The recent dust-up between James Dobson, head of the ultra-conservative Focus on the Family, and Barack Obama, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, didn’t surprise me, given the perspectives of both men.  What did surprise me, at least a little bit, was the way each characterized the other.  Dobson said Obama was promoting a “fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution.”  Fruitcake?  Is that a technical legal term?  Is it an attempt to plant in the minds of Dobson’s followers the notion that Obama is gay?

In his dismissal of Dobson’s comments, Obama said Dobson was “making stuff up.”  To me, that sounds like what someone might say when engaged in an argument on the playground.  Surely, the more grammatically correct response would be “making up stuff.”  (Just a little joke.)   Perhaps Obama simply was stooping down to the level of discourse established by Dobson in the hopes of making his response understandable.  At least he didn’t say, “Your mama!”

In any case, if you’re interested in delving more deeply into this meeting of the minds on matters of Biblical understanding and social/political debate, someone has done us all the favor of setting up a website to clarify the issues under consideration.  Click here to access it.

Me, I’m gonna think about other junk for now.

The Old Testament reading for this Sunday is a doozy.  It’s the story from Genesis 22 of Abraham being told to sacrifice his heir, Isaac.  Sure, the world was different in those days, and the culture out there in the desert was different from our sophisticated 21^st Century way of life (sarcasm must be noted here).

But, this was Isaac!  All the laughter had died down following the assertions by God that Abraham (aged 99) and Sarah (90) would have a son as the first step toward the fulfillment of God’s promises of descendents more numerous than the stars in the night sky.  Isaac, indeed, was born, and it looked as if God’s word actually could be depended upon.

Now this – take Isaac “to the land of Moriah and offer him there as a burnt offering.”  Just as he did back in Chapter 12, when God told Abram to go to a new place and do a new thing, he collected what he needed and headed out as God instructed him.

Who hasn’t been confounded by this story?  As I write this, many of my colleagues are looking for a way to skip over this story as they prepare their sermons for Sunday.  The temptation is strong.

I read an entry in Theolog, the blog of the Christian Century that deals with this story in light of the upcoming lectionary readings, and couldn’t resist responding to a comment made by “Julie.”  Her words follow, then mine.  See what you think!

I have read two interesting suggestions about this text:
One is that Abraham did not hear the voice of God telling him to sacrifice Isaac, but it must have been another voice and that God's voice was the voice that intervened.
The second is that Isaac might have had a handicap of some sort that made sacrificing him a not unheard of thing.
Both comments are pure isogesis and have nothing factual on which to base them. It's a tough text.

Posted by: Julie | Jun 24, 2008 11:10:45 PM

Julie's comment reflects to me the notion that people often try to justify the mysterious and unjustifiable (in earthly terms) ways of God.

It seems to me that Abraham, in this story, contrasts favorably with the so-called Rich Young Ruler of the New Testament. The RYR was a good person, but wasn't willing to entertain the call to ultimate sacrifice that Abraham entertained.

He didn't completely trust Jesus, where it seems Abraham completely trusted God.

That trust, I would think, goes a long way in providing impetus for faithfulness, because faithfulness can lead one into some tight spots where God's presence is needed.

Is God reliable, or not? Abraham appeared to think so.

Those pesky folks at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life are at it again.  Yesterday, they publicized the results of yet another survey on the religious life of Americans.  Thirty-five thousand adults participated in the survey, so there was a substantial sampling of opinions and outlooks.

Seven of ten people with religious connections believe God is not limited to only one approach.  Salvation can happen in a variety of ways, and through different faiths, they maintain.  Even a small majority of evangelical Christians expressed this notion in the survey.   Perhaps there is more tolerance of others and their religious expression than is generally perceived.

Not everyone, of course, was happy with the results.  “If by tolerance we mean we’re willing to engage or embrace a multitude of ways to salvation, that’s no longer evangelical belief,” commented Roger Oldham, a Southern Baptist executive committee vice-president.  “The word ‘evangelical’ has been stretched so broadly, it’s almost an elastic term.”

Catholic leaders responded that the survey reveals there are many self-indentified Catholics that don’t “know or understand” their faith or church.  Roman Catholic Archbishop, Charles Caput of Denver, suggests that his church has some work to do in bringing its own members up to speed on doctrine and thought.  “Being Catholic means believing what the Catholic Church teaches.  It is a communion of faith, not simply of ancestry and tradition,” he stated.

Personally, I’m not sure why churches have to close ranks against others who see God and faith from a differently-nuanced point of view.  Maybe we all can learn from one another.  God is pretty large, as far as I can tell, and a bit more complex than the human mind.

Rev. C. Welton Gaddy, head of the Interfaith Alliance, and a Baptist himself, remarked that the survey results display “a level of humility about religion that would be of great benefit to everyone.”

I have to side with Welton on this one.  I love his use of the word “humility” in this context.  According to the Gospels, Jesus had little patience with a rigid, intolerant practice of religion.  It appears he felt that faith in God was to be not only a relationship, but also a blessing that brought freedom and life to people, especially those who were looked down-upon, unloved, and cast out by the “good” folks.

While so many scroll-thumpers were saying, “No,” Jesus had a way of saying, “Yes.”  Despite the efforts of many today, it looks as if this message is getting through.

I thought I saw something similar already on the streets in Indiana when I made a fast visit there last October, but the “I Believe” automobile license plates supposedly would be the first in the United States if South Carolina’s plans come to fruition.  A similar idea failed to pass in Florida.

But, there is the inevitable threat of legal action by church and state separation watchdogs.

According to the Speaker of the House of the South Carolina legislature, Republican Bobby Harrell, state residents asked for a way by which to express their faith, and lawmakers were only too happy to comply.  I’m not sure why it was necessary for citizens to petition the state government for such a means of expression.  I would think that time spent with other Christians in Bible study and prayer might inspire faith expression by believers through some form of ministry in their local community.  It would never occur to me to appeal to elected officials for ideas.

Anyway, South Carolina law provides for the creation of specialty, or as they are known in some circles, “vanity,” license plates by private groups “for any cause.”  All that is required is either 400 prepaid orders or $4,000 cash.  Apparently, this condition was overlooked, and some are concerned that the measure to create the “I Believe” plates is pandering to certain constituencies during an election year.  The DMV stands ready to start cranking out the plates, and Lt. Governor Andre Bauer volunteered to front the four grand.

I see no spiritual value in “I Believe” license plates, and don’t find it too much of a stretch to imagine they might be seen by non-Christians as hostile and “in your face.”  Perhaps, even bellicose.   I am willing to wager that there will be no faith conversions as a result of someone following a vehicle adorned with such a license plate.

Not all Christians in South Carolina are in favor of the plates, I might add.  In fact, self-described evangelical Rev. Robert Knight of Charleston had me saying, “Amen” to his comment.  Rev. Knight observed, “I don’t think civil religion enhances the Christian religion.  It compromises it.  That’s the fundamental irony.  It’s very shallow from a Christian standpoint.”

I couldn’t have said it better myself. 

If you ever saw any of the countless design programs on HGTV where a room or other portion of someone’s house is redecorated you know that when the homeowner is ushered back in to see the fabulous results he or she invariably says, “Oh my God.”  Sometimes as they eyeball the various aspects or features of their “new” space they repeat the phrase.  Over and over and over again.  “Oh my God!  Oh my God!”  I don’t know whether this is a learned behavior of the design program aficionados, whether it is scripted, or whether this is a natural reaction.

I do know that it’s a good thing these programs aren’t taped in Yemen.

In that country un-elected, un-appointed, un-paid “morals police” roam the highways and by-ways looking for people who violate religious rules and practices.  Imagine if they overheard someone taking God’s name in vain.

Apparently, these guys – yes, they are men, of course – all wear beards, and they are ready, willing, and extremely anxious to swoop down on violators.  One publicized case involved a group of university students, male and female, that walked out of class together into the light of day.  A bearded “street committee” broke up this immoral gang of miscreants shouting, “Is this a lover’s lane?”  When by-standers reacted against the beard boys, they were met with, “Do you want us to wait until they start having sex in the street?”

Some “religious leaders” are trying to get the Yemen government to appoint a sanctioned virtue and vice force that would, at the very least, have the power to arrest those who don’t toe the line of official religious interpretation.

Saudi Arabia already has this in place.

Sometimes one has the impression there are folks in our country who might like to see the same approach taken.  And, while they may not all wear beards, there are plenty of would-be self-appointed “virtue and vice” enforcers.  In some places and times they wore bed sheets and burned crosses.  Some hold forth on talk radio.  Some advocate for constitutional amendments.  Some are named Fred Phelps.

Their hatred and how they justify it on a “Christian” or “faith” or “family values” basis mystifies me.

But, I suppose, in a free society where people can wear bathing suits that look like the national flag, and in which bumper stickers containing insults, crudity, and profanity are displayed, and pick-up trucks have testicle-shaped ornaments dangling underneath, they have a right.

Just don’t do something un-Christian, or there will be hell to pay.

The sudden death of Tim Russert, NBC News Washington Bureau Chief, and host of Meet The Press sent shockwaves all across the nation.  He died much too young, and left a gaping hole in the lives of his immediate family members and friends, and in the reasoned and intelligent political discourse of our country.  Tributes poured in from every direction, articles were written about him, and his world of television devoted numerous hours to portraying the story of his life and work.

Consistent in the testimonies from those who knew him, worked with him, and were interviewed by him was the notion that Russert reflected values important to him that he learned and embraced from his childhood in Buffalo, New York.  Always mentioned, in addition to the emphasis on love of family, and hard work, was faith.  Tim Russert was Catholic, and it meant a lot to him.

Timothy Shriver shares his personal reflections on Russert, and tells of a recent conversation the two had regarding Shriver’s uncle, Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA), recently diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor.  Russert told Shriver he was praying for his uncle, using his wood bead rosary.

Shriver took comfort in this support from Russert, and wrote, “Many things will be written about the greatness of this brilliant journalist in the days ahead, and many people knew him far better than I.  But I hope amid all the political and journalistic wisdom, people will remember that Tim Russert was a man raised and steeped in faith – a faith that focused on service, a faith that is confident in God’s plan, and a faith dedicated to the love of peace and the work of justice.”

Tim Russert didn’t make a lot of noise about his religious convictions, but his faith colored his behavior and relationships.  It was evident to those who knew him. 

Clearly, this is the most effective witness.

The Fund for Theological Education is trying to coax young seminarians into becoming pastors of congregations when they graduate.  That may sound strange, but the situation is real.  Just a few more than half of them are interested in doing so, thinking they can apply their learning, degree, passions, and faith commitment in other ways.

One student from Yale Divinity School described the notion of being a pastor as “boring.”  Others are turned off by the low salaries, especially for beginning pastors, and by their perception that the church is fraught with so many problems.  The way some churches treat clergy also is a significant negative factor.

There has been a trend in recent times for older, second-career folks to attend seminary and take on leadership in the church, but there is a growing gap between congregations needing pastors and the number of qualified people to step in. In my own denomination, we are going to lose about 2/3 of our pastors to retirement in the next 15 years or less.  There is not a like-sized gaggle of replacements on the horizon.

I’m in that retiring group.  I also was part of another group. 

The Lily Endowment does a lot of work with churches and ministries, and several years ago produced a research study that indicated a large percentage of pastors leave the church within the first five years after graduating from seminary.  The transition from the academic world of seminary into the day-to-day realities of congregational life is huge and unsettling.  There is a lot of thought and discussion regarding how seminaries can better prepare their students for pastoral ministry.  It took me just slightly longer than five years to jump, but jump, I did – without knowing what was next.  That eventually led to my tenure at William Penn House, which lasted nine years before I gradually found my way back into the church.

Lily Endowment established a program called Transition Into Ministry(and commited mucho bucks) to minimize the jumps.  T.I.M. matches freshly-minted seminary graduates with established “big steeple” churches where they can gain practical experience and work under the supervision of experienced pastors for a couple of years before venturing out on their own.  My experience with the T.I.M. program, as part of a multiple staff church, was that a lot depends on the willingness and ability of the senior minister to be faithful to the program and its goals.  Those were sadly lacking in that church, unfortunately.

The Fund for Theological Education is hosting a conference to help the seminarians get a handle on what pastoral ministry has to offer, and provide encouragement for them to more seriously consider it as a vocational option.  Good luck.

A person named Kurt Fredrickson, from Fuller Theological Seminary said, “There’s 22- and 23-year-old students with a wonderful sense of idealism.  They’re gonna change the world, and they haven’t been hammered on yet.  But there’s also disillusionment with the institutional church.”

The late sage Rev. William Sloane Coffin used to say, “How can you become disillusioned unless you had illusions to begin with?”

It seems to me the Fund for Theological Education is walking a pretty thin line here, but I wish them well.

Richard D.N. Dickinson died recently.  When I first knew Dr. Dickinson he was the dean at my seminary, Christian Theological Seminary in Indianapolis.  He arrived there a number years earlier to teach Christian social ethics, which he continued to teach for 29 years, even during his tenure as dean, then later as president of the seminary.  He retired in 1997. 

Dr. Dickinson was a scholar and passionate advocate of social justice.  He also had a sly, subtle wit that I came to appreciate toward the end of my seminary days and beyond.  He was a member of the United Church of Christ, and gave a consistent and strong witness to ecumenical relationships and cooperation.  His professional experience included overseas work, as well as positions with the National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches.  He set a high standard of excellence and achievement for the rest of us. 

According to his obituary, “Dick believed in the strong preparation of church pastors. He sought to broaden theological education to include global perspectives, interfaith dialogue, and the rich role of the arts in faith. He co-directed Project Understanding, working with local churches to address racism, and initiated the Chrysalis Program, bringing international students and scholars to CTS. Dick's investment in worldwide social justice issues was fostered during six years of living overseas and the friendships he formed there.”  

Dr. Dickinson wrote a number of books and was published widely in journals and periodicals.  My recollection is that he was a seminary classmate of Martin Luther King, Jr. at the Boston University School of Theology.   

It has been too many years since I last spoke with Dr. Dickinson, but he was a role model to me and countless others.  His was a life well lived, and I am confident that he now rests in peace in God’s eternal and loving embrace.

The leaders of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) are working to sort out whether the General Assembly of the church should continue the practice of voting on “Sense-of-the-Assembly resolutions.  Such resolutions typically have as their focus some social or political matter of great importance.  Some Disciples are concerned that with opinions being so varied and deeply held regarding these serious issues, a vote can be divisive.

The General Assembly meets in every odd-numbered year and brings together church folks from across the nation, many of whom are designated as voting delegates by their congregations.  General and regional church staff also attends to deliberate and vote.  Every minister with standing in the denomination is eligible to vote, and thus is not representing any interest other than his or her own.  As many as 8,000 folks attend a typical General Assembly (although my observation is the attendance has declined in recent years), with non-voters allowed to speak from the assembly floor.

While the General Assembly is billed as a “Disciples family reunion,” and there are wonderful elements of that at each gathering, it also has been the setting for rancor, hostility, and division when hot button issues are discussed and voted-upon.

Since Disciples congregations are completely autonomous, the assembly actions have no binding effect on them.  When assembly actions instruct general church staff or ministries in the execution of their duties, the actions are binding upon the relevant parties.

So, what difference does it make if the assembly votes on the appropriateness of the military policies of our country, or on a subject such as gay marriage?  Well, it makes a lot of difference, in a variety of ways.

Those who vote in the minority of an issue, whatever it may be, sometimes feel stigmatized by their views and opinions.  Some thoughtless delegates consider the votes a “win/lose” proposition.  There have been congregations that opted out of the fellowship following votes on some issues.

Folks in favor of keeping the Sense-of-the-Assembly resolutions find it important that “the church” is seen as taking a stand on matters important to our nation and the world.  A prophetic voice is desired by those who believe difficult issues should be discussed with action taken.  Others suggest that political leaders no longer take seriously pronouncements from mainline churches.

Personally, I feel it is necessary for the gathered church to talk about important issues.  I am afraid, though, that such discussion often occurs without much awareness of facts.  When it becomes a contentious “us vs. them” argument, constructive possibilities disappear.

Perhaps a helpful approach would be to limit to one or two such topics as would qualify for the typical Sense-of-the-Assembly resolution.  Then, knowledgeable people from the various sides of the issues could be solicited to provide written background statements prior to the assembly.  When folks arrived at the assembly site (next year it will be Indianapolis), workshops or seminars on the subject might be held to allow for focused conversation and clarification.  Later in the assembly, keynote speakers would address the issue, with talk-back time from the floor.  A period of prayer, Bible study, and communion would allow delegates an opportunity for spiritual reflection.  Suggestions on how individuals or congregation might get involved in the issue could be made available in an “information fair,” so that those who desired to take action could find an outlet.

In my experience and observation, there is less and less effective action taking place on Capitol Hill, as far as advocacy by people and groups who are not registered lobbyists and campaign contributors, and more possibilities for advocacy “back home” when the legislators return for district work periods.  So, perhaps providing information, inspiration, and networking connections are the ways for Disciples best to be prophetic in our personal and congregational ministries.

Often I observe that religious faith or practice is relegated only to a certain aspect of a person’s life.  For instance, some display a complete separation of their faith from their political convictions.  Or maybe the distinction occurs within a church when people gather for a budget meeting as opposed to gathering for worship.  God is allowed only into certain rooms of the church building, or is restricted to specific hours.

How about the application of faith to a person’s physical being?  Is the body so “earthly” that it somehow exists outside of spiritual connections?

A collection of online articles explores this theme:

Connection between faith and health.

Should the doctor pray with a patient?

A trend toward health and fitness ministries in churches.