Dear Mr. Frothy Mix:
Since you consider me “gone from the world of Christianity,” then I’m sure you won’t consider the following statement to be a violation of Christian brotherhood:
Bite me.
Sincerely,
Me.
Posts Tagged ‘Christianity’
An Open Memo to Rick Santorum
Saturday, February 18th, 2012FRC’s Disturbing Economic Rhetoric
Tuesday, August 2nd, 2011I’ve had a browser tab open for a few days now with this press release from the “Faith Family Freedom Fund” (now there’s some Orwellian naming), intending to blog about it—because it’s an indication that the so-called “Christian” Right has allowed the right-wing ideologies of greed to trump even the most basic Christian teachings.
The press release announced a radio ad they were running in several states—including Ohio—in order to counter the Catholic Bishops who were telling John Boehner, a Roman Catholic, that Catholic teaching (to which he is bound) says that government has a direct responsibility to the poor.
Here’s the text that bothered me:
“There’s a group of well-meaning but misguided ministers who believe that the government is responsible for meeting the needs of the poor, calling proposed budget cuts immoral. But Jesus didn’t instruct the government of his day to take the rich young ruler’s property and redistribute it to the poor. He asked the ruler to sell his possessions and help the poor. Charity is an individual choice, not a government mandate.”
Now, unlike the Roman Catholic Church, I do honestly think that Christians of good conscience and good faith can disagree on whether or not it’s the government’s place to engage in wealth redistribution. I’m of the opinion that it has to be because the government sets up the economy, so it’s the duty of the Christian democratic citizen to work toward the aim of the economy benefitting as many people as possible rather than enriching the few at the expense of the many, but I can see where reasonable people can disagree on that.
No, the problem with this statement is that it presents “charity” as a “choice” for the Christian: something where if he or she chooses to do it, that’s another crown in heaven, but if he or she chooses not to do it that’s fine too.
This ideology is further reinforced in the ad’s discussion of Jesus’s conversation with the rich young ruler (found in Luke 18, among other places in the Synoptics). Please tell me how anyone could possibly interpret this as Jesus “asking” the rich young ruler to sell his possessions and give them to the poor:
When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”Luke 18:22
Where in there do you see that as a request? That is a command, plain and simple: Selling all you have and giving it to the poor is a prerequisite for the rich young ruler to follow Jesus. It is a choice, but only in that the rich young ruler can choose to sell all he has, or he can choose not to follow Jesus. He cannot follow Jesus while still holding to his possessions.
The problem is in calling giving to the poor “charity” to begin with—and my guess as to why they use that word is because they want to avoid the word they should be using: Justice.
Because “charity” is a choice, an optional extra, and when you’ve done it, you get to pat yourself on the back for going above and beyond for other people. “Charity” is a giant cardboard check, a hospital wing named after you, an interview on Oprah’s couch.
“Justice,” on the other hand, isn’t optional; you’re either acting justly or unjustly, and if you aren’t doing justice then you’re complicit in injustice. And you don’t get accolades for doing justice; it’s what you’re supposed to be doing, it is what you owe. You don’t get special recognition for paying your debts or doing what you’re supposed to; the checks are their normal 2″x5″ size, the hospital wing is in the honor of an “anonymous” donor, and Oprah’s couch remains occupied by an actor talking about their latest movie.
Alms are not “charity,” for the Christian. They are “justice,” a mandate. They are demanded of each and every follower of God, and giving them is not an extra act of goodness but simply the fulfillment of God’s demand.
In other words—while we can disagree on whether the government should be in the business of wealth redistribution, there can be absolutely no disagreement on the part of Christians that the people of God should be in the business of wealth redistribution. God demands it of God’s people.
But calling it “justice” would upset the rich. Note the part this so-called “pastor,” this man who claims to be a man of God, is omitting from the passage about the rich young ruler:
When [the ruler] heard this, he became very sad, because he was very wealthy. Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
Those who heard this asked, “Who then can be saved?”
Jesus replied, “What is impossible with man is possible with God.”
Luke 18:23-27
If you’re rich—hell, even if you’re middle-class in America—that passage is scary. It is “possible” for a rich person to enter the Kingdom because God is great—but if it happens, it’s a miracle, on a par with a camel passing through the eye of a needle.
It is something remarkable, something more difficult and more miraculous and much more unlikely than a person of lesser means entering the Kingdom.
What would happen if the Church took that seriously—and told every rich person in our midst that if they don’t sell everything and give it to the poor, they’re banking on a miracle to enter the Kingdom?
That it’ll be something marvelous and incredible—on a level that’s well beyond the marvel of a normal person’s salvation—if they are actually capable of entering the Kingdom?
What would happen if we told the wealthy in our pews that their riches made it astronomically unlikely that they could possibly have a right relationship with God?
Because that’s what Jesus says.
So why is this supposedly “Christian” group saying exactly the opposite?
Because telling the rich that it’s okay to be rich—and reinforcing the anti-Christ ideology that wealth is a sign of favor, that the accumulation of wealth is the highest good, that those who are wealthy don’t have any responsibility but are simply “asked” very nicely by Jesus to please give a little bit to the poor—is more important than talking about God’s hard demands of the wealthy.
They have allowed the right-wing ideology of the ownership class to trump the clear teaching of Christ. They have allowed the Republican mantra to win out over Christian teaching.
They should stop calling themselves Christian pastors—and start calling themselves Republican pastors.
Because that’s what they are.
“Brothers of ethnicity?” Maybe that’s your problem right there.
Wednesday, June 24th, 2009From a Columbus Dispatch article on the Southern Baptist Convention’s annual meeting, at which they kicked out a church that actually dared to treat LGBT people as human beings and expressed concern over a report that the SBC could lose 50% of its population by 2050 because they’re seen as old, white, and conservative:
[Johnny] Hunt, who was re-elected to a second one-year term yesterday, said, “One of the reasons — and it is a true reason — is we need to really join with our brothers of ethnicity in this convention.”
Brothers of ethnicity? Really? That phrase is probably the key to the SBC’s problems – and the reason they won’t get fixed.
First, the fact that he ascribes “ethnicity” to non-white people is probably a pretty big part of the reason that people who aren’t old southern racists aren’t too keen on joining a Southern Baptist Church. It’s apparent that to him, white people aren’t “brothers of ethnicity”; only people with darker skin have ethnicity. If there’s a more obvious statement that the SBC considers whiteness the norm and non-whiteness as Other, I’d like to see it.
Second, the fact that he only seems to think that the SBC needs to reach out to “brothers of ethnicity” is also telling. Gen-Xers and Millennials, with a few exceptions like the followers of the abusive Mark Driscoll up in Seattle, seem to have picked up on the obvious fact that women can do anything men can do, including lead churches. Yet the SBC seems trapped in the 1950s, when men were supposed to be the leaders and women the followers. The rest of the Western world has woken up to the basic fact of gender equality, at least in principle; why do conservative churches lag so far behind
Third, unrelated to that phrase – is it possible that there’s a relationship between the SBC kicking out, without any apparent controversy, a church that at least partially acknowledged the humanity of LGBT people, and the report indicating that the SBC is in decline? Is it possible that younger folks like me are realizing that anti-gay attitudes – by which I mean any notion that LGBT individuals aren’t entitled to acceptance and equality at all levels of our society, including in the church – are contrary to the love of Jesus Christ, just as racism and sexism are? Is it possible that churches that still hold such attitudes are going to shrink, while churches whose attitudes are more in line with Christianity are going to grow?
One can only hope.
No surprise, but still disappointing
Tuesday, May 26th, 2009The California Supreme Court has upheld Proposition 8, the California ballot proposition that denied some of the most basic human rights to LGBT people. Gay or lesbian couples who were married when it was legal will remain married. This ruling isn’t much of a surprise – court-watchers had pretty well predicted this was going to be the outcome – but it still, quite frankly, sucks. Sucks hard.
What sucks for me personally in this, as a Christian, is seeing my brothers and sisters in Christ applauding such decisions and standing in the way of basic human rights. Even if they accept what is, in my opinion, a rather piss-poor Biblical case that same-sex sexual acts are sinful, the fact is that Christianity is not, and should not be, the law in this country. The fact that their narrow interpretation of the Christian text says that homosexuality is wrong should not make it law. The fact that they personally can’t get past bigotry shouldn’t mean that others are denied their rights.
I will say it openly and without hesitation: Anyone claiming to be a Christian who stands against basic human rights for gay men and lesbians is in sin, and needs to repent. Even if they believe (wrongly) that homosexuality is sinful, that is no excuse to deny them equal rights under the law. It’s that simple. There is absolutely no validity to bullcrap arguments about “traditional marriage”; those who use such arguments are hiding their bigotry behind a rhetorical flourish.
So what’s next? I’d bet all the money in my bank account (which admittedly isn’t putting a lot on the line) that proponents of basic human rights are going to put an initiative on the 2010 ballot in CA. I will support that initiative full-throatedly as my top priority in 2010. It is imperative that anyone who calls him- or herself a Christian stand behind such an initiative and support it (as much as is possible) with his or her money, effort, and (if possible) vote. It is also imperative that every Christian put pressure on his or her own state legislature (or, in the case of us second-class citizens of DC, our city council) to bring equal human rights to his or her own state if it isn’t already one of the few that acknowledges such rights.
This is a blow, but not a fatal one. We who support equal rights will prevail in time. The question is: which side of history will you be on? Will you look back on the ’00s with regret, as supporters of racial segregation look back at the ’60s and ’70s, or will you be able to look back and tell yourself that you stood on the right side of history? That is the question before each of us today. God help us that we make the right choice.