Below is an op-ed piece in today’s New York Times. It is timely (really a bit late), but so very needed.
——
January 20, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
Wayward Christian Soldiers
By CHARLES MARSH
Charlottesville, Va.
IN the past several years, American evangelicals, and I am one of them, have amassed greater political power than at any time in our history. But at what cost to our witness and the integrity of our message?
Recently, I took a few days to reread the war sermons delivered by influential evangelical ministers during the lead up to the Iraq war. That period, from the fall of 2002 through the spring of 2003, is not one I will remember fondly. Many of the most respected voices in American evangelical circles blessed the president’s war plans, even when doing so required them to recast Christian doctrine.
Charles Stanley, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Atlanta, whose weekly sermons are seen by millions of television viewers, led the charge with particular fervor. “We should offer to serve the war effort in any way possible,” said Mr. Stanley, a former president of the Southern Baptist Convention. “God battles with people who oppose him, who fight against him and his followers.” In an article carried by the convention’s Baptist Press news service, a missionary wrote that “American foreign policy and military might have opened an opportunity for the Gospel in the land of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.”
As if working from a slate of evangelical talking points, both Franklin Graham, the evangelist and son of Billy Graham, and Marvin Olasky, the editor of the conservative World magazine and a former advisor to President Bush on faith-based policy, echoed these sentiments, claiming that the American invasion of Iraq would create exciting new prospects for proselytizing Muslims. Tim LaHaye, the co-author of the hugely popular “Left Behind” series, spoke of Iraq as “a focal point of end-time events,” whose special role in the earth’s final days will become clear after invasion, conquest and reconstruction. For his part, Jerry Falwell boasted that “God is pro-war” in the title of an essay he wrote in 2004.
The war sermons rallied the evangelical congregations behind the invasion of Iraq. An astonishing 87 percent of all white evangelical Christians in the United States supported the president’s decision in April 2003. Recent polls indicate that 68 percent of white evangelicals continue to support the war. But what surprised me, looking at these sermons nearly three years later, was how little attention they paid to actual Christian moral doctrine. Some tried to square the American invasion with Christian “just war” theory, but such efforts could never quite reckon with the criterion that force must only be used as a last resort. As a result, many ministers dismissed the theory as no longer relevant.

Continue reading →

Read this great column by George Will in today’s L.A. Times concerning the NCAA’s attempts to force college and universities to change their sports team names reflecting anything American Indian (and I use the term “American Indian” intentionally because as one having a Cherokee heritage I know that most tribes prefer the term “American Indians” rather than “Native Americans).
Here is a bit:
“In 2002 Sports Illustrated published a poll of 351 Native Americans, 217 living on reservations, 134 living off. Eighty-one percent said high school and college teams should not stop using Indian nicknames.”
Read it all.

Why does our government think that through propaganda we will achieve our objectives around the world and make us all safe and sound?
We find out that Iraqi newspapers and clerics are being paid to spread our propaganda. Now that the reality of it all has become common knowledge, why would any Iraqi believe anything that comes from the United States? Whatever happened to simply speaking the truth and reporting events? Whatever happened to protecting the sense of trust and honesty as a hallmark of the United States? If what we are and what we represent to the world, if our arguments and objectives cannot be secured through open, honest, and sincere persuasion, then what is it all worth? Why bother?
Yes, yes, I know that there are people and organizations, even nations, who have no interest in mutual respect and who will do all they can to destroy us and our way of life (really, what about our way of life should be preserved?). I realize that we have to meet these people who force from time-to-time. Yet, if our policies and our efforts (our propaganda) does nothing but encourage more and more people to join the radical groups and devote their very lives to our destruction, perhaps we need to step back and question whether we should continue to follow these policies! Perhaps!?
We have the opportunity to truly “export” the best sense of what the American experiment has to offer. Freedom, self-determination, the rule of law, respect for one another, etc. We have the opportunity to present to the world a way of life and living that will inspire the best within all of us. This great experiment in democracy is not yet over, and the ideals of our Founders have not yet proven to withstand the test of time and our own purulent interests. There have been times in our history when we have been at our best. For a good part of our history, regrettably, and especially since the Cold War against the Soviets, we have been more in the mode of manipulation, arrogant self-interest, and propaganda.
As one who professes to be a follower of Christ, I must continue to call for and demand that we as a nation and as a culture are honest and forthright, admitting our mistakes, and presenting our objectives in a sense of respect and common interest. If the world does not agree with us or buy our arguments, perhaps we simply need to do a better job or examine if, gasp, we might be wrong. If we think we are right, then we can still pursue our own interests without the destructive forces of deception, manipulation, and corruption of others. Doing otherwise will be a rebuke and rebuff of our Founding Fathers, the subversion and destruction of what we actually claim to be protecting, and the corruption of the very perception of ourselves we like to believe we truly are.

This from Netscape’s website concerning the jobs that are experiencing the fast growth:

Even though Christmas has passed, this opinian piece entitled “Stop Apologising for Being Christian” by Simon Heffer in the Daily Telegraph (British newspaper) dealing with the politically-correct de-Christianization of Christmas is well written, especially since he is an athiest.
Here is the link to the piece. You can also read his opinion here.

Continue reading →

Cultural diversity does not mean that the vast majority of people should not or cannot celebrate their holiday. It means, in my humble opinion, that the smaller minority of people can celebrate fully their holidays.
There you go – solution!

We have come to this! The Religious Right / “Pro-Family” groups are on a new crusade to punish anyone who does not say “Merry Christmas” and boycott stores that use the word “Holidays” rather than “Christmas.” There has developed a mean-spirited paranoia among so many within the Religious Right that all the world is against them and take every little jot and tittle as an affront to God and their oh so godly lives (frankly, I think this has more to do with the emotional, mental, and spiritual disposition of the leaders of these groups than with most who sit in the pews!) It is an image of fundamentalism, no matter where the fundamentalist tendencies reside – liberal or conservative, Islam or Christianity, social theory, or where ever.
Target is their latest point of demonstration. Because Target does not use the word “Christmas,” just that one little word mind you, they are part of a 30 year old campaign to expunge Christianity and faith from the public square. Target uses the term “Happy Holidays” rather than “Merry Christmas,” and for these guys that means that they are blatantly and intentional ANTI-Christian. Never mind that Hanukah begins around the same time as Christmas day this year. Never mind that their intent could well be in include all people, whether Christian or not, in their holiday cheer. There is no sense of fair play or consideration of others in the minds of these Religious Right leaders. Frankly, it infringes not one iota upon my faith and identification as a Christian or my free exercise of religion for these stores to use “Holidays” rather than “Christmas.”
Now, I will say that I am absolutely opposed to the politically correct notion, which I have experienced often, that it is an affront to wish someone else “Merry Christmas.” I was told by a fellow graduate student on a group trip to Cleveland to do some holiday shopping after final exams that it was horrible for me to wish someone a “Merry Christmas.” After all, I had no idea their religion, etc. Frankly, if someone came up to me and wished me a happy Hanukah or happy Kwanza, I would take it in the spirit the greeting was offered and not be offended one bit as a Christian.
Does the Religious Right really think that anyone not a Christian in our society will be persuaded to become one by this arrogant, mean-spirited, and unfair treatment? I think not. As a matter of fact, I believe the cause of Christ within the greater culture is actually harmed by this kind of fundamentalist display. We are to love – and these kinds of responses to cultural change and business decisions do not rise to the level of our high calling. I don’t mean that we should not or cannot advocate our positions strongly and forthrightly, but there is a time, place, and means by which to advocate (even demand) and this is not the way to go about being representatives of Jesus Christ in our society.
Here is the news blurb from Focus on the Families Citizen Link (which is similarly repeated through the American Family Association, et.al.):

Some Say Christmas Banning is Part of an Anti-Christian
Agenda
SUMMARY: Pro-family leaders urge Christians to speak up and fight back.
Some conservative groups are claiming the banning of the word “Christmas” by retailers amounts to blatant discrimination against Christians.
Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association, makes the case that taking Christ out of Christmas is part of larger agenda that has been taking place over the past 30 years.
“Once you start promoting Christian morality, Christian values, the claims that Christ, He is the Son of God and the only way to Heaven, then, the secular left and those who sympathize with them take you on,” he said.
Robert Morrison, senior policy advisor at the Family Research Council, said some on the left simply want to rid society of any mention of Jesus.
“That agenda is never sleeping. They’re pursuing their goals without any pause for holidays,” he told Family News in Focus. “This is a part of that agenda to drive underground any expression of religious faith.”
Morrison is urging Christians to smile and say “Merry Christmas” in response to those who say “happy holidays.”
“When they try to take away Christmas trees, Christmas parades, and all that, stand up,” he said. “Don’t be quiet. Don’t sheepishly go along with that. Stand up. Say ‘NO.’ ”
TAKE ACTION: One retailer that has been singled out for banning Christmas from its in-store displays and advertising is Target. You can send a note to the company’s CEO through the CitizenLink Action Center:
http://www.family.org/cforum/action_center.cfm

I’m not really sure what I want to write right here, right now. Over the past three years, plus some, I’ve been watching, reading, and listening to all sides in this great big debate within world Anglicanism over the right place of people who are homosexuals, over how we are to live as a society or as Christians within society, or how we are to engage one another as we attempt to discern God’s will.
I have been swayed by those who argue that our Church should not have proceeded in consecrating the current Bishop of New Hampshire due to notions of “catholicity,” even though I do not thank Scripture forbids all same-gender relationships. I have made a decided attempt to understand “Catholic” piety as I serve in a non-reactionary and non-fussy Anglo-Catholic parish, and as I have learned and experienced I think there is certainly a legitimate argument that what we did we did prematurely. Yes, all changes in doctrine and practice begin somewhere – generally to violent opposition. Yes, there must be someone or some thing that pushes for the change. Yes, we only know in hindsight what is truly a move of God or what is truly contrary to God’s will and our own benefit. As Arthur Schopenhauer states, “All truth passes through 3 stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; Third, it is accepted as self-evident.”
The question is why! Why change? Why take the first step? Why fight? So much of what happens in the United States happens not because of thoughtful consideration and common, deliberate movement towards anything, but because of notions of individual “rights,” because of the anti-establishmentarianism of 1960’s Baby-Boomers who think change in-and-of-itself is intrinsically good and needs no justification, or because of the determination for the supplanting of Tradition by trendy and untried theories and all currently held norms of practice and belief. “I have a right to demand, agitate for, and cause change no matter how destructive to individuals or communities because I have the right to express my own want and no one can deny me that right,” so say many. When I take upon myself the mantel of Jesus (as if that were truly possible), when I make a decision to follow the Way of Christ, these late 20th century notions of “rights” go out the window. Everything ceases to be “all about me!” There is no longer just “me and Jesus.”
Okay, so, listening and reading to all sides, I have come to the conclusion that Americans in general (and those they influence around the world) do not want to engage in the very difficult, time consuming, and challenging job of really thinking through proposed changes and the results of such change. We want to live in ignorance as long as it makes us feel good and comfortable and superior to someone else. “God said it, I believe it, and that’s good enough for me,” is the mantra. Scripture is what God said, right? Yes, but too many of us do not want to do the hard work of study, too many of us do not want our comfortable notions challenged, and too many of us would rather live in a lie than have our world turned upside down by the Truth.
The ability to rationally and civilly interact with one another in our differences – to even be challenged by and learn from those who thinking differently – is being quickly lost. Politics, diplomacy, religion, theology, social theory – we have all become ideologues and fundamentalists, no matter what position we take. Death to anyone one who disagrees with me! Banishment for anyone who acts differently than I do! Damnation for anyone who does not believe my way, my particular and narrow understanding of God, God’s requirements, and God’s book!
Civility has gone by the wayside. It is a zero sum game. All or nothing is the only option. It is all too, too sad. Lord have mercy. Lord help us.
There is little chance right here, right now, that our Communion will decide to be civil and determined to work through out disagreements. Schism is the order of the day. Draconian obedience is the demanded from all quarters. Why should our Church act in such ways (which has been its history) when our culture encourages just the opposite?
I wonder, considering my last post, whether we would all rather not grow up and be adults! By our actions, we seem to be acting like children.

In college student development circles, the term “PAPA” (Post Adolescent/Pre-Adult) is applied to those students who seem to postpone adulthood for whatever reason. Chronological age is not the determining criterion that designates these students from their cohort-group, but rather their unwillingness to take responsibility for their own lives and decisions. The sad thing is that some students do not know HOW to make decisions or HOW to be responsible like an adult – they have not been taught in the home or schools. This is a different kind of person than those who simply refuse responsibility. The following news blurb from Netscape presents some interesting ideas and findings.
From Netscape News:
Only 31% of Men Achieve This By Age 30
The true measure of adulthood is not 18 or 21. The true measure of adulthood is reaching these benchmarks: leaving home, finishing school, getting married, having a child, and being financially independent. By that standard only 31 percent of men and 46 percent of women have reached adulthood by age 30, reports The Washington Post of a study from the University of Pennsylvania. In 1960, fully 65 percent of men and 77 percent of women had achieved these accomplishments by age 30.
Why the incredible delay for young people today? One simple reason. (And it’s not because the kids are slackers or their parents coddle them far too long.) “The primary reason for a prolonged early adulthood is that it now takes much longer to secure a full-time job that pays enough to support a family,” lead researcher Frank J. Furstenberg Jr. writes in Contexts, a journal of the American Sociological Association. Baby boomers and their parents had much greater access to well-paying jobs with good benefits than do today’s twentysomethings. In addition, the oldsters enjoyed more government assistance for higher education and affordable housing.
How then does this affect the Church and the Church’s desire to incorporate younger people into the life and decision making processes of the Church, whether in the local parish or higher levels within the denomination?

This paragraph from Jim Willis and SoJo.net, of Sojourners, concerning the proposed budget cuts before the House and the death of the idea of “Compassionate Conservatism:”

The House is scheduled to begin debate tomorrow on its budget bill, which includes $54 billion in cuts. On the table are cuts of $9.5 billion in Medicaid – by requiring co-pays for pregnant women and children for the first time; $8 billion in foster care, child support enforcement, and aid to the disabled; and $844 million in the Food Stamps Program, which would prevent 300,000 people from receiving food stamps. Forty thousand children would be cut from reduced-price school lunches. Lawmakers intend to follow these with a further cut of $70 billion in taxes that will primarily benefit the top 3% of taxpayers. The message from Congress is that in response to Hurricane Katrina, we’re going to cut services for the poor, cut taxes for the rich, and increase deficits for our children and grandchildren.