Spiritual wickedness in high places

I love the old testament story of Nehemiah.  It occurs during a time when Israel was occupied by Babylonians.  Nehemiah was doing a good job for King Artaxerxes in Shushan.  When he heard that Jerusalem was in danger of being overrun by it’s neighbors, he asked for some time off to help them rebuild their fortifications.  The King agreed and gave Nehemiah some men to help him out.  Nehemiah had to deal with doubt, political intrigue, and even an attempt on his life by the neighbors.  What was most challenging, though, was the general skepticism of the Jews in Jerusalem who felt that the walls couldn’t be rebuilt.  They were also afraid that if they tried, they would only encourage their neighbors to attack and knock it back down again.  Nehemiah prayed for inspiration, saw through the lies, and was able to rebuild both the wall and the self-esteem of those who lived there.
 
We’re facing a similar situation today in New Orleans.  President Bush recently visited New Orleans on the second anniversary of Hurricane Katrina.  Recovery there is very slow.  Though it seems like we are spending huge amounts of money in the region, very little seems to be getting into the hands of those who need it most.  There is plenty of blame to go around for both the levees failing as well as the response to the tragedy.  Lately, however, some conservatives are starting to blame the victims for choosing to live in such a vulnerable place to begin with. 
 
New Orleans appears to be in the same situation that Jerusalem was almost three thousand years ago.  It is defeated, broken, and discouraged.  The rich parts of the city and the tourist areas have largely recovered.  For the poor, however, there is no work. There is no money.  They have lost their homes and their hope.  In this desperate atmosphere, the crime rate is soaring. 
 
Then there are those who sit on the sidelines at a safe distance and cluck that perhaps we should just let this city die so that we can build a cleaner, safer, better-run city somewhere else.  The smug racism that simmers not far underneath that position is even more disturbing than the palpable hypocrisy.
 
These are our brothers and sisters who suffered a terrible loss through no fault of their own.  They have come to our aid in terrorist attacks, tornadoes, and floods.  Our government has failed to come to their aid in their time of greatest need.  What has happened instead is a stream of volunteers from churches all over the country spending their own money to demonstrate their brotherly love.  They are rebuilding New Orleans house by house, but it is a painfully slow process while the people still suffer.
 
More than anything else, New Orleans is a failure in leadership at every level.
 
We need a modern-day Nehemiah who will lead this country into a new vision of itself – a vision that includes a commitment from all of our citizens to sacrifice for the greater good and accept nothing but the best from ourselves and our leaders.  Nehemiah was unwilling to allow Jerusalem to die because he loved the people.  We need leaders who feel the same way about every person in this country, regardless of their politics, race, creed, sexuality, economic, or legal status.

A couple of interesting things happened today.

In the national news President Bush vetoed a stem cell research bill again on religious grounds. I don’t want to rehash the whole embryo as human discussion, but if you are interested check out one of my earlier posts on the subject.

First, researches almost unanimously agree that stem cells offer great promise in treating diseases which today have no effective medical treatment.

Second, regardless of how you feel about an embryo, the embryos in question were NEVER going to end up becoming babies. They were going to be discarded for any number of reasons. The couple already got the baby that they wanted or decided to stop treatment. The embryo was flawed and either stopped developing or began developing abnormally. The ONLY purpose for these embryos is research. If they were not provided for research, they would be discarded.

Third, the only people who can decide to provide the embryos for research are the couples who, with the help of the fertility clinics, created them. Whether or not you agree with the law, these same couples can decide to legally terminate a pregnancy, but the researchers who would use these donated embryos for valid medical research can’t get federal funding and may in some states be prosecuted.

Finally, the American people overwhelmingly support embryonic stem cell research.

The second item was in our local newspaper. A very popular and successful choir director resigned from the local community college because a person objected to what was sung at a recent graduation ceremony. It didn’t make any difference that the music was selected by the graduating class and not the director. It also doesn’t matter that the pieces are common at many graduations. What did matter is that the President of the College felt that there was potential liability.

Both of these outrageous events suggest that world is officially upside down.

How can President Bush impose his minority personal religious views on a country while a choir director is getting sacked because a college administrator fears that the school will get sued for the choir singing “Soon and Very Soon” and “To everything there is a Season”?

Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Shouldn’t we be sacking the President and supporting the choir director? Shouldn’t we have a President that seeks to build bridges between differing religious views and chooses what best serves the most people? Shouldn’t we also have a climate of reason and tolerance where choir directors can teach kids to sing beautiful old spirituals without fear of reprisal? That’s the way that it should work. Our leaders demonstrating in their actions that what we have in common is far more powerful than any difference.

I know that someday we’ll get all of this right. It just didn’t happen to be this day. But it will be happen someday soon.

“Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.” I John 3:15

Some conservative Christians have recently publicly opposed legislation which extends the definition of hate crimes to include crimes committed because of the victim’s disabilities, gender, or sexual preference.

Though I’m sure it was not intended, these folks prove why there is a need for the law. The protesters feel that unfettered ability to publicly label homosexuals as sinners is more important than protecting them from hate crimes.

We’ve already decided as a society that it is unacceptable to commit crimes out of animosity because race, religion, or ethnicity. The current proposals extend that to gender, sexual orientation, or those with disabilities. Whether you view sexual orientation as a genetic (as is race or ethnicity) or a life-style choice (as is religion) doesn’t matter. Whether you view a particular sexual orientation as moral or immoral also doesn’t matter. What does matter is that some people think it acceptable to terrorize, assault, and kill gay, lesbian, and transgender people. Some of those that carry out these acts cite the Bible in the same way as those objecting to the legislation. Eric Rudolph, for example, felt he was doing God’s will when he bombed abortion clinics and a gay and lesbian nightclub. But even the motivation of those who attack isn’t really the issue.

This is the issue.

Hate is hate whether it comes wrapped in a Bible verse or swastika and should have no place in a free and democratic society. All US citizens regardless of their creed should be able to agree on that.

“For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.”
Romans 3:3-4

What happens if you don’t believe in God?

In this country, you end up on the receiving end of a lot of abuse. According to a University of Minnesota study, atheists are America’s least trusted group. Atheists rank below Muslims, recent immigrants, homosexuals and other groups as “sharing their vision of American society.” Americans are also least willing to let their children marry atheists. One participant in the survey summarized it well when he said, “atheists are one of the last groups remaining that it’s still socially acceptable to hate.”

I saw this played out in the responses to an opinion piece published by a local atheist. All of the responses except one were negative. The only one that even hinted at coming to the defense of the original author, responded to one of the critics more directly than actually defending the original article.

Christians aren’t alone in their knee-jerk reactions to atheists. Muslims threatened violence last year when a Danish magazine published a series of editorial cartoons they found offensive. Yet it is this very reaction that supports the atheist claim that those who believe in God are deluded hypocrites.

I am concerned that many Christians appear to be lazy spiritual thinkers. Many prefer dogma and “like-minded” congregations to controversy. They seem more willing to accept direction and ignore contradiction rather than ask hard questions. The result is a world that divides very neatly into believers and non-believers. Non-believers are viewed as threats to harmony rather than opportunities to hear from a different point of view. Instead of curious and respectful dialogs, unproductive self-serving monologs are the norm.

That’s why we see published claims that try to blame everything from increased violence in schools, to hard times in the auto industry, to foreign policy failures on increased secularism. This is the same sort of sloppy thinking that Hitler took advantage of during the rise of the Third Reich. Yes, they claimed to be Christians too. Rather than atheists, however, they chose Jews as the scapegoat.

When you boil it all down, it ends up being a plea for simple solutions. The thought is, if everyone shared my beliefs, we would be a more spiritual and moral nation. The reality is that we wouldn’t be better. You don’t have to spend much time in history books to prove this. When we had state sponsored religions in the colonies, we legally persecuted Wiccans, Quakers, and Catholics. When only white men had the vote, we conducted a genocidal war against native Americans and created a set of laws which institutionalized slavery. When we all moved to the suburbs and built new schools for our kids, African Americans couldn’t go to those schools. Tell me again why returning to these times of shared values is a good thing?

The real strength of this country is that we DON’T all share the same beliefs and can still figure out how to work together. The real strength is that you don’t have to believe in God, be white, speak English, or live in the suburbs in order to be a good citizen or a good neighbor.

At the end of the day, it isn’t whether we have God on our money or prayer in our schools. The Nazi’s had “God with us” on their uniforms, for goodness sake. The contribution of Christians to the future success of this country will depend on having God in our hearts. If God is in your heart, you will strive to see others as God sees them, with infinite love and inexhaustible patience. He did give us the opportunity to choose because He wanted us to enter His embrace under our own free will. If we want others to respect our choices, we are obligated to respect theirs. Those that reject Him will learn soon enough whether or not they have made a wise choice. God doesn’t need our help sorting that out for Him.

“Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?”
James 2:19-20

Last week Pete Stark, Congressman from the Bay Area in California, discovered that he was the highest ranking government official and only congressman to admit that he doesn’t believe in God. Stark’s announcement was the result of activities by a coalition of atheist and humanist groups that offered a reward to those who could identify individuals in government who don’t believe in God.

Rep. Stark’s announcement was generally well received, though there were the requisite bleats from a few conservative religious groups including the Christian Seniors Association.

What’s more interesting than this announcement though, is a Gallup poll last month which reported that 53% of those surveyed would refuse to vote for an atheist regardless of their qualifications. Only 11% of this same group would refuse to vote for a woman. Even the aged (42%) and homosexuals (43%) don’t generate as many negative votes as atheists. The other two categories tested (curiously) were Mormons (24%) and those who have had multiple marriages (30%). I’m sure someone at Gallup must have realized the irony there.

This isn’t anything new either. A Pew research poll in 2002 found that 47% of Americans felt that religious beliefs were a prerequisite to being a good person.

I guess it shouldn’t be surprising, given this bias, that the number of atheists isn’t well known. Best estimates put it between 3% and 12% of the US population.

What bothers me about all of this is that professed faith in God is clearly no guarantee of trustworthyness. On the other hand, we can pretty much guarantee that public atheists have integrity. Why else would they open themselves to the bias (overt or covert) that their beliefs clearly invite?

From the numbers, it is also clear that there are many more dishonest professed believers in God than there are atheists. So why is it that so many people are willing to trust those who say they believe in God but don’t act that way and distrust those who don’t believe in God and are honestly willing to say so?

If you read the Bible, you don’t have to get much further than Genesis to discover that it says all people are made in God’s image and likeness.  Those who profess to follow the Bible’s teaching can’t easily ignore this truth and still call themselves faithful (though clearly many try).  The Bible didn’t say that only those who believe in God are made in His image and likeness.  It said everyone.  A person’s beliefs aren’t what distinguish them.  It is what they do with those beliefs - their works that we should pay more attention to when we are trying to decide who we should trust. If nothing else, the past almost seven years have proven that, at least in government, professed faith is no guarantee of integrity.

“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.” Lev 20:13

This is one of a couple of quotes in the Bible that are frequently used to support the view that homosexuality is one of the worst sins imaginable. The problem is that this concept of revulsion and condemnation doesn’t make sense in the larger context of the Bible. Even the sometimes harsh and violent Old Testament, when read from the perspective of the New Testament, is a story of infinite Love overcoming hate. It is the story of eternal Life overcoming death. It is the story of sin forgiven and sickness healed. It is a the story of a promise which the New Testament fulfills.

Homosexuality, however, continues to be a controversial topic in public thought. Ann Coulter used the F word to get back on the front pages. Spring Arbor College just fired a popular professor because he came out as a transvestite. Largo, Florida just fired a successful city manager because he announced his plan to have a sex change operation. In this last incident, Pastor Ron Saunders of Largo’s Lighthouse Baptist Church said, “If Jesus was here tonight, I can guarantee you he’d want him terminated. Make no mistake about it.” I thought I would take up Rev. Saunders challenge and actually study the Bible to discover if there was anything there that the good pastor could use to support his claim.

The gospels chronicle Jesus’ mission to give us a better understanding of what the Old Testament really means. His time was not so different from ours. The ruling class of Jesus’ time also used their view of the Bible to exert political control. His ideas of universal goodness, redemption, salvation, healing, and love forever changed the world. But, contrary to Rev. Saunder’s assertion, Jesus appeared to completely ignore homosexuality. I couldn’t find anything in the gospels that even came close. That in itself should be instructive, but I did some more research I thought you would find interesting.

Here’s what I found.

Abomination is a very strong word in our dictionary. It doesn’t appear in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or any of the amendments. It does appear in the Bible (KJV) 166 times. It appears in Leviticus 19 times. Here are some of the other “abominable” things listed in Leviticus – improperly consuming animal sacrifices, eating carrion, shellfish, birds of prey, scavengers, or snakes; or having intercourse with a woman during her menstrual cycle. Few of these practices reach the standard of “abominable” in our understanding, so perhaps this is a translation problem. In addition, though not specifically “abominable”, here are some other “sinful” activities in Leviticus - harvesting corners of a field, eating fruit from a young tree, cross-breeding livestock, sowing a field with mixed seed, cutting your hair, tattoos, disabled attending church, charging interest on a loan, collecting firewood on Saturday, and wearing clothes made from a blend of textile materials.

Clearly our modern sense of sinful practices has evolved from Old Testament time. In part that’s because our use of words has evolved over time too. For example, a better term for the Old Testatment’s “abomination” in today’s English is “ritually improper”, “inappropriate”, or “distasteful”. What Moses was really prohibiting in Leviticus was Jewish adoption of practices in bordering cultures. Though Moses thought many of these things should be punished by death, he didn’t particularly single out homosexuality as any worse than anything else. What there is primarily condemns the ritualistic pagan temple sex, rape, and prostitution of neighboring cultures. In the larger context of the Bible, prohibited heterosexual practices (like prostitution, rape, slavery, child abuse, and various versions of incest) are the dominant theme.

Though this is progress, it still doesn’t answer the pastor’s question of what Jesus thought. Fortunately, Jesus himself is helpful here. Rather than list what we shouldn’t do (as the Old Testament did), Jesus gave us clear guidance on what we should do, “Seek ye first the kingdom of God” (Matt 6:33). He also had guidance for those who aspire to moral leadership. He said they must do so without the self-righteousness of the Pharisees whom Jesus said were, “blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.” (Matt 23:24)

To put this further into the context of the New Testament, the Jewish penalty for another prohibited sexual activity, adultery, was also death. When faced with how that law should be interpreted, Jesus rejected it outright. He refused to even acknowledge those who demanded He respond. Instead He suggested that those that were free of sin were welcome to pass whatever judgment they felt appropriate.

As far as “abominable” practices, Jesus mentioned only one. It was the hypocrisy, pride, and self-righteousness of the politico-religious conservatives of His day. “Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.” (Luke 16:16)

My reading of the Bible is that it is a book documenting the endless promise of the power of God’s love for all His creation. It seems antithetical to me that this book that is the basis for modern thought about tolerance and mutual respect could also systematically exclude any part of God’s creation. I don’t think that it does any more than it excludes those who have exotic diets, tattoos, cut their hair, wear polyester blends, work in a bank, or follow birth control (natural or chemical).

Is homosexuality between two consenting adults is sinful? God, not Rev. Saunders, is the only real judge. I’ve got much more important things to worry about because I know my sins and weaknesses. In my case, Jesus said do first things first - work on my own salvation before I try to pass judgment on others. That’s good advice any time of year for both liberals and conservatives. We all have a lot of work to do.

In November, the good folks of Minnesota elected Keith Ellison to represent them in the House of Representatives. Keith was born in Detroit and educated at the University of Minnesota. He is a lawyer. He has a long history of activism and he converted to Islam while a college student. As a result, he is the first Muslim to be elected to Congress.

He has chosen, as is his right in his private swearing-in ceremony, to take his oath of office on the Koran. The Koran is the book revered by the Islamic faith in much the same way that the Bible is revered by Jews and Christians.

Here’s the problem. Representative Virgil Goode from Virginia took exception to Mr. Ellison’s private swearing in ceremony and wrote a letter to voters in his district expressing his concern. In summary the letter said that Americans need to wake up and adopt stricter immigration laws or else we will be “swamped” by Muslims who will elect more of their own kind and erode our “traditional values and beliefs”.

The irony of this instance of bigotry is that Mr. Ellison can trace his ancestry in this country back to the mid 1700’s which is about the same time that the first Goode’s showed up in Virginia.

I suspect that Mr. Goode (an irony in itself) was well aware of Mr. Ellison’s background before he sent the letter. What confirms this is his refusal to issue any form of apology or move away from his xenophobic stance. In much the same way as Strom Thurmond established himself as a defender of “traditional values” in the 50’s and 60’s, Mr. Goode sees an opportunity to create a secure political position for himself in 2007. In this regard, I don’t blame Mr. Goode for being a political opportunist. I do blame those who have voted for him if they continue to support this position.

The good news in all of this is that Mr. Ellison has taken the high road and refused to engage in the same demagoguery as Mr. Goode. Not only is Mr. Ellison the first Muslim ever elected to Congress, he is joined by two Buddhists who also are the first of their faith to be elected.

As Mr. Ellison has said, there is strength in diversity. That strength is our ability as a nation to include everyone in the decision making process. What better way to defuse the fear and hatred of our enemies than to demonstrate that our democratic process allows everyone an opportunity to participate regardless of how they think of God. It’s this idea of embracing diversity that I believe sets our political system apart and offers the promise of changing the world.

What is particularly interesting about all of this is that almost two thousand forty years ago, another new idea of God was seeking shelter and didn’t find the world very welcoming. Even in obscurity, the wisest men of the time found a way to pay their respects. The political system tried to kill the idea before it grew. They were eventually successful in killing the man, but the idea changed the world forever.

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” Gen. 1:27

The Bible says that we are all created in God’s image and likeness. What this says to me is that we are all equal in God’s eyes and more than that, if we aspire to grow closer to Him, we must strive to see this image of God reflected in everyone.

From a political point of view, seeing God reflected in everyone obligates us to make sure that we provide everyone equal access to the resources and opportunities that our society has to offer. Our Declaration of Independence echoes this concept in the phrase “all men are created equal”. It is the foundation of much of our legal system as well.

Last month, a majority of the people in Michigan voted to make it illegal to offer any preferential treatment based on race or gender. Unless that was motivated purely by self-interest, it must signal that a majority of the voters in Michigan believe that we have finally become a race and gender-neutral society and no longer need these protections.

I certainly hope so because that will put us well ahead of the rest of the country.

One indication that the rest of the country hasn’t yet reached race and gender neutrality is the nature of the discussions surrounding two potential democratic presidential candidates. The two I’m thinking of are Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama.

Hillary Clinton already has a history in the Whitehouse that makes her a controversial figure in the minds of some voters. Those who have followed her record in the Senate, however, describe her as a hard working centrist. That description is very much at odds with the leftist radical image she had during her husband’s Presidency. None of that, however, is the first topic of discussion when her potential candidacy comes up. The primary question is whether or not the country is ready for female president.

Barak Obama has burst upon the scene as a breathe of fresh air. He is also a centrist. Contrary to recent political theory, his message speaks of union rather than division. He looks to lead from our common interests rather than our differences. He embraces difference as our strength rather than our weakness. He is young and doesn’t have much experience in public office. Some say that is an advantage. Some say that it is a disadvantage. But that’s not what people are talking about. The primary question is whether or not the country will vote for African-American presidential candidate.

I remember when the question was whether or not the country was ready for a Roman-Catholic president. Clearly John Kennedy put that issue to rest. Perhaps the issues of gender and race in the oval office won’t be resolved until a woman and/or an African American is actually elected. But I submit that until that happens, we have not finally defeated the bias which affirmative action was created to offset.

Last month Michigan passed a constitutional amendment prohibiting affirmative action in any form in public institutions.

As a Christian, I wonder what people where thinking in the voting booth.

I don’t think that many would argue that education is the path to economic advancement. The latest census data from 2002 says those with advanced degrees earned, $72,824; bachelor’s degrees earned, $51,194; high school graduates earned, $27,280; and nongraduates, $18,826.

The same census documented that median African American family income was 63% LESS than median white family income. But the median income of African Americans with a college degree was 95% of the median income of a similarly educated white person.

Education is the best way to break the cycle of poverty and dependence, but only 17% of African Americans are college graduates. Though that represents significant gains from where it has been, it is still by far the lowest of any racial category.

So how can we encourage more African Americans to go college?

In order to get into college, you have to get good grades in high school. The worst high schools in the country are those with the highest enrollments of African Americans. Nationally we graduated 76% of the white public school students. We only graduated 55% of African American public school students.

If we can’t fix the problem of bad schools, doesn’t it seem to serve both the greater good and a higher Christian ideal to offer those coming from disadvantaged backgrounds preferential treatment in at least college admissions? If more get into college, hopefully more will graduate.

That’s not to say that more privileged kids shouldn’t get to go to college too. They are the ones that the whole system is setup to benefit today anyway. There is plenty of space out there for everyone. This is all about making the pie bigger, not taking anything away from anyone.

The benefits to society are obvious. Those that graduate from college not only can support themselves, pay taxes, and enter the work force on more or less on an equal footing with their more privileged counterparts – they also break down the barriers of institutional racism that limit opportunity in the workplace by becoming the next generation of entrepreneurs and business leaders.

Instead Michigan voters reacted like Cain and questioned why they bear the responsibility of looking after their brother. I fear that our state, like Cain, will reap what we sow in continued poverty, dependence, and wasted potential.