Christi Todd-Whitman (the former Republican governor of New Jersey and former Bush appointee to head the EPA, who resigned) has written a new book: “It’s My Party, Too: The Battle for the Heart of the GOP and the Future of America.” She writes that the Republican Party is being “dictated to by a coalition of ideological extremists.” This group is made up of the Religious-Right (religious fundamentalists) and “social fundamentalists” (her term).
She is calling for “radical moderates” to reassert themselves and rescue the Republican Party from the fundamentalists, religious or social. This is a very sensitive time for internal Republican dynamics. The “fundamentalists” who are feeling flush with power, and in their minds vindication, are advancing in their attempt to purge the party of RINO’s (Republicans In Name Only). Any Republican who is moderate, traditionally conservative (proponents of fiscal restraint, limited government, individual liberty & responsibility, etc.) and who disagrees with their “fundamentalist” view of Christian theology and socio-political requirements are targeted. Who will ultimately win?
We see this dynamic repeating itself not only in politics but also within the country’s religious life. Religious fundamentalists are attempting to redefine what is meant by “Christian” (or Jewish, or Muslim, or Hindu, etc.). They are determined to instill in the public’s consciousness that only their understanding of theology, Scripture, and social dynamics are correct and therefore “Christian.” Only they are “people of faith.” If you are a religious progressive or liberal (even moderate), by definition you cannot be a Christian or a “person of faith.” In the public’s mind, will the word “Christian” come to mean only the faith of Dobson, Perkins, Kennedy, Farwell, and the like?
We see this dynamic being played out in our Church. If one is not a reactionary fundamentalist then one is not an Anglican. These people are squatters in Anglican-Evangelicalism and Anglo-Catholicism and perverted both of these well-established traditions, in my humble opinion. Will the concept of the Elizabethan Settlement, Hooker’s justifications, and the Via Media prevail?
You are not an American unless you accept the understanding of America as a nation instituted by God “himself” to accomplish God’s specific dictates and plans. You are not a Christian unless you agree with the theology and scriptural interpretations of James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Jerry Farwell, D. James Kennedy, Pat Robinson, and the like. You are not an Anglican unless you agree with the theology, ecclesiology, and tradition of Akinola, Duncan, Harman, and the like. You are not a German unless you agree with Hitler. You are not a Russian unless you agree with Stalin. You are not a Cambodian unless you agree with Pol Pot. You are not a Korean unless you agree with the Dear Leader. You are not a Muslim unless you are Arab (if you live in Darfur, that is).
“Radical Moderates” need to reassert themselves in all areas of our lives in this country, or else the fundamentalists (religious, social, or Anglican) will win, even if for only a short time. They understand themselves to be on a Crusade, a Jihad, and because they will to implement God’s plan the end justifies the means. What are we going to do?

The Oregon Supreme Court upheld the constitutional amendment narrowly passed by voters declaring marriage to be between two people of the opposite sex only.
James Dobson from Focus-on-the-Family comments:
“”This ruling underscores the appropriate role of judges:
to uphold and affirm the laws enacted by the people and
their elected representatives, not to foist a radical
social agenda on society. It is a welcome — and, sadly,
rare — example of judicial restraint.”
Dobson and his compatriots continue to attempt to twist and spin in the public’s mind what the role of the judiciary truly is, especially on the level of various Supreme Courts. The role of judges is not to “uphold and affirm” the laws enacted by the people or the people’s representatives. The constitutional role of the judges in these types of cases is to determine whether the laws passed by the people’s representatives or instituted through the people’s referenda are constitutional or not!
It seems to me that Dobson and his cohorts want us to believe that judges are to only approve and support (or rubber-stamp) the laws passed by the state assemblies or Congress. This is not the role of the courts – they are a check and balance to make sure the legislatures and executives of this country, or the people through the tyranny of the majority, do not act unconstitutionally.
If the courts declared Row v. Wade unconstitutional or if they declared homosexuality to be unlawful, Dobson and his ilk would hail the courts and their judges as acting in noble, Godly, and patriotic ways, not as judicial activism. Perhaps, since they believe abortion and homosexuality were forced upon the country by the out-of-control courts originally, this would restore their vision of the proper conduct of the courts.
I find it ironic, however, that most Religious and Social fundamentalist groups hailed the Supreme Court decisions that forced civil rights upon the country for the sake of blacks when most of the country – including anti-integration laws passed by legislatures – opposed it. They also supported court-ordered integration of schools, etc. Why do they not oppose these past acts of the courts as “judicial tyranny” and to be declared by “activist judges,” but do make such declarations against judges who strike down laws that deny homosexuals equal treatment under the law? It is simply hypocrisy, and they know it.

I do not know why we as a nation cannot learn that as a culture and as a nation that how we act elicits reactions. Perhaps it is just a minority that happens to be in power?
The ideals that cause so many people of the world to look to the United States for hope, for justice, for peace, for so many things, are being perverted, abused, squandered, and jettisoned for reasons of revenge and vindictive punishment. We are saying that we will force the world to accommodate us and abide by our desire. We seem to be bent on empire by force. This is nothing new, I know. Yet, there is a difference with this administration.
Some may claim that they and we as a nation will do anything to protect the United States and the American people. Why are our innocent civilians any more important or valuable than are innocent civilians in any other country – especially if we consider how God views us all? If what we do only causes more potential danger and more hatred among the world’s population for the United States, how are our actions and attitudes going to accomplish this goal of safety? Our actions work counter to our goals.
If our foreign and domestic policies continue on their current course, we may have short-term safety (even if only in our imaginations), but we will not have long-term peace or safety.
I cannot say they donÂ’t understand, because these are intelligent people. Yet, it seems they simply cannot see; they do not seem to understand. The crime, in my opinion, is that many of these same people claim Christ as their example – they attitudes, ideas, and actions are so contrary to the example and call of Christ that it is mind-boggling. The nation of the United States has become their idol.

I read this from the Focus-on-the-Family CITIZENLINK e-mail dated March 16, 2005. The two authors, Dr. Allen Carlson of the Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society and Paul Mero of the
Sutherland Institute argue that the “first chore is to properly define ‘family.'”
Read the description they propose below. The only things that would or could differentiate a straight household from a gay household is that they demand that a family must be defined as a “man and a woman” and procreation. Obviously, a gay “family” must adopt children, but so does a straight “family” comprising an infertile couple. All other aspects described below are absolutely possible whether the family is made up of a straight or gay couple.

“The two are Dr. Allen Carlson of the Howard Center for
Family, Religion and Society and Paul Mero of the
Sutherland Institute. In today’s world, they argue, the
first chore is to properly define “family.”
“(Family is) the union of a man and a woman through
marriage,” Carlson said, “for the purposes of sharing love
and joy, propagating children, providing their moral
education, building a vital home economy, offering
security in times of trouble and binding the generations.”

I am sensing quite strongly a migration that is coming. I just have a sense that there will soon be a large number of American-Evangelicals and Roman Catholics who are fed up with the politicalization of Christianity in this country by the Religious Right who will soon be searching for something else. New churches, and with them new denominations, will arise, I’m sure. Where will these people go?
Considering the demographic trends of young people and what they are looking for in faith/religion/church/spirituality, I am convinced more than ever that Anglicanism is a prime location for them. The liberal-theological bent will not be so attractive, but the sacramental and liturgical aspects, as well as the broadmindedness and openness, of Anglicanism as expressed in the Episcopal Church will be.
We have to be ready, however. I don’t think we are any where near being ready. I want to be about getting ready – doing the work to be ready. I agree with many current observers of all things religious that there is a re-alignment of Christianity in this country and globally. I disagree with some who believe it will be between conservatives and liberals. In this country, I believe it will be between those who have politicized the Church and enmeshed faith with politics, both liberals and conservatives, and those who refuse to be co-opted by a political agenda. Again, I can see American-Evangelicals and Roman Catholics leaving their particular denominations and churches due to the demands of their leaders for adherence to not only dogmatic religious statements, but dogmatic political and social beliefs as well.
Rome is calling on all bishops and priests to demand adherence to Roman Catholic dogma by politicians, academics, and ultimately parishioners, or else they will be denied communion, excommunicated, or silenced. The Episcopal Church is already a repository for disaffected Roman Catholics.
Jim Willis and Sojourners is an example of the side of American-Evangelicalism that is fed up with the Religious Right. A reverse migration of Evangelicals back into the liturgical and sacramental Church began over a decade ago, and I believe it will only increase.
The Episcopal Church and Anglicanism are natural homes for these groups. A good portion of American-Evangelicalism can trace itself back to the good Father John Wesley, an Anglican priest even at his death. The Via Media needs to be reasserted over and against the reactionaries on the both the left and right, conservative and liberal, and the words “Evangelical” and “Anglo-Catholic” need to be rescued from the anti-church reactionaries.
We need to be ready!

Someone said the other day that Ohio had the largest number of college/university campus in the country. I know we have a lot, but not the most. Here is how Ohio lines up with some of the other states:
Number of Campuses:
1. California – 399
2. New York – 312
3. Pennsylvania – 256
4. Texas – 201
5. Ohio – 179
6. Illinois – 175
Number of students:
1. California – 2,380,090 students
2. Texas – 1,076,678
3. New York – 1,056,794
4. Florida – 753,554
5. Illinois – 748,444
6. Pennsylvania – 630,299
7. Michigan – 585,998
8. Ohio – 569,223
(Chronical of Higher Education, 2004-2005 academic year)
There you go.

Here is an example of a poster from the company that brings us “Demotivators.” I love it! Check their Despair website.

From an ENS update on Madeleine Albright’s speech to the Consortium of Endowed Parishes yesterday in New York.

She also agreed with a questioner who asked her if “fervent moderation” ought to be the religious person’s stance in the world. People of faith cannot base their belief on what they don’t like in someone else, she said, lest “your pride in yourself curdles into hate of someone else.”

I like this comment about “fervent moderation.”
There has been a lot of talk around the seminary over the past few months of how the reactionaries have usurped the terms “Evangelical” and “Anglo-Catholic” within Anglicanism (and really they are striving to usurp the very term “Anglicanism” to mean only their very narrow and fundamentalist definition of what makes one an Anglican Christian). Each of these Anglican pietistic and theological traditions are rich and deep, but they are being distorted. People are now afraid to use the terms for fear of being labeled an angry, bitter reactionary.
We have talked about how we can refuse to give over these terms to the reactionaries, but what are we to do? We are to walk in “fervent moderation.” We are to be evangelists for the long and storied traditions within Anglicanism, and refuse to relinquish “Anglican” to reactionaries who are acting in a manner that is very unAnglican.
We will refuse to relinquish the term “Christian” to groups of politicized Religious Right extremists. This group of people shout very loudly and bully people into doing what they want, all the while defaming the cause of Christ by placing in the minds of the general populace the idea that Christianity is truly a bizarre mixture of radical rightist politics, extreme patriotism/nationalism, and very uncharitable and unChrist-like attitudes and behavior.
So, a “fervent moderate” is what I shall be. The Via Media of Anglicanism, where people of all different pietistic and theological stripes can remain together under Scripture, the Creeds, the first four Ecumenical Councils, and the Historic Episcopate is being challenged and perverted. I came into Anglicanism because of this long tradition. I do not want to see it now die away. How do I fight for the Via Media without becoming like those I oppose?

I’m stealing from other blogs, again. Here is a short essay from Ryan Sager, a member of the editorial board of The New York Post. I found the excerpt below and the full essay at Tech Central Station through Andrew Sullivan’s Daily Dish.
Whew, the Web can certainly take you to the far reaches of… somewhere. Anyway, this is an excellent comment on the current state of the Republican Party, CPAC, the politicized Religious Right, and the failure to maintain true philosophical Conservatism. The war within the Republican Party between libertarians (which I tend towards – apart from the Libertarian Party, mind you) and social conservatives is on.
Excerpt:
“Make absolutely no mistake about it: This party, among its most hard-core supporters, is not about freedom anymore. It is about foisting its members’ version of morality and economic intervention on the country. It is, in other words, the mirror image of its hated enemy.”
Read the whole thing: Posted in politics/culture | Leave a reply

We have some new Web-based attack adds afoot.

This is from The Daily Kos, which I found through Andrew Sullivan’s Daily Dish.
Here is the link: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/21/164929/948