faith very seriously. 

In that same Newsweek article, she says, “I think that the Methodist Church, for a period of time, became too socially concerned, too involved in the social gospel and did not pay enough attention to questions of personal salvation and individual faith.”

Recently, Clinton has injected more comments about her faith into the debate over public policy. Last month in Columbia, S. Carolina, she told an audience that the Book of James is one of her favorites in the New Testament.

Last year, she condemned a get tough House bill on illegal immigration that she felt was too harsh saying, “It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scriptures. This bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself.”

In addition to the Newsweek article, Senator Clinton spoke at Tufts University in November of 2004. 

CBN News uncovered this past quote from a speech where, when referring to Evangelical voters, she said, “I don’t think you can win an election or even run a successful campaign if you don’t acknowledge what is important to people. We don’t have to agree with them. But being ignored is a sign of such disrespect. And therefore I think we should talk about these issues.'’

IRD on Heresies

                 

 From September 28th to October 1st of 2006, a conference was held in San Francisco entitled “Building a Wesleyan Theology of Peace for the 21st Century”. It was sponsored by the national organization and religious-based lobbyist group Methodists United for Peace with Justice (MPUWJ). Their conference served the purpose of to bringing together church leaders, seminarians, peace practitioners, local clergy, and lay people to sit together and think prayerfully about a Wesleyan theology of peace.

This conference was blasted in the last edition of UMAction, a publication of the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD). The argued that the conference received money from the United Methodist Board of Church and Society, an official body of the United Methodist Church (UMC), and espoused doctrines which are contrary to United Methodist doctrine. The Institute on Religion and Democracy’s primary issue was the United Methodist Church stands within the “just war theory” tradition of the Christian Church and so the United Methodist Church is not a “peace church” in the tradition of Mennonites, Quakers, or the Amish.

Problems

1. As the MPUWJ themselves explain in their literature: “As our name “Methodists United” indicates, we seek the participation of all the Methodist family in the United States, including African Methodist Episcopal, African Methodist Episcopal Zion, Christian Methodist Episcopal, Free Methodist, United Methodist, and Wesleyan Churches. However, we are not an official part of any Methodist denomination.”

Since they are not an organ of the UMC, the MPUWJ has no obligation to uphold the doctrinal positions of the United Methodist Church.

2. Is the IRD honestly suggesting that the United Methodist Church no longer fund any form of theological exploration and deepening of our faith understanding? Their claim that we are not a “peace church” is only half right. It is an absolute and required doctrinal position of all United Methodists that “war and bloodshed are contrary to the gospel and spirit of Christ.” This is part of our unchangeable doctrine. However, the statement that war “be employed only as a last resort in the prevention of such evils as genocide, brutal suppression of human rights, and unpro­voked international aggression” (Book of Discipline, par. ¶65C)  is part of the Social Principles of the UMC. It is doctrine for now, but may be changed by any vote of the governing body of the church. For this reason, it is always up for discussion, exploration and further prayerful development.

The IRD’s believe seems to espouse “once doctrine always doctrine”. On the case of some spiritual foundations, this make sense. No one is arguing that Christians give up the two natures of Jesus Christ, the Trinity, or our doctrine of atonement. But Christians have found different ways in every generation and place to live faithfully to the call of God. This is a leading by God’s Holy Spirit to be a faithful witness to Jesus Christ.

The claim that we need to follow the United Methodist Book of Discipline to the exclusion of prayerful consideration that the Holy Spirit may be leading us to knew ways of faithful devotion to the risen Lord Jesus is a greater form of heresy than they claim for the MPUWJ is slipping into.

Conclusion

I am not an advocate of strict pacifism. I agree with old Reinhold Niebuhr that it is more wish fulfillment than a recognition that we live on “this side” of the Kingdom of God. However, those who fight for a radical and literal devotion to Jesus as “the Prince of Peace” ought not to be derogated. We should honor their commitment and consider the possibility (ever generation) that they may now be right.

Brownback is a bigot

 

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs told the Chicago Tribune this week: “I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts. I do not believe the United States is well-served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way.”

When asked whether he agreed with Pace’s comments, Republican presidential candidate Sam Brownback said: “I do not believe being a homosexual is immoral, but I do believe homosexual acts are. I’m a Catholic and the church has clear teachings on this.”

Brownback carefully picked up a distinction which was being made by General Pace in his comments. Both Brownback and Pace make a distinction between a homosexual person and a homosexual act.

This is meant by a lot of Christians to avoid what can be an uncomfortable moment at a cocktail party. It is a nice way of saying: “Love the sinner, hate the sin.” Or, in this context, “I think your behavior is disgusting, perverted and an offense to God. But otherwise, you are a pretty decent guy.”

Problem #1

            A distinction between a person’s action and a person themselves is pretty artificial. When the Bible wants to tell you what kind of person someone is, they tell you a story about what they did. Want to know if Jesus was a good guy? He ate with sinners, healed the sick, chided people for failing to love the unlovable and give all there money to the poor, and then he died for the sins of the world. Conclusion: He’s a good guy. The Bible does not pine about how he thought warm and fuzzies. It shows us his actions are who he is.

            So when Sam Brownback says that a person’s behavior is a sin against God, he is saying that that person is an abomination in the eyes of God. He is welcome to employ fancy philosophical foot work to get around that if he likes. But, honestly, when someone tells me that my gas is as foul as a month old corpse, but somehow I am not wretched – I still take it all pretty personally . . . and for good reason.

Problem #2

             There is another deeper problem here. What is meant by the phrase “homosexual acts”?  This is another way some Christians get around that potentially awkward moment at a cocktail party. After all, no one wants to think too hard about what consenting adults of the same sex actually do in a bedroom. That would be gross, right? The thought is, let’s just use the euphemism “acts” and avoid the whole problem. 

            This is bogus. The word “act” means “anything done, being done, or to be done.” Do we take it that Mr. Brownback believes everything a gay person does from walking, to dancing, to making love, to voting for him, to hanging stylish drapes is somehow immoral?

            Furthermore, are we good Christian heterosexual persons engaged in homosexual acts when we engage in acts performed regularly by homosexual persons?  Am I paving the way to Hell every time I dance with rhythm to The Village People, laugh during an episode of “Will & Grace”, or applaud “Pricilla Queen of the Desert” as one of the funniest movies of all time?

            If this is so, then I have only one thing to say: Sam Brownback has impeccable taste in clothes. I guess he’s just one of the self-loathers.

Brownback too good to be president

Earlier this week, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Peter Pace said, “I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts. I do not believe the United States is well-served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way.”

Just today, Republican presidential candidate Sam Brownback has seconded these comments. He wrote, “I do not believe being a homosexual is immoral, but I do believe homosexual acts are. I’m a Catholic and the church has clear teachings on this.” Alright, stop right there. Did you see it? Sam Brownback states that he backs the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs because the teachings of the Catholic Church are clear regarding the morality of homosexual acts. That is, they are NOT moral. Brownback is effectively saying that when it comes to the law of the United States and his own personal faith, when they are in conflict, he will side with his faith.

Personally, I do not have a problem with that. After all, isn’t that what Martin Luther King, Jr. did? When it came to the segregation laws of the South and his own Christian conviction that in we are all one in Christ Jesus, he opted for his faith. His God and his state were in conflict and he knew which of the two he stood with. This is an option which I respect and understand. I am with both Rev. King and Mr. Brownback on this one. I feel no less strongly that when it comes to the state and my Christian calling, I side with Christ hands down. Here is the problem: I am not running for an office charged with executing the law of the land. Neither did King, as far as I know. I will not speak for the great Rev. King, but I can speak for myself. I will not run for public office because there are some laws which I, as a Christian, cannot in good conscience execute. My constituents would be very unhappy by my releasing all prisoners (Luke 4:18), cancelling all debts (Deuteronomy 15:12-18), letting the army go home and abolishing war (Matthew 5:38-42), and refusing to kill death-row inmates (John 8:7). By the standards for the world, I would be a political dud. So, I let people run for office who have a different theology than I, or who have found a way to compromise . . . err, mediate on this issue. Brownback comes from the opposite spectrum than I do, obviously. However, he has the same problem and does not even know it. If he is not willing to compromise his Roman Catholic values as President then he is not fit for the office. In fact, he is not fit even to be considered for the office.

The American President must, as commander-in-chief, engage in warfare when congress declares a state of war. Will a President Brownback apply just-war theory to any such pronouncement and refuse to do the will of Congress if he decides that their war does not meet just war theory requirements? I suspect he would be impeached in a second for even pausing to think this way. I applaud a man who put’s God before country. Would that more people in the world did this. However, such a devout and dedicated Christian is, by definition, unfit for public office. But then again, if you know much about Sam Brownback, you already knew he was unfit to lead anyway.

Sen. Edwards Interview

    

 With the 2008 Presidential election already in full swing, all the candidates are rushing to religious venues to show how holy they are. There is a dimension of this which just makes me feel like Hitchcock’s Scottie Ferguson on the Mission San Juan Bautista. The vertigo is unto death! Politicians pandering - and doing so badly - is never a pretty sight. However, some of these politicians can sometimes take you off guard. I saw a nice interview given by John McCain on TBN (of all places!). If I can find a copy of that, I will post it.

     Sen. John Edwards gave an interview for beliefnet.com. This is an excellent interview. Beliefnet is a mixed venue. It is not dominated by one sort of people. It is used by evangelicals, liberals, Buddhists, atheists, Neo-pagans, seekers, and more.

     For this reason, no politician can easily pander to one group or the other. They have to be genuine or forever hold their peace. “Genuine” is what I think we got from Edwards on this one.

                          Check it out here.

     Also, you might want to check out the comments from David Kuo. Kuo was the former head of faith-based initiatives for George W. Bush. He was also the person who interviewed Edwards. He seems pleased with Edwards but is also wary of him, given his experience being burned by the Bush White House.

                     Check that out here.

 

 

 

Good & Faithful Servant Award: Peacemaking Through Toys

 

 

   Two small United Methodist churches in rural Iowa heard about something horrible happening in Iraq and decided to do something about it. A woman in one of the churches learned from her Marine son-in-law how Iraqi insurgents were giving children realistic looking toy guns in hopes that a U.S. soldier might mistakenly shoot a child and incite anger against the United States.

   She initiated a program in her church which collects safe toys for Iraqi children, like soccer balls, backpacks, Beanie Babies and other toys. These toys are then traded by service men and women in Iraqi for those fake guns.  

   Twenty-eight boxes were shipped for Christmas, 2006. Among the boxes were 1,500 soccer balls!

   Hey, this is not going to bring about world peace. I know that and you know that. It won’t even bring about an end to the war in Iraq. But, there is something to be said for making a small difference in the world when there is no opportunity to make a big one. And anyway, what could be better than peacemaking with toys?!

     Janet Wakehouse, and Turin and Onawa United Methodist Churches: Well done, good and faithful servant. (Matthew 25:14-30)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Promised McCain Interview

I promised a copy of the John McCain interview on TBN if I could find it. I did find it. It is clear from the interview that he feels very uncomfortable with his surroundings. (I do not blame him.) However, he seems to hold his own in speaking about his faith when he clearly in not used to doing so.  

This interview is most notable for two stories that he tells about his time as a prisoner of war. The first is his story about the Vietnamese prison guard who was a secret Christian and reveals the quality of his faith to Senator McCain. The other is the story of the first Christmas that he and the other inmates of the Hanoi Hilton spend together.

Again, I offer the same sort of comment I did about the John Edwards interview. When these candidates do interviews on religious venues, you get a change to see a side of them that they do not usually reveal while they are speaking about policy or foreign policy. A dimension of their character is revealed in such interviews which other news outlets cannot access.

 

Just Chillin’ Out

Who Could Make This stuff up?!

                                        

                    old P&G logo                             new P&G logo

 

 

Today, Procter and Gamble Co. won a lawsuit against Amway. A Court of Law in the United States declared that P&G is, in fact, not Satanist. I kid you not. Some judge and jury had to decide this.

There have been urban legends for years that their P&G logo can, when look at a certain way, be seen to have a 666. (Personally, I haven’t seen it, but I am assured that it is there.) Their former logo with a moon and stars started this theory. It was taken to be Satanic based upon the passage from Revelation 12:1 which states: “And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars.” There have been similar legends that P&G executives have appeared on television talk shows (in particular Phil Donahue) and declared their love for the Devil. Also, that some, undisclosed amount of their profits go to the Church of Satan.

Today, Procter and Gamble was awarded $19,250,000 from Amway for slander and Amway was told to cut out the rumors mongering.

Folks, I couldn’t make this stuff up if I wanted to.

Personally, I can understand where this rumor might have come from. My 18 month old daughter uses Pampers (a P&G product). Sometimes, there are things in there which must have come from Satan himself.

It also should no to unmentioned that P&G still sponsors many soap operas, including As the World Turns, Guiding Light, the Young and the Restless. I’ve always suspect that something Satanic was going on there.

But, thanks to a jury in Salt Lake City, I now know that all these suspicious were unfounded. Thanks for clearing that one up! Now all I have to worry about are the Freemasons . . .