A Christian Liberal is NOT an oxymoron.

Posted by XT on January 16th, 2012 in Progressive Faith

The Washington Post has a short article relating poll findings from the Barna Group (here is the Barna Group’s write-up on their findings). As with most such polls, it is the results in light of themselves that I find interesting.

Barna Group, an evangelical company based in California, found that 46 percent reported no change [in their life from church attendance]. About a quarter of Americans said their life was greatly affected by church attendance and another quarter said it was somewhat influential.

Remember this as the foundation for the rest of the numbers. Otherwise, it’s just interesting that nearly half of the people who go to church are not being changed by the experience…which could mean a number of things. It could mean that they simply found a church that says things they agree with. It could mean that they aren’t really paying attention. It could mean that what they hear simply isn’t relevant to their daily lives. We just don’t know.

The second thing to note is the polling methodology. Barna writes:

This report is based upon telephone interviews conducted in the OmniPoll? (part of Barna Group’s Barna Poll series). This study consisted of a random sample of 1,022 adults selected from across the continental United States, age 18 and older. The research included 150 interviews conducted among people using cell phones. The maximum margin of sampling error associated with the aggregate sample is ±3.2 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. Minimal statistical weighting was used to calibrate the aggregate sample to known population percentages in relation to several key demographic variables

All this means is that it was pretty standard, which is a good start. I wonder about the 150 cell phone calls…firstly that it’s only 150 out of 1,022, and secondly that these people actually answered a call from someone they didn’t know and answered these questions. I wouldn’t. I’m definitely in the “don’t bother me” section of such things.

The problem lies earlier when they write, “…Barna Group surveyed Americans who have attended a Christian church sometime in the past…” So someone who hasn’t attended church in fifty years (or more) would still be included. Given the problem churches have with ongoing attendance, this is absolutely going to skew the numbers downward. I think a better method might have been to pick churches at random and then poll their membership. Or perhaps asking, “Do you remember the last time you went to church?” and if they said, “No.” then their response should not be counted because if you can’t remember it, it isn’t likely you can answer questions about it.

No Comments

Posted by XT on January 3rd, 2012 in General

From Religion Dispatches.

No Comments

Posted by XT on December 13th, 2011 in Progressive Faith

Dan Wetzel has it right:

Tim Tebow’s pastor, Wayne Hanson, says he knows why the Denver Broncos are 7-1 since installing Tebow as quarterback – it’s the player’s faith.

“It’s not luck,” Hanson said according to TMZ. “Luck isn’t winning six games in a row. It’s favor. God’s favor.”
snip
Very few people, even the ultra religious, believe God cares about the result of a football game. There are plenty of believers on the other teams also.

There are few subjects that I feel confident in speaking for God on, but I’m pretty confident that God doesn’t care about football games. If he did; then football would have been around for much long. Perhaps Moses would have said, instead of “Let my people go!”, “I’ll see you on the gridiron, Pharoah!”

But there are a few things missing from Wetzel’s observations.

Like: “It’s been a magical ride and one, no doubt, that has aided the image of, and interest in, Evangelical Christianity. A likeable spokesman will always do that.”

Gee, I thought Jesus was the Evangelical Christianity spokesman. I REALLY haven’t seen any evidence of anyone anywhere being interested in Evangelical Christianity “because Tebow does it.” And, for the record, if they did, it would wrong-hearted of them to do so. Evangelical Christianity teaches that Christ works on a person’s heart…not Tebow. Even if Tebow were giving lengthy sermons to the masses after each win, theologically, it would still not be Tebow doing the work. At best, he’d be the tool in the hands of the Master.

Then there is this earlier statement, which I can only characterize as “bat-guano crazy”:

Comments like these aren’t helping Tim Tebow. And they aren’t helping gain acceptance for the faith Tebow is willing to serve as public representative.

Newsflash: Christianity is not accepted in the American mainstream!

Wha?

Get real. Please.

According to the latest iteration of Wikipedia’s “Religion in America“, Christianity is the largest religion in the United States, with some 76% of us claiming to be Christian and 26.3% claim to be evangelical Christians. In a ranking of US and Canadian Churches, Southern Baptists rank second (with over sixteen million members) and the Church of God in Christ ranks fifth (with over five million members). Both of those are evangelical denominations. There are more Christians in the US than in any country in the world.

And while we’re at it, this:

“Tebowing,” as it has become known, is one of the things that Jesus spoke against, according to the Bible. Matthew 6:5-8 reads:

5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

You would think Tebow’s pastor might want to talk to him about that. Apparently, you’d be wrong.

No Comments

Posted by XT on December 7th, 2011 in Progressive Faith

I found this article to be interesting:

The study, by sociologists Elaine Howard Ecklund of Rice and Kristen Schultz Lee of the University at Buffalo, found that many atheists want their children exposed to religion so that they can make up their own minds on what to believe. In addition, church may provide a better understanding of morality and ethics, and occasionally attending services may ease the conflict between spouses who disagree over the value of religion to their children, the study contends.

The research, published in the December issue of the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, was based on in-depth interviews with 275 scientists at 21 “elite” research universities in the United States. Sixty-one percent of the participants described themselves as either atheists or agnostics, and 17 percent of the non-believers had attended church more than once in the past year.

This is both encouraging and discouraging to me.

It is encouraging because it shows that people are willing to expose their children to a variety of experiences in order to help them become well-rounded individuals who are grounded in the culture in which they live. It shows an open-mindedness that I find rather refreshing. They have made up their mind that they do not believe, but are willing to allow others – including their children – to feel differently. In fact, they are encouraging them to do so.

It is discouraging because it also says that atheists feel pressured to go to church just to get along with the people most important in their lives. The do not believe and they see the whole process as so much empty time spent wishing they were elsewhere. Yet they are pressured to accept what they find unacceptable to such an extent that they find it impossible to refuse.

It also shows that there is a very real level of ignorance about Christianity, not just among its adherents, but among those who study it as well. Don’t the spouses of agnostics/atheists realize that there is no spiritual value to a person going to service with no belief in it? Why would they push their spouses to be dishonest about who they are?

As well, there are denominations who do not express a creedal philosophy about even the existence of God. The Universalist Unitarian Church, for example, believe that each person is free to determine their own belief as to the existence of God. I have to wonder where this group fits in with the research – and how many scientists who go to other churches would gladly go to a UU group.

Or what about the Ethical Union? If scientists are pressured to go to Christian services; then are their spouses willing to go to Ethical functions? How about the slightly more churchy (in that they meet on Sundays and such) Ethical Society (or Ethical Culture Society)?

This is the most disappointing, but possibly most honest, statement in the article:

Columnist Michael Kinsley confessed to being a “nonbeliever” in the Los Angeles Times last month. In an op-ed piece he conceded, “That puts me in the only religious grouping in America whose members are effectively barred from any hope of becoming president, due to widespread public prejudice against them. There will be a Mormon president, a Jewish president, an openly gay president before there will be a president who says publicly that he doesn’t believe in God.”

I agree with him. And given the predilection of fringe religious groups to have apocalyptic beliefs, it is frightening that such a person would be judged to be more ready to be President than a sane person who would not try to destroy the world.

No Comments

Posted by XT on November 11th, 2011 in General

The news out of Penn State is anything but good. But it does tell us a lot about ourselves culturally. Some of it is good. Most of it is not.

The facts are pretty straight forward. Several years ago, Mike McCreary witnessed Jerry Sandusky raping a boy in the shower room. McCreary, who was then a graduate assistant, reported the “incident” to Head Coach Joe Paterno. Paterno, in turn, reported it to his superiors. No one ever reported it to the authorities. No one.

Stop and think about that. A ten year old kid was raped by an adult. Another adult sees it, but does nothing. Then another is told, and he does nothing. Then another. How many adults does it take to report the rape of a child? The answer should be: One. But at Penn State, that was the wrong answer. (Wikipedia has a short blurb about this horrifying crime, but I haven’t had time to verify what is being said). Even more heinous is the Pennsylvania law that relieves everyone involved (except the guy at the top) from any legal responsibility.

Is there any way to tell a child who has been that they are less important than to shrug off what happened to them? Yes. By allowing those who toss their shoulders to escape any legal liability. This is not someone who was caught with questionable pictures on their work computer, after all…he was seen by an eye-witness in the act of abusing a kid.

Bill Phillips wants to understand why this total lack of concern for child rape happened. He thinks he may have stumbled across something to consider – the famous Milgram experiment:

“But male groups bond by suppressing shame and promoting the idea that their group is invulnerable,” [William Pollack, Ph.D., an associate clinical professor in the psychiatry department at the Harvard Medical School] continues. “So their focus is on one another and not—in this case—the victim.”

For me, this should be filed under the category of “Yes, so what?” It doesn’t change any of the actions that were perpetrated on any of the victims and it doesn’t in any way change the fact that multiple men, in positions of responsibility, said little and did less.

No Comments

Posted by XT on October 18th, 2011 in Progressive Faith

The Occupy Wall Street movement has gotten me thinking about the business of banking. Currently, I use Chase Bank for my financial needs – which are fairly limited. I use a direct deposit of my earnings and pay most of my bills online. I carry a Visa Debit Card, which I use most often when I purchase something (I rarely use cash). So if my needs are not specialized – if pretty much any bank can be my bank – then why am I using a bank that was so integral to the creation of the financial meltdown that has pulled our economy into a morass?

There really isn’t any good reason. It’s convenient not to have to change banks. But it is not responsible for me, as a consumer, to reward such a poor steward of my money. As a Christian, it is unconscionable that I should continue to reward such an immoral business – which continues to be profitable while the rest of the country suffers.

No Comments

Posted by XT on October 10th, 2011 in Progressive Faith

I came across Feminism and Religion, a blog run by and for divinity students wrestling with topics of ethics and feminism. It has been a real treasure for me to listen to women from a variety of faith traditions wrestle with what it means to be a feminist and to be a person (potentially) dedicated to helping tend the spiritual well-being of others. They certainly don’t need my input, and I’m writing here so that whatever I add can be taken as an addition to what they say, and not in any way a corrective or a critique.

The post I want to deal with is this one dealing with the “problem” of men. It is difficult for me, as a heterosexual man, to hear myself referred to as a problem. Yes, patriarchy is the default position throughout the modern world and women are denigrated, abused, and violated in every country, and all too often without any thought of punishing their assailants.But should I be held responsible for all of the crimes that men commit throughout the world simply because I have mismatched chromosomes?

No Comments

Posted by XT on October 8th, 2011 in Progressive Faith

Robert Jeffress has finally gone on the national record to claim Mitt Romney is not actually a Christian. This is no surprise whatsoever to anyone who has ever sniffed sideways at a Southern Baptist Church. But it is now in writing, and it’s what derailed Romney during the 2004 primary when he had to contend with Mike Huckabee – who is ordained in the Southern Baptist church.

I’ll write about the political implications of this elsewhere, but right now, I’d like to take on the religious implications. To put it bluntly, Jeffress has set himself up as the gatekeeper of God. That takes a lot of chuzpah…or pigheadedness.

Or it simply takes a theology that assures someone that they are the “chosen” by God and everyone who disagrees is not. That’s what I call a theology of arrogance. If it isn’t arrogant to believe that one denomination – not broad school of religion, but a single narrow denomination – is the only one who can possibly know and understand God’s will…then what exactly is?

I believe that my brand of Christianity is right…for me. But I would never consider forcing someone else to confess to my beliefs. Don’t get me wrong, I am not hesitant to share what I believe when I think it is proper to do so. But when I do, I am sharing what I have come to believe about an infinite being that is beyond my ability to understand. I freely admit that I could be wrong.

I’ve studied the Bible, off and on, for most of my life. Sometimes I studied it in a group, and sometimes I studied it alone. Sometimes I thought every word was meant literally and later on I realized that couldn’t possibly be true. There are works of poetry in the Bible; there is analogy and parable and allegory. It can’t possibly all be true.

So any theology that says, “This wisdom in this book is limited to that which is literal!” is not being honest about the book it is reading. And when a theology starts with such a dishonest foundation, it cannot help but bring forth rotten fruit. Beyond that, any critical thinking which seeks to examine this core untruth is immediately attacked, because any sliver of untruth found anywhere in the Bible would then unravel all of the pretense of literal representation of the word of God.

It’s a theology that is intellectually and morally lazy. It is afraid to force adherents to learn critical thinking skills that would allow them to challenge the bounds of literal interpretation. It teaches individuals to turn off their own brains and rely on those of the professional class of behavioral controllers that call themselves “pastors.” Because it cripples their intellectual curiosity, it castrates their moral compass. They become entirely dependent, mindless drones that can do nothing but repeat the same tired slogans they have been taught.

If, as I believe, there is a being that is infinite and powerful beyond our ability to understand – if there is a God – then I can’t believe God would want mindless worship, even if it is overwrought with emotion. It seems to me that God would want mindful, thoughtful, and earnest searching and the respectful and positive worship that naturally flows from it.

No Comments

Posted by XT on October 3rd, 2011 in President

New Jersey, and I suppose others, are abuzz about the potential of Governor Chris Christie entering the GOP Presidential primary race. I have no idea if he will run or not; but I’m confident that he will win if he does. The problem is that he might win even bigger if he doesn’t.

1 Comment

Posted by XT on September 15th, 2011 in President, US News

Zachary Roth has an article for The Lookout that gives us the other side of the story of poverty. As it turns out, poverty doesn’t actually mean one is poor because:

…that measure, developed over 40 years ago, is inexact at best. It doesn’t include non-cash benefits–things such as food and housing subsidies–that can play a key role in supporting families.

I’ll try not to be overly sarcastic here. Through our collective representation, we, as a society, decided that people who earn less than a certain amount of money are considered poor and live in poverty. We also found that, in a country with as rich of blessings as we have, that is unacceptable. So we created programs – like food stamps and rent subsidies – that help make up the gap between what a family actually earns and what is considered minimally acceptable. Find that the programs that are intended to “help make up the gap” actually do “help make up the gap” only means that our programs are successful – so remember THAT the next time someone tells you that government can’t accomplish anything.

There are two purposes to telling such a story. One is to say what I have just said – “Look! We are making progress in the War on Poverty (remember that?)! We are successful!” But that isn’t what’s going on here. What’s happening is an attempt to minimize the problem of poverty. Take, for example, this quote from the same article:

…many or most poor Americans have things such as internet service, cable TV and dishwashers–not luxuries, to be sure, but not the picture of destitution that the word poverty often brings to mind.

Yes, people are not truly poor if they have a dishwasher…which, in case it isn’t known, is generally standard issue for modern (built in the last twenty years) housing projects. Of course, it is possible to get by without one – I never had one until I was an adult. But if we are going to use this argument to debate if we give too much aid to the poor (and make no mistake, that IS what it is for); then we need to do a cost-benefit analysis that shows if using a dishwasher is cheaper over the life of the appliance than it would be not having it. To do that, figure in the fact that dishwashers use less water and less soap, and because they tend to use hotter water, they cut down on communicable diseases. These, incidentally, are arguments any appliance salesman can repeat.

No Comments