I believe in freedom of religion. I believe politicians can and should vote their consciences and that their consciences should be informed by their faith. I also don't believe that public policy should be formed around religious preferences. That basically means that when a politician puts forward a policy that is consonant with their faith, they better also have some good reasons that are outside of their faith. A foundation in one's faith is not enough to form public policy.
I respect politicians who truly hold their faith, whatever it may be, and live it with authenticity. I have no respect for politicians who use faith as a wedge between constituencies and I have little respect for politicians who are less than genuine in their commitments.
That brings me to Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, both of who have been playing the "good Roman Catholic" card of late. Neither is a good Roman Catholic. Both are ignoring the nature of authority in the Catholic church. They think and act as if a good Roman Catholic can pick and choose between the teachings of the church and embrace those that fit their own politics or morals while rejecting others. While in fact, many who call themselves Roman Catholics in the US do just that, it is a difficult place to be when the Catholic Church is built on a hierarchy of authority which cannot be easily ignored. Juan Cole has an interesting blog piece entitled the Top Ten Roman Catholic Teaching Rick Santorum Rejects While Obsessing about Birth Control where he shows how Santorum does just that. These two politicians claim to be pro-life and point to their supposed Roman Catholic faith as the foundation for that understanding, all the while ignoring that in Roman Catholic teaching, pro-life is a much broader term that rejects capital punishment, any kind of pre-emptive war, most specific wars including Iraq, and which calls for universal health care, welfare for all needy families...
The first time a politician stands up and says "I am against birth control because I'm a Roman Catholic... and I'm also against capital punishment. I take Just War Theory seriously and I believe in a safety net that truly provides for the needs and dignity of the poor," I will take that person seriously. Until then, he or she can't say that they hold a position based on the authority of their church without me laughing at them. I laugh at Santorum and Gingrich.
Now, there are other kinds of Christians who understand authority very differently. The Baptist tradition, for example, says that an individual's relationship to God is between them and God. Authority does not come from a hierarchy but from responsible reflection by the individual and interaction with the Holy. Without responsible reflection and without relationship to the Holy, there is no authority. Even when the relationship is authentic, in this tradition, one still cannot generalize the shape or substance of another's relationship with the Holy. (This is why freedom of religion was an idea that came primarily from the early Baptists). I know many in this tradition, my tradition, who see things very differently than I do. Some I respect deeply because their views are based in responsible reflection and in their understanding of their relationships with God. Others... not so much.
Still other traditions place the authority in the gathered community. The bottom line is that if one is going to claim religious authority for a particular stand, they had better understand how authority works in that tradition and own the tradition.
Showing posts with label baptist tradition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label baptist tradition. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Un-American
I'm a Baptist. One of the core commitments of all true Baptists is separation of church and state. Religion must be freely chosen and the government has no role in either curtailing or supporting religious practice. Essentially, religion must be invisible to government.
Today, Rep. King, a Republican from NY state is holding hearings to look into the "The Extent of Radicalization of Muslim Americans." While there is no doubt that there are radical Muslims in America and it might even be possible that the number is growing, to paint with such a broad brush is clearly a swipe against freedom of religion, a core principle upon which this nation was founded. When one faith group is singled out for attack, all are threatened.
Representative King, this is as un-american as it gets. You should be ashamed.
Today, Rep. King, a Republican from NY state is holding hearings to look into the "The Extent of Radicalization of Muslim Americans." While there is no doubt that there are radical Muslims in America and it might even be possible that the number is growing, to paint with such a broad brush is clearly a swipe against freedom of religion, a core principle upon which this nation was founded. When one faith group is singled out for attack, all are threatened.
Representative King, this is as un-american as it gets. You should be ashamed.
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
I Don't Want to Live in a Christian Nation
There is a lot of chatter these days among those on the far right that we live in a Christian nation... or that we used to live in a Christian nation until the Democrats began to push us away from our Christian moorings.
Well, that is at best revisionist history and at worst a complete misunderstanding of the genius that is the United States... but that is another post. Regardless of whether that interpretation is incorrect, I don't want to live in a "Christian" nation. If we were one (which again, is a misread of history), then good riddance. If we were not (now you've got it right), then let's keep it that way.
First, let me address the idea of separation of Church and State. It was not an idea that came from secularists. The deepest roots of those ideas came from the Baptists, the Quakers, and the Unitarians. Indeed, the phrase, "wall of separation" came from the founder of the first Baptist church on English soil, Thomas Helwys. While many religious groups had experienced persecution under the state churches in Europe, those three groups had in common a belief that at its core, the soul must be free. They believed that an individual's relationship to God is between them and God and no outside body, including the state, has the right to dictate what that relationship must look like. At the simplest level, they knew that any time there was a state church, somebody would be unable to seek God as their hearts led them and somebody would be persecuted for not towing the line. Groups like the Puritans, for example, had experienced persecution for their faith but rather than seeing the Americas as an opportunity for freedom, they saw it as a place where they could impose their faith on others and often the persecuted become the persecutors.
The basic problem of living in a "Christian" state is whose version of Christianity are we talking about? Are we Roman Catholic? Or fundamentalist evangelical? Or staunch Calvinist? Or liberal mainline protestant? The early Baptists knew what it meant to be on the wrong end of those questions. Then, what force of the state will be used to enforce that particular understanding of faith? Prison? Using zoning or tax regulations to destroy organizations? The list could go on.
And finally, what happens if one is not a Christian at all? Do we use the power of the state to convert? To "train" children, taking away the freedom and responsibility of their parents?
I don't want to live in a country where any particular version of Christianity is imposed, even my own. I want even less to live in a country where the official state religion is some watered down, civil version of Christianity that has no teeth at all. I also don't want to live in a Muslim country, a Jewish nation, or a place with any other official religion you can name. Instead, I want to live in a place where the government has no say in matters of faith at all, where the government neither supports nor undermines religion. I want to live in a place where I am free to practice my faith or lack thereof as my conscience dictates and where you can do the same. It is only there that truth faith can flourish.
Well, that is at best revisionist history and at worst a complete misunderstanding of the genius that is the United States... but that is another post. Regardless of whether that interpretation is incorrect, I don't want to live in a "Christian" nation. If we were one (which again, is a misread of history), then good riddance. If we were not (now you've got it right), then let's keep it that way.
First, let me address the idea of separation of Church and State. It was not an idea that came from secularists. The deepest roots of those ideas came from the Baptists, the Quakers, and the Unitarians. Indeed, the phrase, "wall of separation" came from the founder of the first Baptist church on English soil, Thomas Helwys. While many religious groups had experienced persecution under the state churches in Europe, those three groups had in common a belief that at its core, the soul must be free. They believed that an individual's relationship to God is between them and God and no outside body, including the state, has the right to dictate what that relationship must look like. At the simplest level, they knew that any time there was a state church, somebody would be unable to seek God as their hearts led them and somebody would be persecuted for not towing the line. Groups like the Puritans, for example, had experienced persecution for their faith but rather than seeing the Americas as an opportunity for freedom, they saw it as a place where they could impose their faith on others and often the persecuted become the persecutors.
The basic problem of living in a "Christian" state is whose version of Christianity are we talking about? Are we Roman Catholic? Or fundamentalist evangelical? Or staunch Calvinist? Or liberal mainline protestant? The early Baptists knew what it meant to be on the wrong end of those questions. Then, what force of the state will be used to enforce that particular understanding of faith? Prison? Using zoning or tax regulations to destroy organizations? The list could go on.
And finally, what happens if one is not a Christian at all? Do we use the power of the state to convert? To "train" children, taking away the freedom and responsibility of their parents?
I don't want to live in a country where any particular version of Christianity is imposed, even my own. I want even less to live in a country where the official state religion is some watered down, civil version of Christianity that has no teeth at all. I also don't want to live in a Muslim country, a Jewish nation, or a place with any other official religion you can name. Instead, I want to live in a place where the government has no say in matters of faith at all, where the government neither supports nor undermines religion. I want to live in a place where I am free to practice my faith or lack thereof as my conscience dictates and where you can do the same. It is only there that truth faith can flourish.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Why I'm a Baptist
I write this to remind myself... because I'm not happy with the directions the tradition has taken nor with the choices that have been made by my own denomination - The American Baptist Churches, USA.
Walter Shurden in his book The Baptist Identity: Four Fragile Freedoms, says there are four distinctive commitments that define what it means to be a Baptist.
1. Freedom of the Bible - the idea that scripture speaks for itself and the individual believer is obligated to study it using the best possible tools. There is no "official" interpretation of the Bible. Nobody can definitely say, "this is what the Bible means" and therefore there are no creeds or doctrinal checklists.
2. Soul Freedom - Each individual is both able and required to work out his or her own faith and relationship to God with no interference by clergy, church, hierarchies, or state. Nobody can tell you what your relationship to God is supposed to look like. That is between you and God.
3. Freedom of the Church - It is the responsibility of each congregation to work out the shape of its faith and its ministry in its context. No outside body can tell a church what they must believe or how they must do ministry.
4. Freedom of Religion - The state has no power to impose religious tests on anyone or shape religion in any way. The idea of separation of church and state in the US came primarily from the Baptists and the Quakers.
Obviously, Shurden says more about these distinctives than I have shared in 4 short paragraphs but you get the picture and can sense the radicalness inherent in these four commitments. They leave the door open to incredible diversity from TULIP fundamentalists on the right to unitarianism on the left and everything in between. Indeed, the Baptist tradition in the US includes the whole of that diversity. It is that wild and wide tradition that caught my imagination and continues to insire me. It is that crazy mix that seems to me to be the most viable shape for Christianity to take in this post-modern world. It is also a tradition that is frightening to many and seems to me to be being abandoned by almost all Baptist groups.
Let me give one simple example. In the ABCUSA, they are talking about a "common table," i.e. when representatives gather, each of the participating bodies agrees not to send a representative that another body would exclude. Left out are GLBT folk because some of the more conservative folk in ABC will not sit at table with them. How can we claim to be Baptists and then tell a church or group of churches that they cannot send an entire class of people as representatives to our gatherings? What about the first three freedoms? It was in that rough and tumble mix of differing ideas and interpretations that I most clearly heard the voice of the Spirit. And now we move to the lowest common denominator?
I am still a Baptist. I want to remain a Baptist and I dream of a day when some Baptist body stands up and clearly says, "THIS IS WHO WE ARE!" I fear it will never come and the tradition will morph into something it is not, and then disappear completely.
Walter Shurden in his book The Baptist Identity: Four Fragile Freedoms, says there are four distinctive commitments that define what it means to be a Baptist.
1. Freedom of the Bible - the idea that scripture speaks for itself and the individual believer is obligated to study it using the best possible tools. There is no "official" interpretation of the Bible. Nobody can definitely say, "this is what the Bible means" and therefore there are no creeds or doctrinal checklists.
2. Soul Freedom - Each individual is both able and required to work out his or her own faith and relationship to God with no interference by clergy, church, hierarchies, or state. Nobody can tell you what your relationship to God is supposed to look like. That is between you and God.
3. Freedom of the Church - It is the responsibility of each congregation to work out the shape of its faith and its ministry in its context. No outside body can tell a church what they must believe or how they must do ministry.
4. Freedom of Religion - The state has no power to impose religious tests on anyone or shape religion in any way. The idea of separation of church and state in the US came primarily from the Baptists and the Quakers.
Obviously, Shurden says more about these distinctives than I have shared in 4 short paragraphs but you get the picture and can sense the radicalness inherent in these four commitments. They leave the door open to incredible diversity from TULIP fundamentalists on the right to unitarianism on the left and everything in between. Indeed, the Baptist tradition in the US includes the whole of that diversity. It is that wild and wide tradition that caught my imagination and continues to insire me. It is that crazy mix that seems to me to be the most viable shape for Christianity to take in this post-modern world. It is also a tradition that is frightening to many and seems to me to be being abandoned by almost all Baptist groups.
Let me give one simple example. In the ABCUSA, they are talking about a "common table," i.e. when representatives gather, each of the participating bodies agrees not to send a representative that another body would exclude. Left out are GLBT folk because some of the more conservative folk in ABC will not sit at table with them. How can we claim to be Baptists and then tell a church or group of churches that they cannot send an entire class of people as representatives to our gatherings? What about the first three freedoms? It was in that rough and tumble mix of differing ideas and interpretations that I most clearly heard the voice of the Spirit. And now we move to the lowest common denominator?
I am still a Baptist. I want to remain a Baptist and I dream of a day when some Baptist body stands up and clearly says, "THIS IS WHO WE ARE!" I fear it will never come and the tradition will morph into something it is not, and then disappear completely.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
ABC Biennial
It's been a week since we got home from the American Baptist Churches Biennial meeting... I wanted to write seriously about it but by now, a lot of the meeting has receded into that area of my brain where cobwebs outnumber synapses so you'll get some impressions only.
The meetings took place in the Washington DC Convention center... it s a cavernous place that really requires many more people than we had (about 2500) to feel "alive." Even the opening night which we shared with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, who were ending their convention, wasn't full. (they numbered about 3000.) The space made it difficult to feel connected and all of the meetings felt smaller than they were.
THE CBF is a lively group. Their display area was wonderful to walk through. The downside of them is that they seemed pretty homogeneous - white and southern.
The joint ABC/CBF worship began with a presentation from the pension/benefit board. Huh? What a silly way to celebrate our relationship even though it is a way that ABC has helped out the CBF.
ABC did a better job with media this year but still was not as good as many local churches.
The worship services leaned towards the "Swiss army knife" style that happens when you try to make an extremely diverse group of people happy. Sometimes it worked and sometimes it felt just like a Swiss army knife - lots of little parts that aren't big enough to do what they're meant to do while at the same time making the whole thing a less than useful monstrosity (yes, that is an exaggeration but I liked the word).
The preaching was less than I hoped for. Lauran Bethell was probably the stand out for me. She was the individual least likely to be known for her preaching but the genuineness of her presentation really worked for me. There was some wonderful music - a few of the choirs were amazing - and some that did nothing for me at all - enough said there. A number of the African American churches brought dancers as did a southeast Asian congregation. Fun.
Walter Shurden spoke at the Association for Baptist Principles meeting and was wonderful at laying out the foundation for who we are as baptists.
The best part of the meetings is getting together with friends, many of whom I get to see only at the biennials. We had some reasonable beer and some great conversations.
I was happy to see the racial diversity (we do this better than anyone else in the US) but saddened that the full breadth of who we are wasn't visible. The anglo conservatives didn't come. In addition to the folk from PSW who weren't there (and most would not have attended anyway), I didn't see any of the conservatives that I know from around the denomination. This lack of theological breadth made for less contention but it also made for some boring meetings and didn't feel quite "Baptist." For me, the diversity of theological stance is crucial to who we should be. There was also an awful lot of gray hair present...
The next biennial will be in Pasadena. I hopeful that the location will draw some new folk to the meeting and that the planners will build on what was done well... two years will tell.
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Freedom
I just got home from a 3 week trip back east that included the ABC Biennial meeting (more about that later) but the meetings got me thinking about freedom.
Walter Shurden spoke at the Coalition for Baptist Principles gathering and told a wonderful story... while pastoring, he invited a number of leaders from their faith traditions to share their traditions in an adult Sunday School class. At the end of one of those meetings, Shurden asked the Catholic priest who had been sharing what he understood to be the central characteristics of the Baptist tradition. Without a blink, the priest replied, "freedom."
Shurden went on to talk about freedom as central to not only the Baptist tradition, but also to the ways in which God relates to humanity. God gives us freedom for faith or not, freedom to follow or not, freedom...
I have to say that I bristle whenever folk talk about the US as being a Christian nation or even that it is founded on Christian ideals and then argue and work towards a theocracy. It seems to me that working towards a theocracy is precisely the opposite of what God wants and a nation where freedom, including absolute freedom of religion, is the distinguishing characteristic, is exactly what God does want. It is a wonderful irony isn't it? God has given us the freedom to not believe, the freedom to not follow. From the positive perspective, God has given us the freedom and responsibility to work out our own salvation in fear and trembling and nobody, including God's self, can impose faith upon us. It is only when we have that freedom that we are living in the kind of society God envisions for us all. God wants us all to be in relationship with God but it is more important that we be able to choose than what we choose.
Happy 4th of July! Let Freedom Ring!
Walter Shurden spoke at the Coalition for Baptist Principles gathering and told a wonderful story... while pastoring, he invited a number of leaders from their faith traditions to share their traditions in an adult Sunday School class. At the end of one of those meetings, Shurden asked the Catholic priest who had been sharing what he understood to be the central characteristics of the Baptist tradition. Without a blink, the priest replied, "freedom."
Shurden went on to talk about freedom as central to not only the Baptist tradition, but also to the ways in which God relates to humanity. God gives us freedom for faith or not, freedom to follow or not, freedom...
I have to say that I bristle whenever folk talk about the US as being a Christian nation or even that it is founded on Christian ideals and then argue and work towards a theocracy. It seems to me that working towards a theocracy is precisely the opposite of what God wants and a nation where freedom, including absolute freedom of religion, is the distinguishing characteristic, is exactly what God does want. It is a wonderful irony isn't it? God has given us the freedom to not believe, the freedom to not follow. From the positive perspective, God has given us the freedom and responsibility to work out our own salvation in fear and trembling and nobody, including God's self, can impose faith upon us. It is only when we have that freedom that we are living in the kind of society God envisions for us all. God wants us all to be in relationship with God but it is more important that we be able to choose than what we choose.
Happy 4th of July! Let Freedom Ring!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
