The Coming War, and the Unprepared Church

This past weekend the nation commemorated the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks; in Florida a pastor is threatening to burn Qurans to protest Islamic extremism; in lower Manhattan tensions continue to mount over the proposed building of a Mosque two blocks north of the World Trade Center site; and just last month a commentator turned demigod held a rally to restore America on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on the 47th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr's I have a Dream speech.

The country, in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression, is deeply polarized and divided like no time since the Civil War.  The luster of the election of the first black president has given way to long-standing and latent racial bigotry that is being stoked by scandalous politicians looking to cash in on the base fears and economic frustrations of the electorate.

And, as lines continue to be drawn and hearts continue to harden, the Church, for the most part, seems perfectly content to remain on the sidelines, while its congregants have at each other.  Perhaps not wanting to be dragged into an argument it has judged to be a distraction from what Jesus commissioned it to be, the Church has, for lack of a better term, missed the proverbial forest for the trees.

On any level one cares to examine, the lack of an official response from the Church is profoundly wrong.  Its reluctance to jump into the turbulent waters of the political quagmire the U.S. is caught up in, under some misbegotten belief that it should somehow remain above worldly conflicts, has not only created a vacuum that the enemy has taken advantage of, it is not even Biblically accurate.

We have been told by well-intentioned and otherwise thoughtful Christians that this debate is nothing more than your run of the mill conservative vs. liberal conflict that is as old as the nation itself and will eventually play itself out, as so many conflicts have a habit of doing.  Why get caught up in a dog fight and further exacerbate heated tensions among the flock.  Isn’t that the sort of thing the enemy feeds on: dividing us and thus making us ineffectual?  Well, I have some bad news.  With regards to division and ineffectual Christians, I’m afraid the horse has already left the barn on that one.  The Church needn’t worry about exacerbating tensions.  The ensuing silence has done more to further the cause of bitterness within its ranks than anything the enemy could possibly do.

I’m sorry, but this isn’t as simple as deciding which flavor ice cream one prefers; or choosing which local baseball team has the best chance of winning the pennant, or even whether one feels the rich aren’t paying their fair share of taxes.  The issue before the Church is no mere classic liberal vs. conservative splitting of hairs; it’s as old as civilization itself and it is tearing apart the very fabric of the nation’s soul.  Playing the role of the proverbial bartender who dares not offend his patrons, lest they not leave a tip, is a poor substitute for the role the Church was called to play.  The Church cannot afford the “lofty” stance of being worried about what its customers think of it, especially with so much at stake.  To paraphrase a line out of the movie “The Lord of the Rings,” war is upon the Church, whether it would risk it or not.  Not showing up is not on the option list.

I have made no secret of my disdain for the growing trend of social Darwinism that is plaguing and, sadly, taking over Christianity.  The incessant belief among many “believers” that one can follow the teachings of Jesus, while at the same time, espousing economic philosophies that are inimical to the very faith they claim to love, has perverted that faith and rendered much, if not all, of its teachings irrelevant.  When a single pastor – who obviously has no idea what it means to be a Christian – can threaten an action so thoroughly despicable as burning the holy book of another religion; when a buffoonish, cult-like TV personality can rubber stamp his approval on his brand of Christianity, thus rendering all others blasphemy; when a majority of the population of this country still doesn't understand that freedom of religion is an absolute right, irrespective of what feelings it may elicit, and there is not a unified and unambiguous message of condemnation emanating from every pulpit in the country, one can only wonder what it was that was more important for those pastors to preach about!  Another message on God’s grace being sufficient?  Perhaps yet another in a series of how our unaided will can get us into trouble?  Or maybe just how much Jesus truly loves his children?  Sometimes I wonder what those pastors would be preaching about if their sanctuaries were on fire.  Perhaps the story of Noah’s Ark?

I have always took it for granted that the Word is not a history lesson; that it is a living, breathing blueprint for how we are to live here in the present.  What better way to demonstrate its profound relevance to the world we live in than to unleash its awesome power upon the millions of Christians who every Sunday flock to their respective sanctuaries to be fed?  Instead, what many hear are not relevant lessons that they can incorporate into their daily walk, but empty words that drop to the floor dead on arrival.

Now, before I am called to task for ignoring the plethora of sermons, which do in deed have some merit and have on the whole done justice to scripture, let me also point out that the fundamental failure or reluctance to repudiate false doctrines that have seeped into their congregations, and which are an anathema to God’s revelation, end up canceling out whatever good their sermons might accomplish.  In other words, preaching on the fact that you cannot serve both God and money, while remaining silent on the inequities of society doesn’t wash.  One cannot quote from passages that decry greed and the accumulation of wealth, yet turn a deaf ear to the injustice that surrounds us all.  To do so does violence to the very scripture they are quoting from.

And yet many pastors and priests do this every Sunday to the great relief and delight of the majority of their congregants.  These people hear just enough “truth” to make them squirm a bit, yet escape the piercing blade of conviction that the scripture was intended to invoke.  Somewhere in Heaven Jesus is weeping at the emasculation of the words he so deliberately and painstakingly chose.  This was not what he lived his relatively short life to bring about, and it was not what he intended his followers to be doing.

It comes down to this: Is the Church simply content with delivering a message that stirs but never riles up its followers?  Is it OK with peddling a kinder, softer, watered down Gospel that gives just enough truth and hope, yet stops short of jumping to the unalterable conclusion that virtually all the history we as a nation have been brought up to believe – that we live in a just world where we can “be all we want” and “God helps those who help themselves” – is just flat out wrong and must be rebuked?

These are not easy questions to ask, for they require of our leaders a determined fearlessness that is in deed Christlike.  And no doubt, were the vast majority of churches to employ this tactic and preach the Gospel in such a manner, many within those congregations would flee rather than stand for the conviction they would no doubt receive.  But for those who would remain and the millions more who yearn for such a message of true hope and salvation who would march in through the doors, they would find an authentically relevant Gospel, that is as fearless as it is alive.

Such churches might well be treated as pariahs and called all sorts of names from divisive to anti-American to socialist to whatever.  Many so-called liberation theology churches bare the stain of unjust branding from a world that simply can’t or won’t deal with its own wickedness, in a country that still can’t look its past in the eye and atone for its transgressions.  The only response permissible for any religious body that wishes to represent Christ on Earth should and must be, “So what?”  There is only one ultimate criteria that any local church ought to have with respect to preaching the good news.  The good news must first and foremost be good!  It is not enough to stock food pantries and provide shelter for the homeless if the very institutions that create the need for such charities are themselves left unchallenged.  If we are going to refer to this world as "fallen" the very least we can do is discuss why it is that way, and what can be done to change it.

I have been writing this blog for five years now and, while I am certainly no paragon of virtue in that I fall far short of the mark, as many of us do, I have nonetheless been relentless in calling out the flagrant hypocrisy within the Church, and God willing will continue to do so.  Chief among my criticisms has been this nagging reluctance to reclaim the mantle that Christ commissioned His followers to hold.  For most of the last two thousand years since Jesus ascended to Heaven, the Church has run away from and not toward its founder.  It has made peace with corrupt worldly powers and chosen to stand on the sidelines during tumultuous periods in its history.  We are living in just such a tumultuous period and time is running out.

The coming war is fast approaching and not only is the Church unprepared; it seems strangely aloof and indifferent.  The damage that this is doing is exacting and, I fear, irreversible.  If it does not wake up from its slumber soon the war as we know it could be lost, and millions will pay the ultimate price for a Church that was apostate and derelict in its responsibilities.  For such a ghastly and reprehensible crime there can be only one final judgment from above, and the Lord, in His infinite wisdom, will dispense it.

Houston We Have a Problem!

On July 29, 2010, noted author Anne Rice publicly renounced her dedication to her Roman Catholic faith, yet remained committed to Christ on her Facebook page, stating,

“For those who care, and I understand if you don’t: Today I quit being a Christian. I’m out. I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being ‘Christian’ or to being part of Christianity. It’s simply impossible for me to ‘belong’ to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten years, I’ve tried. I’ve failed. I’m an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else.”

She then followed up her original post a few hours later with the following,

“As I said below, I quit being a Christian. I’m out. In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.”

To those of us who share many of Rice’s concerns and qualms about the Church in general, this is a bittersweet moment for us. Forget for a moment that it is impossible to “remain committed to Christ” without being a Christian. The two go hand in hand. Forget for a moment, as Rice has apparently done, that there are far more progressive congregations she could have sought out and joined that would’ve allowed and even encouraged her social and political sentiments, and might well have helped her in championing them.

Forget all of that for a moment and let’s examine where we are as a Church right now. For that, I feel, is the more distressing issue before us. People like Rice should serve as painful reminders that there are serious issues that continue to haunt the Church, and which, sadly, define it in the eyes of many: believer and non.

Those who have read this blog – yes all four of you – are well aware of my deep contempt for the right-wing assault on Christianity that has been going on for quite some time. On several occasions I have toyed with the idea of leaving the Church altogether, such was my disgust for what I was witnessing. It was only after much prayer and discussions with a few members that I decided to remain.

This past February I had published a blog – some would call it a treatise – titled “A Declaration of Sorts” in which I laid out my issues in rather blunt terms. What all but two of you don’t know is that it was originally intended to be a resignation letter, if not from the Church altogether, at the very least from the one I was attending. I had had enough. Like Popeye, I could stands no more. I rewrote much of it and made the decision to stay and fight for my beliefs. I was damned if I was going to let the enemy win this battle. Instead the piece became my line in the sand, rather than a hasty and loud retreat.

I called out not just those who were kidnapping our faith in the name of their narrow political agendas, but also those who seemed unwilling to stand up and say, “Enough!”

“Are not all of us commissioned to speak out against injustice, to stand up for those who are less fortunate, to challenge lies with truth and paranoia with reason, to act as Paul did when he rebuked James? Did not Jesus rebuke Peter? Did He not love him nonetheless? Why are so few of us willing to stand our ground when presented with the unalterable conclusions of our lot? Are we exempt simply because we are church elders, senior and associate pastors, small group leaders, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, husbands and wives, doctors and nurses, lawyers and bankers, athletes and journalists, politicians and statesmen, salespeople and consumers, professors and students? What is the level of our comfort that keeps our mouths shut when our spirit cries out in anguish? Is our new suit too delicate to be soiled if only just a little? Perhaps a new car, the mortgage payment, or the children’s tuition hangs in the balance. What reputation is it we seek to protect when God’s people cry out for justice and we turn away? Did Jesus care about his reputation or his ministry?”

I ripped away, caring not whose feathers I might be ruffling; drawing a line in the sand and daring anyone who cared to cross it. Sadly, Anne Rice chose to cut and run, and for that I am angry. Not at her, but at the rest of us. For no sooner had she made her announcement than the throng of religious zealots descend upon her and ostensibly ripped her to shreds for bailing out on her faith.

A friend of mine, Scott, wrote on his facebook page, “I don’t mean to be harsh toward Christians, but when people give up on the Christian community, I think Christians should start, not by criticizing them, but by listening to them and by looking at themselves.”

Well put Scott, but if you are somehow adverse to being harsh, allow me please to take the hammer from you and continue. There are times we couch our feelings to protect and nurture; and then there are times when only brute honesty will suffice. This episode begs for the latter.

It is my contention that we do the cause of Christianity a disservice if we focus on Anne Rice as being the issue here. Instead what all of us should do is take a step back, examine those reasons for her decision, admit that, however painful it might be, there is some validity to her charges, and then do all we can to ensure that, at least as far as we're concerned, we won't let the corporate cancer that is eating away at the foundations of our faith claim more victims. And make no mistake about it, it IS a cancer!

I remember after the '04 election I was having a conversation with a couple of co-workers, both of whom were Jewish. They couldn't believe Bush had been re-elected and they were outraged at the connection between the religious Right and politics in this country. This was my first exposure to the concerns that non-believers had over the encroaching right-wing ideologues that were speaking on behalf of the faith I held near and dear.

I spent the next half hour explaining to them that as a Christian I too was embarrassed and offended by those people who were speaking on behalf of my faith and claiming a moral superiority. I also told them that not every Christian was a fanatic hell bent on rewriting the Constitution and forcing Christianity on those who didn't believe in it.

You see, I think part of our problem is that we think too much like we're in a box. We suffer from tunnel vision. We don't see what others see; hence we are either taken by surprise by it, or act indignant to it. How could Anne Rice leave us and abandon her faith? How about, How could we have abandoned our moral compass and allowed our faith to be hijacked? See what a little perspective can mean to a discussion?

I think there are a lot more Anne Rice's out there, and a lot more who will never get as far as she did. In other words will never get to know the Lord at all. And mainly because we as a Church, corporately, have chosen to abandon the very principles that Christ stood for and opted for a bunch of slogans, political agendas, and catch phrases that may get a few officials elected and may even overturn a few laws we don't like, but in the end will do more harm than good. And for that I am deeply angered. In fact, I’m pissed!

Anne Rice’s defection from Christianity should serve as a wake up call to all of us. It is time we got up off our collective asses and reclaimed the Church Peter started over 2,000 years ago. We should stop worrying about our good manners and good reputations. We should be as protective of our faith as a business owner is of his merchandise. More so, for our reward is not measured in dollars and cents but in our eternal rest with Him who sent us.

Whenever anyone, anywhere either leaves the faith or decides not to join it and the principle reason is due to the message they get from the modern-day Pharisees who have chosen to speak on our behalf, we are all guilty of driving the bus they’re on out of town. And woe to all of us for allowing that to happen! Do not think for a moment that we will not be called to justify ourselves before God when our time comes. Their souls are our souls!

This is the question we should be asking ourselves. If Christianity were a department store, would we or anyone else want to shop there? Or for that matter would we buy anything there? If the answer to both is not unequivocally “yes” then we must be honest and say, “Houston we have a problem!”

Chasing Gandhi: Understanding the Difference Between Nonviolence and Pacifism.

I have a confession to make. I am far better at talking the talk than I am walking the walk. I have always admired the tremendous courage men like Gandhi and Martin Luther King exhibited in their public and personal lives, while sadly admitting that I could never hold a candle to them. I cannot even imagine what Christ’s final moments on this earth must’ve been like. To come to this stage of one’s life and realize that you are as far removed from your personal heroes as the moon is from the earth is a sobering reality.

Worse, while I have a deep and profound respect for what those men stood for, I also have to confess that I feel more of an affinity for those individuals who more often than not flexed their muscles in response to oppression. Whenever I have seen an injustice – regardless of what it is – my first response has not been to pray for the perpetrator, but rather to lash out at the transgressor and fight for the victim. I feel an almost reflexive need to come to the aid of such people and a strong, intense hatred for those who caused the malady. Out of all the sins of the world, cruelty to those who cannot fend for themselves and poverty anger me the most.

My writings have often reflected this deep sentiment and I have always felt a peculiar and profound calling to continue to bring to light any inequities that scar the Kingdom of God. So-called believers who besmirch the very faith I hold near and dear have earned the bulk of my wrath. In this endeavor I have been unapologetic to say the least.

But of late I have listened and read, with great interest, the words of King and Gandhi in the writings of other Christian men and I feel a sense of bewilderment. It is clear that both King and Gandhi were proponents of nonviolence in their lives. It is equally clear that both were profound men of peace who represented the very best principles of what it means to be a Christian. As such, they have earned the status accorded them.

But I sometimes wonder whether both men may have been as misunderstood as they were admired. There has been a long tradition of nonviolent movements throughout history. The Great Samil Movement of 1919 during Japanese colonial rule was one of the largest nonviolent demonstrations in the twentieth century and resulted in over 7,000 martyrdoms. And of course the most obvious example of nonviolence was the life and ministry of Jesus. But the biggest problem I have with nonviolence is not its resistance to violence but its connection to pacifism. Over the years the two words have somehow become synonymous with symbolizing an almost pathological resistance to any form of aggression whatsoever. At first glance both terms seem somewhat similar in scope, and in deed both share some qualities. But a closer look reveals a staggering distinction. See for yourself.

Pacifism: The belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully. An opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes. Such opposition is demonstrated by a refusal to participate in military action no matter the provocation.

Nonviolence: A philosophy and strategy for social change that rejects the use of violence. As such, nonviolence is an alternative to passive acceptance of oppression and armed struggle against it. Practitioners of nonviolence may use diverse methods in their campaigns for social change, including critical forms of education and persuasion, civil disobedience and nonviolent direct action, and targeted communication via mass media.

In other words, while proponents of pacifism may employ some of the techniques of nonviolence, proponents of nonviolence can hardly be called pacifists. If anything, they typify the very essence of what it means to be a revolutionary. In fact, the more I learn of Gandhi and King, and for that matter Jesus, the more revolutionary they become for me.

Part of the problem I, and I’m afraid many good-natured Christians, have when delving into this arena is that we tend to focus on the peaceful and loving parts of these men to the exclusion of all else. Yes all three of these men loved their neighbors, and all three felt it their moral duty to give his life for his fellow man. But there has been an almost glossing over by many historians of the very traits that truly defined what each man singularly accomplished.

Jesus’ mocking of the Pharisees, Gandhi’s refusal to acknowledge British sovereignty over India, and King’s admonishment of the Christian Church are as much a part of their stories as the feeding of the four thousand, the hunger strikes, and the march on Selma respectively. It would do violence – no pun intended – to their contributions to humanity to highlight the latter at the expense of the former. In deed if all these men had accomplished were a few good deeds – and in the case of Jesus a few good miracles – I suspect that we would not revere them to the extent that we do. Their collective rantings and rebukings were what ultimately came to define their lives and helped usher in the elements of change we now take for granted: Christianity, an independent India and an awakening of a race and a blind nation. One could no more separate the peaceful elements of their lives from the volatile than to separate oxygen from water. Truth be told, their volatility was what gave their serenity weight and authority. They were no mere pushovers. They were righteous in their indignation, confident that they were justified before God, and in the case of Jesus before the Father.

And so should we. Nonviolence is not a call to lay down one’s arms and roll over. Rather, if anything, it is a call to rise up and make a stand. Temerity must overrule timidness if our lives are to have any meaning before God. We must resist the urge to permit ourselves to be used as doormats and, in the naïve hope that we might persuade those with whom we are diametrically opposed, grant even a semblance of latitude. There is only one correct stance for any of us to have when faced with hypocrisies, bigotry, and outright hatred. We are to call it out, like poison from a wound, and curse it to the ground. Jesus never minced his words when confronted. Why then are we so polite when we find ourselves in similar situations?

We must acknowledge the painful reality that to truly seek a path of nonviolence means we must abandon our pacifist ways, identify who are enemies are, and pursue them with all the vigor of an exploding sun. Each of us has a Jerusalem and a Memphis in his or her life. The only question is whether we will be moving towards that destination or away from it.

No Party Pooper Am I

The following petition is currently making its way around the internet and is being embraced by many thoughtful and conscientious Christians. It is worthy of serious consideration.


Declaration of Unity

Dear Candidates, Incumbents and Party Leaders, In this election, please find a way of campaigning without deliberately triggering anger, hatred and fear. Please avoid contributing to the DISUNITING of America. It is the last thing we need in a time of two wars, an environmental catastrophe and an economic crisis.

We will hold accountable those who engage in the politics of division. We will support those who offer facts, civility and solutions. We choose to be united as a People and refuse to be divided. We hereby Declare Our Unity.



Now, while I appreciate and respect the thought behind this petition and agree in principle on the importance of civility in American politics, the sad and simple truth is that neither side would ever willingly sign it, and furthermore I think all of us deep down know it.

I also am of a mind that our correct posture as concerned Christians should be anything but civil in the face of what can only be described as the battle of our lifetime. Yes we are not to behave as our enemies do, but we should stop being so high-minded and eager to reach consensus. There is a time for a righteous indignation that I feel is way overdo.

I have been saying this now for well over year. The far Right, and with it fundamentalist Christianity, is actively engaging in tactics that are downright despicable and, in the case of the fundamentalists, unChristian. To show even the slightest hint of civility in the face of such rampant hatred and evil is akin to throwing down with it. You do not negotiate with evil; you confront it and expose it to the light of day.

The country DOES need a healthy and spirited debate on real issues; what is taking place more closely resembles the rumble scene from West Side Story. It is nothing short of insane to ask one side to lay down their sticks while at the same time allowing the other side to pummel the opposition with theirs.

To those who would say I am being obtuse and exposing my heart, I would say wake up my friends and smell the very coffee you want to drink. This isn’t about winning the hearts and minds of those who have fallen; it has always been about not letting the enemy get a foothold. Do not kid yourselves; silence and complicity are one in the same. Would Jesus have sat down with Satan? Did he once seek compromise with the Pharisees? Of course not and neither should we. It is foolhardy to believe we have no enemies, especially when they have no problem seeing us as theirs’.

Two wrongs may not make a right but it at least preserves balance; a balance that one day may yield to saner and more rational participants in this experiment we still call democracy. And when that day arrives, I will be more than willing to share a cup or two of hazelnut or French vanilla with anyone who seeks mutual respect and honors honest disagreement.

In the meantime, I will hold off singing Cumbayá, and suit up my armor, thank you.

The Living, Liberal Bible: Why Conservatism and Christianity simply don’t mix.

I have heard many supposed cogent arguments in support of conservatism over the years. Lower taxes, less government, a spirit of entrepreneurship, greater freedom and liberty, etc… I can certainly understand where this comes from. Deep within the American experience there lies the mythos of a rugged individualism that is unique to Western society. We can debate not only the merits of that mythos but also its historical accuracy till Kingdom come and still not have a resolution. But what I cannot wrap my head around is how so many Christians continue to hold onto these “virtues.” Because when I read my Bible, what comes straight at me has little to do with accumulation of wealth, or personal liberty, or greater freedom. The central theme, if anything, is about giving to the poor, personal sacrifice and being a slave to, of all people, Christ! And Christ was hardly an accumulator of wealth. His life was a testament to the ultimate sacrifice: that of his own life for our salvation. And it is clear that he expected nothing less from his followers.

Pick a verse:

Luke 3:11: “The man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same.”

Luke 16:13: “No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.”

Matthew 6:19-21: “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”

And one of my personal favorites, 2 Corinthians 8:13-15: “Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. Then there will be equality, as it is written: ‘He who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little.’”

You can go through the Bible all you want in search of the spirit of Adam Smith, and you will not find him. What you will find, if you are honest and have an ear to hear, an eye to see, and/or a heart for Jesus is that the very things that make up the essence of a capitalistic society are intrinsically inimical to the Christian walk. This isn’t debatable. It’s just a fact. Scripture maybe used contextually, but its core tenants are not open to interpretation or dispute.

Even the classic parable of the Ten Talents, long a staple for many conservative Christians to prove that God intends for us to be prosperous and rewarded for our wise investments, is often misquoted and misunderstood. Yes, it is important to invest wisely, but what is it we are to invest in? The parable, upon closer examination, could just as easily be about our God-given abilities and having trust that as we step out in faith we will be rewarded. To the ardent follower, this can be risky. Bucking over 200 years of established thinking can rub certain people the wrong way. But the opposite carries its share of risks too.

“The master took his one talent away from him and gave it to the man who had ten talents, and the one talent man was punished because he had not properly used the talent he had been given.”

Clearly there are penalties for not using the talents (gifts) we are given. In the Gospel of Mark there is a particular reference that is analogous to the above parable.

Mark 11:1-3: As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethpage and Bethany at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two of his disciples, saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and just as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here. If anyone asks you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ tell him, ‘The Lord needs it and will send it back here shortly.’”

Mark’s Gospel is, for lack of a better term, the shorthand Gospel. Meaning it is the shortest and most concise of the four Gospels. And because it is short, Mark deliberately chooses his words carefully. Why then does he specifically mention that the colt has never been ridden? Why is it intrinsic to the story? Or for that matter that the Lord needs it? Wouldn’t it be obvious that Jesus needs it? Otherwise why would he be taking it? Unless Mark is trying to remind us, like the aforementioned parable, that those things we do not use God will take back from us.

Hmmm. So it is clear that we are given certain gifts that the Lord intends for us to utilize in the building of His kingdom. And those who ignore them or, out of fear and or greed, let them go to waste, earn God’s wrath. And if we are indeed his agents on Earth we are called to do those things that he himself did while on this Earth: show mercy to the sinner, tend to the poor, feed the hungry, cure the sick, house the homeless, and encourage those who are discouraged. This is our calling in a nutshell.

And yet millions of American evangelicals hold onto a world-view that contradicts the very core of their faith. Worse, the very things they seem to grasp onto – namely issues dealing with homosexuality, sexual purity and abortion – are completely blown out of proportion and made to look more important than they are. Not that living a virtuous life and wanting an end to abortion are not important issues, but there are many more things that constitute a virtuous and Godly life than the quality of one’s sexual purity or one’s stance on unwanted pregnancies. It is quite possible to be completely faithful to one’s spouse, oppose abortion, and yet still betray the very essence of the Christian walk.

Now to be sure, God does desire us to be free from lust and wants us to be advocates for the unborn, but I suspect that the reason so many evangelicals are drawn to these stances is that it gives them a reason to examine other people’s behavior and not their own. Sexual deviance is always the other guy’s problem, just as the woman who seeks an abortion becomes the moral failing of someone else’s upbringing; but pride, arrogance, gluttony and avarice are vices we as a nation have never dared examine. And for good reason. Who cares to come face to face with such a staggering conclusion? Who wishes to wake up and realize that the very system they have come to acknowledge as symbolic of everything that is good and pure and Godly, is in fact none of the above?

Now before I go any further, let’s be clear. There is nothing wrong with money in and of itself. As Christians we are called to be good stewards and be responsible providers for our families. We could no more neglect our duties at home than we could disown our own faith. The two are joined at the hip. And clearly there are limits as to how much we can give those in need and still be responsible providers at home. When Jesus commands those of us who have two tunics to “share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same” he clearly intends for us to hold onto the other tunic and for us not to starve.

It is what we do with those resources that we do not need to sustain ourselves that define us as a people before God. And as of right now, I feel we are failing that test. America, the richest nation on Earth, a nation deeply steeped in the Judeo / Christian tradition is facing a moral dilemma that threatens to tear it apart, not to mention earn the wrath of God.

For a nation so blessed, we still have intense poverty in many urban areas. In some northern cities some families have to choose between freezing to death in the dead of winter or having enough food to eat. Childhood illiteracy within these areas approaches that of third-world countries. Even with the latest healthcare bill signed into law, tens of millions will have to wait as long as four years before they can gain access to basic medical treatment, all the while running the risk of getting sick and perhaps dying prematurely.

It is clear that the churches and synagogues are ill-equipped to handle the needs of the poor in their local communities, and while private charity has certainly helped, it too is insufficient to meet such a Herculean challenge. The only agency even remotely able to address many of these problems – the government – has been under attack by many fundamentalists who see it as an over-reaching behemoth, sucking the life out of our precious freedoms. Charges of socialism and government takeovers fill the ether and stir the passions of many a believer to such heights that is it any wonder we are gripped by fear, especially when such fear is unwarranted and completely over the top.

Not that the government hasn’t had its share of scandals and hypocrisies. Many of the criticisms thrown at it have their basis in some truth. It is terribly inefficient, has been corrupted – one could almost say bought – by outside influences that have no interest in seeing a flourishing democracy survive. But when all is said and done, it is still our best hope for giving those without the relief they so desperately need. Without it, most of our so-called freedoms would not exist. Like it or not, the federal government has often stopped the encroachment of corporate domination that ironically threatens the very freedoms we take for granted, and historically has prevented many oligopolies from taking root. Witness the early 1900s when the Trusts were broken up. Without government regulation, such as it is, we would be a vastly different country than we are today. Many of the landmark decisions handed down by the Supreme Court helped paved the way to end discrimination in our nation and bring about many of the reforms we now take for granted. Yes government has always had a role to play; to ignore that truth is to ignore common sense.

But to many believers most, if not all, of this is superfluous. They righteously hold onto their Bibles and defy all “doubters” to find any scriptural references that specifically call for churches and the government to partner up to help the oppressed. Perhaps Psalms 72:1-4 slipped by them.

“Endow the king with your justice, O God, the royal son with your righteousness. He will judge your people in righteousness, your afflicted ones with justice. The mountains will bring prosperity to the people, the hills the fruit of righteousness. He will defend the afflicted among the people and save the children of the needy; he will crush the oppressor.”

Or perhaps Proverbs 31:4-9,

“It is not for kings, O Lemuel— not for kings to drink wine, not for rulers to crave beer, lest they drink and forget what the law decrees, and deprive all the oppressed of their rights. Give beer to those who are perishing, wine to those who are in anguish; let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no more.

“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.”

Or perhaps Isaiah 1:17 and 23,

“Learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow.”

“Your rulers are rebels, companions of thieves; they all love bribes and chase after gifts. They do not defend the cause of the fatherless; the widow's case does not come before them.”

Or perhaps Isaiah 10:1-3,

“Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless. What will you do on the day of reckoning, when disaster comes from afar? To whom will you run for help? Where will you leave your riches?”

Or perhaps Jeremiah 22:14-16,

“Woe to him who builds his palace by unrighteousness, his upper rooms by injustice, making his countrymen work for nothing, not paying them for their labor. He says, ‘I will build myself a great palace with spacious upper rooms.’ So he makes large windows in it, panels it with cedar and decorates it in red.

“Does it make you a king to have more and more cedar? Did not your father have food and drink? He did what was right and just, so all went well with him.

“He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?" declares the LORD.

Or finally Isaiah 32:1-8,

“See, a king will reign in righteousness and rulers will rule with justice. Each man will be like a shelter from the wind and a refuge from the storm, like streams of water in the desert and the shadow of a great rock in a thirsty land.

“Then the eyes of those who see will no longer be closed, and the ears of those who hear will listen. The mind of the rash will know and understand, and the stammering tongue will be fluent and clear.

“No longer will the fool be called noble nor the scoundrel be highly respected. For the fool speaks folly, his mind is busy with evil: He practices ungodliness and spreads error concerning the LORD; the hungry he leaves empty and from the thirsty he withholds water.

“The scoundrel's methods are wicked, he makes up evil schemes to destroy the poor with lies, even when the plea of the needy is just. But the noble man makes noble plans, and by noble deeds he stands.”

I could go on, but by now I think you get the drift. God does not distinguish between the private citizen and the established government, so why should we? If the words “We the people” mean anything it is that this government and this nation belong to us. That means that as a nation – as a government – of the people, by the people and for the people we have a moral obligation to look out for those who are less fortunate. This is not an option; it is a requirement. One that we dare not ignore any longer.

Over the last few years I have heard many conservative preachers rant and rave about the moral decay of the United States. They have spoken at great length about a promiscuous society that has lost its moral compass, and warned repeatedly that unless America repents of its sinful ways, a day of reckoning will be at hand. For once I agree with them. But I submit that our greatest sin has been a closed heart and a callous attitude. Our unwillingness to look within our own hearts and find the mercy that Jesus himself bestowed upon us, now more than anything else defines our fallen condition. We know what we are commanded to do; the only decision before us is whether or not we will obey it.

Like the parable of the talents, we are endowed with certain gifts. If we use them wisely, He will increase them so that our lives will glorify Him. And conversely, if we misuse or ignore them we will certainly earn our just deserts.  True freedom comes with a price. Christ felt his freedom a worthy price to pay for our eternal salvation.  What excuse have we to shun his example?

Shame On You!

Another month, and another opportunity to bring to light yet more stupid and inane behaviors that consistently defy common sense. It’s getting so bad, I’m finding it harder and harder to “narrow” the field.

So this month I will devote the entire piece to one winner. This nominee has had some, shall we say, interesting and colorful moments during his lifetime, but his actions of late have taken the proverbial cake, as it were. Hence he has earned this month's spotlight all by himself.

On a personal note, this will be the last time this piece appears in this blog. Starting this month I have started a new blog aptly called “The Conscience of a Progressive.” A takeoff on Paul Krugman’s blog on The New York Times website titled “The Conscience of a Liberal” I decided that the word liberal for me was too vague for my liking and invites the usual stereotypical, knee-jerk responses from opponents. There is nothing vague about being a progressive, and it’s time I realized who and what I am and stop trying to wax poetically around it.

This blog was supposed to be about hypocrisy within the Church, and while I have made a concerted effort to keep it on track, I must also admit that at times it more closely resembled a political blog. And while I have nothing to apologize for regarding my stances, the two lines were beginning to blur way too much for my tastes. In the spirit of keeping it simple, it was time to reassess what the original goals were for this blog and return to them.

The envelope please…


John McCain: Whatever political capital and self respect this self-described maverick once had has long since gone the way of the dinosaur. It is hard to imagine that once upon a time this man was taken seriously as a presidential candidate and that voters on both sides of the political aisle viewed him with respect. He was his own man, beholden to no one. A Republican, yes, but he had the courage to stand up to the base of his own party and challenge its conventional wisdom.

He called out the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and properly referred to them as intolerant and called then candidate George Bush’s proposal for a massive tax cut for the rich something he could not “ in good conscious support.” He was a moderate Republican at a time when the Party was moving farther and farther away from the center and towards a much more militant base; a base which now completely owns and controls it.

During the 2000 Republican primaries, it looked as though McCain might actually eke out a win against Bush and give the nation a chance to vote for the first moderate Republican since Eisenhower. And then South Carolina happened. The vicious rumor that McCain had fathered an illegitimate black child – posed as a question to avoid the appearance of a direct attack by the Bush campaign – ostensibly did in the Arizona senator. He never recovered. Bush went on to secure the nomination and eventually was elected President. The nation was this close to having a legitimate choice and electing a leader who wasn’t afraid to admit that the gap between rich and poor was widening and needed to be dealt with.

In the ensuing years McCain did distinguish himself by authoring various by-partisan legislation, and with the exception of his continued and ardent support for the Iraq War, he remained in the eyes of many America’s best hope for a presidential candidate that could transcend political polarization.

And then 2008 came. McCain had run a successful primary campaign against the likes of Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, not by moving to extreme base of his party, but by once more steering towards the middle. The strategy proved successful. Despite attacks from Rush Limbaugh and Mary Matalin, McCain beat the odds and went on to win the Republican nomination.

And then, in what can only be described as a Titanic moment, McCain chose to run one of the most negative campaigns against Democratic nominee Barack Obama. McCain didn’t just move to the right, he threw himself at his base in a desperate attempt to garner their support. In the desperation move of the century he chose as his running mate Alaskan governor Sarah Palin, a move that gained him the long awaited support from ultra conservatives, but which cost him the bulk of his support from the center, once considered his strength.

In the final six weeks of the campaign, McCain became more desperate as poll after poll showed his support eroding. The attacks were stepped up, but to no avail. McCain and Palin were routed in the general election.

In the year and a half since that humiliating defeat, McCain has continued his slide into a caricature of himself. The “maverick” had become Palin’s side kick. So damaged was his reputation both among independents and conservatives that the Tea Party movement nominated its own candidate to challenge him for his senate seat in the Arizona primary.

And now the man who stood not once but twice on the precipice of becoming President of the United States has outdone himself by declaring earlier this month that Times Square Bomber Faisal Shahzad – an American citizen – should be denied his Miranda rights. You heard right. Old blood and guts, in yet another desperate attempt to curry favor with conservatives in his home state, has sold himself out.

What next? An appearance with a fake sheriff along the Mexican border imploring the government to “complete the danged fence?” Oh, he did that too!

What happened John? Where did your soul go? I know politics is one of the two oldest professions in the world; the other has to do with selling your body for money. And I know it can’t be easy being a Republican these days and holding onto your principles. But you weren’t just any Republican and you didn’t just run for any office in the land. OK, so you saddled us with the mouth that keeps roaring in the person of Sarah Palin. That would be bad enough for one lifetime, but the depths you have sunk to over the last year has completely destroyed any hope of salvaging what was once a brilliant and distinguished career in the Senate.

Regardless of what happens in your state’s primary, you need to know this. What you have traded for is not worth the price you paid for it. Whether you win or lose, you have lost all respect from those who once believed in you, who saw in you a transformative figure who could be relied on to speak his mind and lead with conviction and dignity. Now the only thing any of us can rely on from you are the comic relief bits you bring to life on Letterman and Saturday Night Live.

Shame on you, sir. You knew better.

What If? … No, What When?

The morning was like any other. I woke, went down to the local deli to get my usual egg sandwich and took my dog for his morning walk. I had a few chores to do that day, and one of them involved going down to the Apple Store at Roosevelt Field to register my AppleCare pack for my iTouch.

I got to the mall just before 1:00 and spoke with one of the sales reps at the store. After several attempts to register the product on his computer, he finally printed out a document with my product’s serial number along with a fax number and said I would have to fax it along with a copy of my receipt of purchase.

I was a bit frustrated at having to drive all the way down there only to be told that I would have to go back home and register it manually. I walked around the mall’s food court. Since it was lunch time I thought I’d kill two birds with one stone and grab a bite. Problem was despite a plethora of choices I wasn’t all that hungry. I finally left the mall and headed toward my car, which was parked about 50 or so yards from the south entrance right by Macy’s.

No sooner had I gotten into the car and put my key into the ignition than I felt an incredible pressure hit me right in the solar plexus that immediately took the wind out of me. The windows of my car exploded and a sound that I can only describe as reminiscent of a subway train pulling into a station only a hundred times louder popped both my eardrums. It was like being thrown into the middle of a war zone with no warning.

I threw open my door and hit the ground petrified. I shouted out, “What the f***!” I looked up and saw an immense cloud of smoke and fire coming from the direction of the mall. Debris was raining down all around me and there was nowhere to hide. I thought about crawling back inside my car but there was glass all over the seats.

I instinctively ran away as fast as I could along with a throng of people, some with burned and torn clothing, all screaming, or at least that’s what it looked liked. In the explosion I lost my hearing and couldn’t hear their screams.

I had run as fast and as far as I could, all the way to Stewart Avenue, before turning around. What I saw stunned me. The whole of Roosevelt Field was engulfed in a massive wall of flame. It poured out of the structure as though it were a tanker set ablaze. As my hearing began to return gradually I could hear the shrills of the people around me who were hysterical, but I could also hear from what must’ve been a half mile or so, the screams of the souls who must’ve been still inside, and I could also hear the flames that were engulfing the whole of the mall.

I was in a state of shock, but I was also quite cognizant of the fact that what I was witnessing was the worst calamity to befall the country since 9/11. I had no idea who might have done this or why, but I knew the horrific nature precluded the possibility of an accident. This was deliberate. We were under attack, again!

All I could think of was reaching my wife Maria to see if she was OK. I reached for my phone, but in the blast it had been ripped from my belt cover and was gone. I also noticed I was bleeding around my ears and arms. I was covered in the dust from the debris that rained down all over the parking lot.

I was scared and disoriented. I could hear the emergency vehicles as they arrived on the scene. I began wandering aimlessly along Stewart Avenue wondering how I was going to get home. I couldn’t believe what my eyes and ears were telling me. I had seen the images of the terrorist attacks that September morning, and saw the throng of people rushing over the Brooklyn Bridge but, while they were gut wrenching, not until that afternoon did I know the horror of what those people went through. You don’t know if you’re going to live or die, and every sense in your body is hyper sensitive. It’s as though you’re existing out of time. I was on pure adrenaline.

Eventually, after a time, I made it to the Meadowbrook Parkway. All northbound traffic had been diverted at Zeckendorf Blvd. Glen Cove might as well have been in China for all the good it did me. All roads around the mall were either closed or were diverting traffic away from where I needed to go. I walked – it was more a stagger – eastward and northward toward Best Buy on Old Country Road. Everyone I passed was staring at the wall of flame and smoke coming from Roosevelt Field. Eventually someone noticed me and saw that I was obviously in need of medical treatment. He put me in his car and drove me to the hospital.

I kept muttering for him to take me home, but he insisted I needed to get medical help. Once at the hospital I was admitted to the emergency room. I managed to get one of the nurses to give me her cell phone and I called Maria. She was hysterical but was relived that I was alive. She drove down as fast as she could to be with me, and stayed at my side while my wounds were treated. While in the emergency room I couldn’t help but think how fortuitous it was that I did not stop to eat lunch that afternoon. I would’ve been right in the middle of the mall when the explosive went off and more than likely I would’ve been killed.

After being treated for minor cuts, I was released and Maria drove me home. When we got home we both hugged one another and cried our eyes out, grateful to God that I was alive and well. Many people that day weren’t nearly as fortunate and many of them met their maker.

Over the next few days we learned that more than 1,500 people were killed, and another 500 or so suffered third degree burns. The explosive was placed in the basement directly under the food court and went off at 1:15 P.M. The blast blew a crater more than 200 feet in diameter and 100 feet deep, completely demolishing the main section; the ensuing inferno consumed most of the mall. Many around the epicenter were either immediately killed or were burned to death within seconds after the blast. The Taliban took credit for the attack, the second worst in U.S. history. Our worst fears were realized; what we were praying wouldn’t happen finally came to pass. America once more was hit and once more the face of terrorism reared its ugly head and claimed more innocent lives.

*************************************************************

Now obviously, none of this happened. Yet. Though I did in fact visit the mall to register my itouch, and I did indeed leave before eating lunch, all the events that appeared above were the figment of my morbid imagination. But don’t think for a moment that this scenario cannot become a reality.

Just Saturday someone drove a Nissan Pathfinder right into the heart of the theater district of Manhattan loaded with explosives in an obvious terrorist attack attempt. The attempt failed and, as we speak, the driver is being hunted. Though we don’t at present know who is responsible, the Taliban have taken credit for the attempt. And while the nation may have dodged a bullet this time, experts agree it is only a matter of time before a successful attack is carried out. No matter what precautions we take as a nation, eventually those who hate us will get through our defenses. A bomb will go off and people will be killed.

The neocons and the vast right-wing ideologues have had a field day over the last 24 hours ripping the Administration and liberal Democrats for being weak on the War on Terror and for making America vulnerable to attack. We were lucky. What about next time? Once more we are being subjected to the same cheap rhetoric that we had to endure after the last attack. In the months after 9/11 the nation, lost in the grip of xenophobic fear, succumbed to the bassist of its prejudices and sold out its very laws and values in a vain attempt to feel more secure. An illegal war was fraudulently launched, thousands of civilians were killed, and hundreds of suspects were unjustly rounded up and detained in a clear violation of both our Constitution and international law. Fake patriotism ruled the day as the mainstream media reneged on its responsibility as the guardians of truth.

One can only surmise what will happen the next time we are attacked. And there will be a next time. The only question that begs to be answered is not what, when, where, or how the attack will be launched, but rather what our response as a nation will be. Evil will always exist and seek to bring about paralyzing fear. That is the essence of terror itself. The Terrorists know that. They know they cannot kill all of us; their only hope is to bring us to our knees and force us to compromise the very thing that separates us from, and at the same time threatens, them: our way of life.

We cannot give them their victory. Death is inevitable; but fear of death is an option, one that we cannot afford. Throughout our illustrious history we have met many external challenges from formidable opponents and we have defeated every single one of them. But the greatest challenge now lies not from without but from within. If we are up to that challenge, the terrorists can never win.

Shame On You!

With the month coming to a close I’m glad I waited to almost the last minute to present this month’s awards. I think you’ll agree the delay was well worth it. As in past months the nominees all earned the honor accorded them, and as always it was difficult to limit the number to three. As my friend Steve has pointed out, “So many silly people, so little time.”

The envelope please…

First Place goes to The Entire Government of Arizona. For the first time since the days of the segregated South an entire state government has decided to enact a law that is the embodiment of Jim Crow and allows racial profiling in an attempt to “deal” with its illegal immigrants. State Senate Bill 1070 – dubbed the “Papers Please” bill by critics – would require law enforcement officials in the state of Arizona to investigate someone’s immigration status if there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person might be undocumented. What constitutes reasonable suspicion and just how exactly a law enforcement official can tell who might be undocumented is of course the sixty-four thousand dollar question that Governor Jan Brewer, who did her best impersonation of a deer caught in someone’s headlights when she signed this bill into law, could not answer. The best Brewer could come up with at the press conference was that she would not tolerate profiling and that “we need to trust our law enforcement officials to know what they’re doing.” She made that last statement with a straight face.

There is no other way to put this. This law is an abomination. It runs counter to all we hold near and dear, namely that we are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Now anyone suspected of being “illegal” will have to prove they are not, and if for some reason they do not have the proper documentation on them, they will be arrested, even if they are in fact legal. And who is likely to be stopped and asked to “prove” their status? People who look illegal, that’s who. Brewer, when asked whether she could recognize what an illegal looked liked, could not answer. If she couldn’t, how on earth are the law enforcement officials who we are supposed to “trust” going to be able to tell? And therein lies the problem. Arizona has just enacted a law that on its merits now requires its local police departments to troll for people of Hispanic origin in order to root out its illegal alien problem. How could reasonably intelligent people not believe that this would constitute profiling when the essence of the law itself requires its use in order to be effective? To quote Stephen Colbert, “It’s like they’re saying that harassing Latinos with racial profiling is an inevitable side-effect of this law. It’s not; it’s the entire point of this law.” The law’s sponsor Russell Pearce was quoted as saying, “When you make life difficult, most will leave on their own.” Who is most?

Even if you grant the argument that the law’s intention is to reduce if not eliminate the illegal immigration problem that plagues not just Arizona, but all border states, the fact is that this law throws out the baby with the bathwater. The fourth and fourteenth amendments are quite specific: The fourth amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. It was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, the kind of search likely to happen under this new law. The fourteenth amendment states in pertinent part, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” The law’s intent, however noble its proponents believe it to be, will be subverted by the harsh reality that many innocent Hispanics will be subject to needless invasions of their privacy and encroachment of their civil liberties. This is unacceptable in any free society. Imagine if the Statue of Liberty’s inscription read: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free - can I see some ID please?”

Shame on you, Arizona for passing this law and for showing the world that we still have a long way to go before we bury our racial prejudices, and for completely ignoring the Constitution in the process. In an ironic twist, owing principally to concerns over Brewer’s safety, the press conference was held in a non-disclosed setting. Reporters had to show their credentials and driver's licenses twice to enter the building, thus giving them a little taste of what Hispanics in this state will have to go through every day now.

Second place goes to The Obama Administration. In what can only be described as the best case of the pot calling the kettle black in quite some time, the Administration is expressing concerns over learning that Pakistan is holding thousands of suspected militants in indefinite detention without benefit of a trial.

WTF?

Ever since February of last year when the Obama Administration announced that detainees in Afghanistan have no constitutional rights and cannot use U.S. courts to challenge their detention – a decision that shocked human rights attorneys – thousands of detainees have been held almost virtually incognito without any right to due process, mirroring to a tee Bush Administration’s policies. Incredible!

As recently as January of this year, the New York Times and Washington Post blasted the Administration for its decision to ignore international law as well as the Constitution. The New York Times wrote in an editorial on January 17th, “We keep waiting -- in vain -- for the Obama Administration to stop trying to block judicial scrutiny of some of the Bush Administration’s most outrageous policies on the detention of prisoners.” And on January 22nd the Washington Post wrote, “A Justice Department-led task force has concluded that nearly 50 of the 196 detainees at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, should be held indefinitely without trial under the laws of war, according to Obama Administration officials.”
And now the current administration is up in arms and expressing concerns because another country has decided to follow in our footsteps. How disingenuous can a government be? For the last eight years we have continued to circumvent our own Constitution, spit in the face of international law, and continue to undermine our credibility within the Muslim world, and yet we call out a sovereign nation when it does the same thing. Small wonder Salon’s Glenn Greenwald, in his op-ed piece, sarcastically quipped,

“Let's teach those Pakistanis that we're not going to tolerate their lawless and tyrannical detention of people without charges and trials. We won't put up with it. Especially not when it's "justified" with the Orwellian claim that their real civilian courts can't handle the prosecutions and they're "afraid" that Dangerous Terrorists might be released if they give them due process because they're unprosecutable. Kudos to the Obama Administration for teaching them that countries that live under the Rule of Law simply don't deny people trials based on such excuses. It'd be one thing if they were assassinating these people without any charges or trials -- that of course would be understandable -- but not detaining them. We're the Leader of the Free World and we simply can't be seen associating with or supporting regimes that would do such a thing. Besides, unlike the U.S., it's not like Pakistan really faces an Existential Threat from Islamic radicals or anything, so (unlike us) they really have no acceptable excuse for doing these things.”
Shame on you Obama Administration for not only refusing to live under the letter of law, but for being hypocrites while doing it.

And bringing up the rear, Sue Lowden. If you thought Michelle Bachmann had the exclusive on crazy, Lowden’s recent interview will have you believing the end times are at hand. The Republican candidate for Harry Reid’s Senate seat had some, shall we say, unique takes on how to combat the high cost of medical treatment. We’ll let Lowden tell it in her own unadulterated words.

“You know, before we all started having health care, in the olden days our grandparents, they would bring a chicken to the doctor, they would say I’ll paint your house. I mean, that’s the old days of what people would do to get health care with your doctors. Doctors are very sympathetic people. I’m not backing down from that system.”
No she isn’t; not only that, the tea party darling has continued to insist that she wasn’t misquoted and unabashedly stands behind her comments. Somewhere in an undisclosed bunker under the Capital building Harry Reid is muttering to himself, “I can’t believe I’m trailing this whack job!” So, the next time you lose a limb, or need a transplant, or have a disease that requires an “experimental” treatment make sure you bring some chickens to your local hospital or doctor’s office. Tell them Sue Lowden sent you.

Shame on you Sue Lowden for trivializing the seriousness nature of healthcare costs in this country and for insulting your constituents in the process.

Coming Out: One brave bird dares fly against the wind.

There are many things that have always bugged me about Christianity. Its ties to moneyed interests throughout its history – at least the history that post dates the early days of the Church – has been a great cause for concern for many progressives who view such ties as contrary to the teachings of Christ; the incessant view held by many conservatives that the Bible should be interpreted literally has been a thorny issue that has plagued the religion since the days of Augustine, and there appears to be no resolution forthcoming any time soon; and the endemic conservative bent throughout the Church on virtually every issue from global warming to healthcare reform has pitted brother against brother and sister against sister and forced many outside the faith to question what our real priorities are. What can we possibly offer those seeking everlasting salvation if we cannot show that we ourselves are saved?

But while all the above are significant enough to make a saint swear, none has been more puzzling and damning than the issue of homosexuality. One would rather admit to being a leper than to admit to being gay. The Church has treated such “aberrant” behavior like a doctor would treat an infectious disease. Support groups like Living Waters offer to “cure” the afflicted of their malady by convincing them that they have somehow been wounded early in their lives. Once that wound has been brought to the Cross the natural heterosexual drives that exist in all God’s creatures are restored. Life resumes as it should and all is well in the universe.

Now it’s not my wish to belittle the faith that I have called my own for nearly twenty years, nor do I mean to suggest that support groups like the one mentioned above have not helped the broken and downtrodden, for the tragic truth is that many Christians, as well as non-Christians, have suffered deep wounds at the hands of predator adults who were supposed to be our protectors in our formative years. The damage that such wounds cause are played out in our adult lives and must be rooted out if we are to be set free. But to jump from A to C and suggest, as so many in the Church do, that homosexuals are nothing more than heterosexuals who have been sexually wounded quite frankly is offensive to the homosexual community. To lump these people into the same pot of damaged goods because their lifestyle runs counter to certain Biblical teachings seems most, well, un-Christ-like. The problem with quoting scripture is that you can use it to make any point you wish to make, no matter how hurtful or myopic it might be.

Case in point, last week’s announcement by Christian singer/songwriter Jennifer Knapp that she is a lesbian has rocked the Christian music world. No other artist of Knapp’s caliber has ever come out of the closet, and the shock waves were predictable. Based on the treatment Amy Grant received when she got divorced, one can only imagine the scorn that is awaiting Knapp for her bravado in acknowledging her status.

Yes, I said bravado! Regardless of how one may feel about the homosexual lifestyle, it took courage for Knapp to come clean, especially knowing the community to which she has called her home for so many years. But courage has never been Knapp’s problem. The four-time Dove award winner has not only been a staple of many Christian groupies, she has also earned the respect of her peers throughout the music industry as a whole. Her cover of Shawn Colvin’s “Diamond in the Rough” remains one of the better covers of the last fifteen years.

I have never hid my disdain for the bulk of Christian music. Fact is I often find such music banal and just flat out lame. It is lifeless and artless. Gospel, by comparison, buries it. Knapp’s music was one of the few exceptions to the rule. Unlike so many of her peers who leap from A to D – you know, I was a sinner and now I’m free; thank you Jesus; God is great – Knapp got it. The struggle wasn’t over just because we surrendered to God; in fact it was just beginning. She knew she was wounded and she never shied away from baring her soul as well as her heart. She is that rarest of artists in the Christian music industry. She embraces her pain - you could almost call it angst - and uses it as a vehicle to allow us into her journey in the same way a Bruce Springsteen or a Lucinda Williams might. And while I am certainly not suggesting that Knapp deserves inclusion into that “sacred” group – she has quite a ways to go before crossing that bridge – among all the artists of her genre, she is the only one I take seriously, because she is the only one who never forgot where she came from. Too often, in our zeal to tell the world how wonderful salvation is, we forget that pain is still an integral part of our life story. Artists like Jennifer Knapp, who do not recoil from it as from a hot flame, in the end dignify their music as well as their fans.

And now she has another story to tell: a story of suppression and denial and, yes, shame. The road ahead for Knapp will no doubt be a rocky one, and she has earned it. But she has also earned the right to live it out and to sing about it in what ever manner she chooses, no matter how it may rub the majority of Christians a certain way. Knapp has said that her forthcoming album, aptly titled “Letting Go,” will honor her faith even while it seeks to appeal to a more mainstream audience and that is the way it should be. Knapp isn’t abandoning her faith; if anything she will need it now more than ever. Whether the Christian community ever receives her back into its “good” graces remains to be seen. If they can look past their own stigmatizing biases, I submit they may be pleasantly surprised; if they can’t and choose to shun her, it will be their loss. Either way the sun will still rise in the east tomorrow, only there will be one less bird flying with the flock.

A Hate That Endures: Why the Tea Party Movement may be here for some time to come and why we must be steadfast in our stance.

In the original Star Trek pilot, Captain Christopher Pike is captured by a race called the Talosians, who have the ability to make him do anything they want by reading his thoughts and manipulating his surroundings. The only emotion they cannot read is intense feelings of hatred or rage. Try as he might Pike is unable to keep his hatred up and, when the emotional rush is finally over, is punished by his captors for wrong thinking. The moral of the story is that no matter how hard one tries he or she can never sustain such “primitive” emotions for long. Eventually the wave subsides and we are restored to a state of emotional stability. Gene Roddenberry knew a thing or two about human beings and he knew no rational mind could hold onto that much rage for long; no rational mind that is.

But Roddenberry was a bit of an idealist. Like most science fiction writers of his day, he believed that man would eventually rise above the fray of pettiness and bigotry that has defined most of his somewhat limited existence on this planet. Our destructive natures would eventually be replaced by a more utopian-like lifestyle. The concept of primitive emotions such as hatred or rage controlling the mind for more that a brief interlude was something he could not fathom. Certainly we would “evolve” beyond that point and be able to live together without killing one another either literally or figuratively. But Roddenberry’s optimism seems strangely out of touch with the stark reality of our present-day circumstances. If today’s Tea Party Movement is any indication it could be a very long time before we ever see the kind of world Roddenberry envisioned for humanity. Like the famous cereal commercial, one is apt to say of his naiveté, “Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids.”

The rage that emanates from this movement is not unique to our history. We have seen it before. But it has seldom been so concentrated and enduring. I have written at great length of my concerns about this movement and what it means to our future as a country. I have warned that we are vulnerable to a national tragedy the likes of which have not been seen in this country since 1963. The emotional madness that defines the bulk of these tea partiers is well passed the pathological stage; it is a national phenomenon that has already deeply wounded one of the two prominent parties in the country and is attempting to use acts of intimidation against the other. What it cannot achieve through legitimate means, it will attempt through coercion. Zero accountability coupled with zero tolerance equals a recipe for disaster.

To the rational mind – the one Roddenberry believed existed in us all – this seems like a bad dream. This can’t possibly be happening, not in America. My wife, who has always taken the high road and describes herself as a progressive with a moral compass, is blessed with a strong intellect and a superior ability to reason things through and resolve conflict peaceably. She has no stomach for such abhorrent behavior. In her heart of hearts, she sees passed the asinine and racist signs and sees a frustration that others have manipulated to suit their ends. Of course she has a point – the cart / horse analogy is germane to any discussion involving this group – and she has proven far more resilient than I have ever been when it comes to patience and compassion.

But she has also chosen not to listen to the rhetoric that is coming out of this movement. She has refrained from listening to the Hannitys, Limbaughs and Becks. Whether manipulated, stoked or just flat out inflamed to a riotous mass, the proverbial Genie is out of the bottle and isn’t going back in. The issue before us is not who lit the fuse, but how can we prevent the ensuing explosion from bringing down the whole damn house?

Well for one thing, we – all of us – need to stop believing that cooler heads will prevail. There are none within this lot, and those who still might possess an ounce of sanity are more likely to go along with the majority of their brethren rather than risk being called a traitor. You don’t have to believe me, just look at the GOP. Could anyone have guessed that this once prominent and majority party would be reduced to the status of mouth piece for the likes of Dick Morris and Sarah Palin? David Frum was right when he said, “Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us and now we're discovering we work for Fox. And this balance here has been completely reversed. The thing that sustains a strong Fox network is the thing that undermines a strong Republican Party.” Loathe though I am to give any credit to a Republican, especially one who worked in the Bush Whitehouse, Frum has nailed it so to speak. The tail is now waging the dog.

Another thing that we all need to do is stop pretending that this fight is not ours to wage. I am so sick and tired of well-meaning Christians who keep quoting Ephesians 6:12 as though it somehow absolves them from having to speak up and challenge hypocrisy. The scripture reads as follows: “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” If I’m reading it accurately it clearly states that while we are not to fight against one another, we are commanded to fight against that which poisons the minds of our fellows, and call it out whenever it rears its ugly head. Those who insist on spreading hatred and lies, in the spirit of Psalm 63:11 “shall be stopped.”

In all of scripture I keep looking for the passage where God, all by himself, accomplished every task. With the exception of the Creation account, it is not there. Even the birth of his only son required the services of a virgin woman. We do violence to scripture by sitting on our hands and looking upward toward the heavens. We need to get up off our knees and bring the fight to those who would pervert and subvert our values in the name of the king of darkness. Do not deceive yourselves; Satan is having a grand old time of it sitting back and watching his creation unleashed and unchecked. You would say Satan cannot do that which God does not allow. I would say that is a cop out for the weak and timid. We are all called to be soldiers. The only question is whose army are we in?

Lastly, we need to present to our fellows a cogent and rational mindset that best represents the heart of what Jesus would have for us as a people. Nature abhors a vacuum. It is not enough to refute the lunacy of the Right, if at the end of the day all we do is substitute our own brand of intolerance in place of theirs. We may win the battle, but we will eventually lose the war. We needn’t be lambs led along to the slaughter house, but we cannot, no matter how tempting it might be, subscribe to the same methods and traits as our sworn enemy. That is the real meaning of Ephesians 6:12. We do not lie down; we stand firm, shielded in His armor and resolute against all that the enemy will throw at us.

The next few months will be as great a test for this nation as any it has yet seen. In a way we are witnessing a sort of Civil War. This war may not result in the killing of thousands of soldiers as the last one did, but there will be casualties nonetheless. It is our duty to be resolute and steadfast in the face of the coming deluge. The enemy will not go quietly into the night, and neither should we. For we are the benefactors of a benevolent and all-powerful God that always triumphs over evil and will equip us for every struggle. He will never abandon us in our time of need so long as we call upon him for our strength.