IMPOLITE TOPICS

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Sarah Palin’s religious beliefs about the “Last Days” have received almost no attention in mainstream media and as a campaign issue. Beyond a brief mention in a Saturday Night Live skit, Sarah Palin’s religion has been treated as off-limits.  Part of the problem is that most reporters don’t understand fundamentalist religious beliefs enough to ask good questions.  

As one who spent years in the Assemblies of God, I have been profoundly concerned by evidence of her religious beliefs, and how they affect every aspect of her life.  She believes clearly that she has been called by God to usher in the End Times.  Her statements about Russia, Israel, the Middle East, her lack of concern about global warming, her view of the world as divided into good and evil have been clear to anyone who recognizes how much they are shaped by her religion. 

All of this, and much more, are laid out in an outstanding article by Marlene Winell, Ph.D., Sarah Palin, Warrior Princess for God

The article begins:

Palin is on a mission from God and she’s fighting a spiritual war. While that may sound extreme, it is exactly the mindset she has. It fits the bible-believing fundamentalist/evangelical subculture she is part of and it fits her language and behavior. Most people who have not been a “born-again” true believer do not realize what all of this really means. But the idea of Palin serving in high office is alarming to many former believers. Having been there myself, including an upbringing in the Assemblies of God Church, I will try to connect the dots and explain why this is serious.
 
The problem is not Palin’s attitude on specific issues like same-sex marriage, abortion, censorship, war, or even global warming, serious as these are. Nor is it about peculiar beliefs on creation, dinosaurs, God’s intervention on a gas pipeline, or Jesus coming back.

The problem is her mindset as a whole and her identity within that. A fundamentalist or evangelical believes the Bible is the literal word of God. Everything else flows from that. True believers view the world differently. They live in a different reality-one that is dangerous to humankind and Planet Earth.  more

For a video about Sarah Palin’s religious beliefs, “Palin’s Apocalypse,” see the video in the article An Letter to Sarah Palin, self-annointed Chromefishtian Leader from a former member of her religious cult.  

As a former fundamentalist, I’d like to call you on what you are doing. The media has called you “opaque” about your religion, but some of us can connect the dots.

This is not about disrespecting your private beliefs. However, your religion matters to us because it matters to you. You have done and said things that indicate you are a born-again, literal Bible-believing, fundamentalist Christian. This is the most important thing about you and you have not been honest about it.

Most people who have never been entrenched in the subculture of fundamentalist Christianity may not understand what this really means, but I do. Like you, I was raised in the Assemblies of God and I was a zealous part of the Jesus Movement. Like you, my life was consumed with seeking God’s will for my life and awaiting the imminent return of Jesus. The Atheist’s Way: An Open Letter to Sarah Palin

Religious views matter because they are worldviews, which shape political decisions. Ever since Sarah Palin was plucked from national obscurity to be the Republican vice-presidential candidate, I have been amazed and disturbed that Sarah Palin’s religious views have been mostly ignored, and treated as a private matter. 

If anyone’s views in this presidential election are truly dangerous, it is the views of the hockey mom from Wasilla, who sees herself as God’s anointed, sent by God to hasten Armageddon. I’ll end with these words from Marlene Winell:

All of this certainty and fantasy in today’s complex world is dangerous indeed. We must not have a Vice-President suffering from such delusion – even if millions of others suffer the delusion with her. There was a time when all of humanity thought the world was flat. Today, the stakes for such massive error are much higher. A Bible-believing true believer is like a bird in a large cage of other birds, waiting for a day of release and in the meantime taking charge of the cage. But there is something very wrong about the picture. The ruling bird does not take the community or health inside the cage seriously.

So I have a message for you, Sarah, Warrior Princess for God, from all of us who know what you are up to. How dare you presume to take responsibility for our country and our planet when you, in your own mind, do not consider this home? I mean home for the long haul, not just until your rescue arrives from space. How dare you look forward to Christ’s return, leaving your public office empty like a scene from the movie, Left Behind? Sarah Palin, Warrior Princess for God

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

written by Kalinda \\ tags: apocalyptic, armageddon, Assemblies of God, end time, fundamentalism, latter days, religious world view, Sarah Palin

One of the fascinating elements of this political campaign is the juxtaposition between the present ”bible-believing Christian” Sarah Palin and the past “Pentecostal” Sarah Palin. 

It is clear that she was chosen as the Republican vice-presidential candidate to appeal to Evangelical Christians.  She was promoted to the “conservative, Christian base” as one of them, without making clear her Pentecostal roots. 

John McCain has courted Evangelicals for much of his political campaign. Meanwhile, the Evangelicals have not quite trusted him to be one of their own. McCain made the ultimate effort to woo the Evangelical vote in his appearance at the Civil Forum at Saddleback Church.

After all of this effort to capture the Evangelical vote, it is rather astonishing that McCain did not choose an Evangelical to run as his vice-presidential nominee. Instead, he chose a woman deeply rooted in the Assemblies of God. John McCain Jilts The Evangelicals To Choose Sarah Palin From The Assemblies Of God.

Since then, her faith has been presented in vague terms. This strategy follows Sarah Palin’s own efforts to distance herself from being identified as “Pentecostal” in order to run for Governor of Alaska. 

While the McCain campaign has promoted Palin to religious conservatives as a woman of “strong faith,” they have gone to unusual lengths to avoid providing a picture of that faith. In fact, a Palin spokeswoman says the Alaska governor is “not a Pentecostal,” and points out that Palin was baptized as a child as a Roman Catholic, although there is no record that her family attended Catholic services before joining the Pentecostal church where she became saved at age 11. The candidate does not even claim the Evangelical label, instead using the code phrase “Bible-believing Christian” to describe herself. Palin’s official biography on the McCain campaign website makes no mention of her religious affiliation.  Does Sarah Palin Have a Pentecostal Problem?

Sarah Palin’s religious history includes a strong Pentecostal background and includes membership in an Assemblies of God church, which is a Pentecostal denomination.  Pentecostalism is consistent with much Evangelical theology at some points, and divergent at others. It is highly likely that many of the Evangelicals who were so enthused about her nomination would be a bit more skeptical if they understood how much her Pentecostal background is being deliberately obscured.  Whether fair or not, the label “Pentecostal” carries negative connotations within much of the Christian world. 

It is this Pentecostal association that most concerns and confuses the McCain campaign. As Minnery makes clear, millions of Evangelicals have accepted Palin because of her membership in a Bible church. But there is no denying that mainstream Evangelicals and Pentecostals, while political allies on many social issues, have historically had significant tensions over theological differences. The Evangelicals’ swoon for Palin might fade if it turns out that she continues to hold fast to Pentecostal practices and beliefs. Does Sarah Palin Have a Pentecostal Problem?

This article from Time Magazine, by Amy Sullivan, is the single best treatment I have seen on the topics of Sarah Palin’s religious background and Pentecostal beliefs and practices.  It is fair, and carefully and accurately outlines key elements of the history of Pentecostalism. Does Sarah Palin Have a Pentecostal Problem?

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

For a grown-up Christian approach to money, be sure to see Going Broke With Jesus. How Heroic Stories Intended To Liberate The Poor Become Biblical Urban Legends About The Evils Of Money.

written by Kalinda \\ tags: alaska, Amy Sullivan, Assemblies of God, Bible, bible-believing, christian, evangelical, John McCain, pentecostal, Sarah Palin

Today, at a John McCain rally, a pastor prayed a prayer.

Unhelpful for establishing the tone McCain sought in Davenport was the Rev. Arnold Conrad, past pastor of the Grace Evangelical Free Church. His prayer before McCain arrived at the convention center blocks from the Mississippi River appeared to dismiss faiths other than Christianity and cast the election as a referendum on God himself.

“I would also pray, Lord, that your reputation is involved in all that happens between now and November, because there are millions of people around this world praying to their god – whether it’s Hindu, Buddha, Allah – that his opponent wins, for a variety of reasons,” Conrad said.

“And Lord, I pray that you would guard your own reputation, because they’re going to think that their god is bigger than you, if that happens. So I pray that you will step forward and honor your own name with all that happens between now and Election Day,” he said.
McCain strikes back at Obama ally

Whatever the prayer was intended to proclaim about the candidates, this prayer speaks volumes about what the pastor thinks of God. Who knew that God’s reputation hangs on the outcome of the United States Presidential election?

As an indication of the quality of theological thinking behind this prayer, it is worthwhile to notice that the pastor identifies three “gods”—”Hindu,” “Buddha,” and “Allah.”  “Hindu” is not a god. It is an adjective describing the religion of Hinduism. Buddha is also not identified as a god within Buddhism, which is essentially a non-theistic philosophical and ethical system. The pastor did get it right with “Allah”—the God of Islam. However, adherents of both Christianity and Islam claim to be monotheists, recognizing only one God, who happens to be the same God.

As for the rest of the theology behind this prayer, it seems to be important for mere mortals to have a wee bit  more humility than this pastor demonstrates. The tone of the prayer seems more appropriate for two five-year-olds on a playground, threatening each other with childish statements: “My dad is bigger than your dad.”  “Oh yeah? Who says?”

Any “god” who needs to have a particular political candidate win an election to protect “his” reputation, is an imposter. The God proclaimed by Christian faith deserves better publicity than this.
    
Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

For a grown-up Christian approach to money, be sure to see Going Broke With Jesus. How Heroic Stories Intended To Liberate The Poor Become Biblical Urban Legends About The Evils Of Money.

written by Kalinda \\ tags: Allah, Buddha, God, Hindu, John McCain, political prayer, prayer, Rev Arnold Conrad, theology

Some preachers participated in a political protest against the IRS on Sunday.  

Dozens of pastors across the country took politics to the pulpit yesterday in hopes of influencing the Nov. 4 presidential election and setting off a legal fight over the Internal Revenue Service’s restrictions on church involvement in politics.  Pastors take politics to the pulpit.

The pastors were protesting the IRS prohibition against overt political campaigning by non-profit groups, such as churches. When a pastor explicitly endorses a political candidate during a church service, it is in express violation of the IRS requirements for non-profits. 

The protesting preachers are framing this as an issue of freedom of religious expression. 

   
Drake asked his congregation to support the challenge to the federal ban on political campaigning by nonprofit groups.

“I am angry because the government and the IRS and some Christians have taken away the rights of pastors,” Drake said to about 45 people at his service. “I have a right to endorse anybody I doggone well please. And if they don’t like that, too bad.” Pastors take politics to the pulpit. 

The real issue is the tax status of churches. Pastors and churches are free to endorse any candidates they choose. However, if the churches claim non-profit tax status, IRS regulations prohibit endorsement of particular political candidates. The practical solution for those preachers who want to endorse particular political candidates is to surrender their tax exempt status.

In an earlier post I asked this question. ”What is the difference between legal and illegal actions by religious organizations with tax-exempt status?” I quoted several sections of the IRS Tax Guide. One paragraph makes clear what Pastor Drake was protesting.  Does Religious Authority Override Secular Authority?

Individual Activity by Religious Leaders

The political campaign activity prohibition is not intended to restrict free expression on political matters by leaders of churches or religious organizations speaking for themselves, as individuals. Nor are leaders prohibited from speaking about important issues of public policy. However, for their organizations to remain tax exempt under IRC section 501(c)(3), religious leaders cannot make partisan comments in official organization publications or at official church functions. To avoid potential attribution of their comments outside of church functions and publications, religious leaders who speak or write in their individual capacity are encouraged to clearly indicate that their comments are personal and not intended to represent the views of the organization.  IRS “Tax Guide For Churches And Religious Organizations”

The pastors engaged in this protest are deliberately challenging this IRS requirement.

Because the pastors were speaking in their official capacity as clergy, the sermons are clear violations of IRS rules, said Robert Tuttle, a professor of law and religion at George Washington University. But even if the IRS rises to the bait and a legal fight ensues, Tuttle said there’s “virtually no chance” courts will strike down the prohibition.

“The government is allowed, as long as it has a reasonable basis for doing it, to treat political and nonpolitical speech differently, and that’s essentially what it’s done here,” Tuttle said.

Under the IRS code, places of worship can distribute voters guides, run nonpartisan voter registration drives and hold forums on issues, among other things. But they cannot endorse a candidate, and their political activity cannot be biased for or against a candidate, directly or indirectly – a sometimes murky line. Pastors take politics to the pulpit. 

This protest raises an even more important issue in the relationship between religion and politics.  

Why should churches be tax exempt in the first place? Tax exemption for churches is a complicated issue, with many facets. Taxation itself is a complicated issue. But if we start with the premise that the government has a right to tax anyone and everything—a premise that deserves debate—tax exemption for one group means more taxes for others. If religious groups are tax exempt, the rest of society has to make up the difference. 

Religious exemptions from taxation is no trivial matter. It is estimated that churches and other religious bodies may own anywhere between twenty and twenty-five percent of all of the land in the United States. This represents a huge portion of the possible tax base and billions of dollars in potential revenue which could be used to fund schools and other portions of the social infrastructure upon which the churches depend, just like the rest of us. The assets of the Roman Catholic church alone exceed those of the five largest American corporations combined and cash donations to churches total tens of billions of dollars every year.

Every dollar not paid by churches or other religious organizations must be made up from some other source. When all tax exemptions are taken into account, it is estimated that the average family may pay up to $1,000 in extra taxes every year to make up for the lost revenue not received from churches and religious groups. This includes sales taxes, inheritance taxes, income taxes, personal taxes, and ad valorem taxes.

It is thus arguable that all of this money represents an indirect contribution to all of those religious organizations. Because taxes which would go to pay for their share of maintaining society are made up for by the rest of us, they are free to use that money in other ways, for example promulgating their message to a wider audience. They certainly have a right to spread their ideas wherever they wish, but do they also have a right to public assistance in doing so? We have, then, two inter-related objections to religious tax exemptions: they represent a huge amount of money which must be made up by everyone else, and filling that gap may constitute indirect subsidies paid by the public to religious institutions in violation of the separation of church and state.  Why Taxation of Religion Matters

The reality of taxation in the United States is that tax exemption is a privilege granted by the IRS rather than a right granted by the Constitution. Churches are automatically granted tax exempt status that other non-profit organizations must qualify to receive. However, the same tax code that allows tax exempt status to churches allows the IRS to take tax exempt status away from religious groups that violate the IRS regulations. 

So the choice for the protesting preachers is this: maintain your tax exempt status by abiding by IRS regulations against endorsing particular candidates or surrender your tax exempt status and endorse whatever candidate you choose. 

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

Going Broke With Jesus identifies untrue “myths” about what Jesus taught about money. Discover the difference between heroic stories about money and morality tales in Going Broke With Jesus: How Heroic Stories Intended To Liberate The Poor Become Biblical Urban Legends About The Evils Of Money. 

written by Kalinda \\ tags: Internal Revenue Service, IRS, non-profit, pastors endorse candidates, political, political action by churches, tax exempt status, tax exemption for churches, taxation

The controversies over teaching religion in public schools are especially acute on the topics of evolution and creationism. Various Christian groups advocate teaching creationism—recently renamed “intelligent design”—in public schools. Advocates want to counter what they regard as the false theory of evolution. Or, to use the phrase they repeat frequently, evolution is “just a theory.” 

While some staunch anti-evolution proponents argue that creationism should be taught instead of evolution, most conservative Christian politicians offer a different solution. Schools should teach both evolution and creationism as two equally valid systems of thought.

President George W. Bush expressed this opinion in a news conference in August 2005. This is what he said in response to questions by Ron Hutcheson of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram

“Q I wanted to ask you about the — what seems to be a growing debate over evolution versus intelligent design. What are your personal views on that, and do you think both should be taught in public schools?
“THE PRESIDENT: I think — as I said, harking back to my days as my governor . . . Then, I said that, first of all, that decision should be made to local school districts, but I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught.
“Q Both sides should be properly taught?
“THE PRESIDENT: Yes, people — so people can understand what the debate is about.
“Q So the answer accepts the validity of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution?
“THE PRESIDENT: I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought, and I’m not suggesting — you’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.”  George W. Bush

 Both John McCain and Sarah Palin publicly advocate the same position. Creationism should be taught in public schools along with evolution.

As long as teaching evolution and/or creationism remains a matter of exposure to different viewpoints, once again the irreconcilable difference comes back to a matter of faith. As long as the issue is a matter of choosing between opposing beliefs, there can be no resolution.

Meanwhile, the real issue remains unstated. The heart of the matter is the question of genre. In classical rhetoric, one of the primary questions about any proposition concerns definition: “What is it?” (quid sit.) The question of “what is it?” underlies almost every conflict between differing religious viewpoints about the Bible.

There is no better place to begin than the beginning. Let’s look at the first creation account in Genesis. (The fact that there are two creation accounts in Genesis is a significant fact, which I’ll come back to in a later post.)

Genesis 1:1-2:13

1:1 In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, 1:2 the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. 1:3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 1:4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. 1:6  And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 1:7 So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. 1:7 So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. 1:8 God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day. 1:9 And God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 1:10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. 1:11 Then God said, “Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.” And it was so. 1:12 The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good. 1:13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day. 1:14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, 1:15 and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 1:16 God made the two great lights–the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night–and the stars. 1:17 God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, 1:18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 1:19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day. 1:20 And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky.” 1:21 So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, of every kind, with which the waters swarm, and every winged bird of every kind. And God saw that it was good. 1:22 God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 1:23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day. 1:24 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind.” And it was so. 1:25 God made the wild animals of the earth of every kind, and the cattle of every kind, and everything that creeps upon the ground of every kind. And God saw that it was good. 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” 1:27 So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. 1:28 God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” 1:29 God said, “See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. 1:31 God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all their multitude. 2:2 And on the seventh day God finished the work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all the work that he had done. 2:3 So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all the work that he had done in creation (New Revised Standard Version.)

The conflict over whether or not to teach intelligent design and/or creationism in public schools with the same attention given to teaching evolution comes down to this basic question.

 What is Genesis 1:1-2:3?

Expressed another way, the core conflict between creationists and evolutionists comes down to the distinction between history and myth. The real question is: Is this first Genesis creation account history or is it myth? And with this question, we have two more “quid sit” questions. What is “history?”  What is “myth?”

Now we have come to another problem, the distinction between ordinary speech and scholarly definitions. 

If you ask the  proverbial “man on the street,” the average person, the ordinary Joe or Jane, “What is  the difference between history and myth?” you will probably get some version of this answer. History is an account of what really happened. Myth is a false story. The difference between history and myth is the difference between truths and lies.

Ask a scholar the same question, and you will get significantly different answers. This is one of the reasons that scholars are so seldom heard in public debate. Scholars need to define categories, define words, and define questions, to be precise. This need to be precise often drives other people crazy and makes it hard for scholars to get to the point. (In the words of that old adage, It takes one to know one. I live this tendency every day.)   

Here are three definitions of  myth.

A traditional sacred story, typically revolving around the activities of gods and heroes, which purports to explain a natural phenomenon or cultural practice. Myth

A usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon.  Myth

An improvable story, almost always including miraculous events, that has no specific reference point or time in history. Myth

The great myths of the world answer the “Why?” questions. A mythic story gives meaning. It is not about truth or falseness, but it is about answering “Why?” A myth is not about what really happened but about why the world is the way it is.
  
What about the word “history?”  In school, we were taught that history books were true accounts about what really happened. Anyone who has studied a bit more about the making of histories understands something else.

Here are three definitions of history.

A chronological record of events, as of the life or development of a people or institution, often including an explanation of or commentary on those events. History

History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon. Napoleon Bonaparte

History is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren’t there. George Santayana

None of these definitions makes any claim that histories are accurate recounting of past events. Instead, they make clear that all histories are interpretations of events. This means that the real difference between myth and history is whether or not the interpretations include gods and other mythic figures, or whether they are limited to human beings and human events.

Those who argue that creationism should be taught in public schools are treating this first creation story in Genesis as a history—a  factual account of the way things really happened. The most ardent advocates of creationism and intelligent design take the whole account literally, and argue that God created the world in six 24-hour days.

Underneath creationism/intelligent design is the belief that this is history—in the terms of ordinary speech—and that the Bible is a true account of actual events.

Since creationists argue that the Bible is history, they are equally adamant that no part of the Bible is myth—using the ordinary speech definition of myth as an untrue story. And so we get to the real issue.

How do you reconcile the idea of an inerrant, infallible scripture with the idea of myth, when myth means a false story? The answer is that you can’t.

And so to maintain that the Bible is inerrant and infallible in all matters, including matters of history and science, Genesis must be treated as an accurate history of what really happened.

This is also the reason why the idea of evolution is such a source of consternation for Biblical inerrantists. Evolutionary science does not explain the origin of the natural world and living beings as the result of God’s action. Therefore, evolution cannot be reconciled with a belief in Genesis 1:1-2:3 as accurate history.

When we ask “what is it?” questions, we come to the real dilemma of teaching the Bible in public schools. If this account in Genesis is regarded as history, how does its accuracy square with accepted norms about teaching historical subjects?

A related question is: How does history relate to scientific theory? (The claim that evolution is “just a theory” deserves its own post.)

On the other hand, if the account in Genesis is regarded as a myth, how does teaching a myth compare with teaching a scientific hypothesis? Do they deserve equal treatment in the classroom?

The real problem with teaching both evolution and creationism/intelligent design in public schools comes down to teaching a religious belief on equal terms with a scientific theory.

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

Going Broke With Jesus identifies untrue “myths” about what Jesus taught about money. Discover the difference between heroic stories about money and morality tales in Going Broke With Jesus: How Heroic Stories Intended To Liberate The Poor Become Biblical Urban Legends About The Evils Of Money. 

written by Kalinda \\ tags: Bible, creation stories, creationism, evolution, Genesis 1:1-2:3, George W. Bush, history, intelligent design, John McCain, myth, politics, religion, Sarah Palin, teaching bible in public schools

The dramatic rise to fame of Sarah Palin—a woman most of us had never heard of a few weeks ago—demonstrates the enormous power of publicity to create celebrities.

What continues to amaze me more than anything else is how Sarah Palin’s meteoric rise to the role of savior within the Republican campaign requires conservative Christians to ignore any questions about women and authority.

For generations, women have been denied leadership positions because of Bible verses that seem to prohibit female authority over men.

And yet, in one bold stroke, a woman was chosen as the Republican vice-presidential candidate and her selection was widely hailed by conservative Christian leaders as a brilliant choice.

“Sometimes people can be a little fickle. They’ll go for the newest, hottest thing.” Kari Anderson

In his post from the Republican National Convention, Doug Pagitt reflects on exactly this point.

The most surprising response for me was to the role of a woman as vice-president and as it related to the worldview of religious conservatives. I asked questions about how people who hold that women should not be in spiritual leadership over men (a view called “complementarian”) would respond to having a woman vice-president and potentially president). If you are not familiar with the line of thinking, it goes something like this:

Men and women are created in a relational order. Men are under God and women are under men. This is not to say that women are lesser than men, but just as tools are designed for specific purposes so is gender a guide to relational order. The Bible is used to support this view specifically passages like Genesis 2:7, 21-24; 1 Timothy 2:12-15; 1 Corinthians 11:8-9; Genesis 2; 1 Corinthians 11:8-10; Romans 5:12-19.

This is not a totally fringe view. It is supported by the Southern Baptist Convention, the Presbyterian Church in America, and many independent churches. It is perhaps the most common perspective among the evangelical religious right. Doug Pagitt: Sarah Palin and the Role of Women in Religion and Politics

As I written before, I encountered tremendous hostility as a woman studying for ministry in an Evangelical seminary. The objection against women in ministry was based on obedience to the Bible as the infallible, inerrant word of God. According to this “high view of scripture,” women are forbidden from having authority over men.

Particular Bible verses have been cited and cited and cited some more to argue against ordination of women, to oppose the ministry of women, and to teach submission to male authority in marriage. Pagitt includes these verses in his article.

And yet, all of this opposition to the authority of women to lead men was apparently thrown out the window, swept under the rug, or hidden in the closet in a dramatic display of instant adulation for the barely-known woman chosen to run for the second-highest leadership position in the United States.

Pagitt explains how he raised the question of female authority with the delegates.

I raised some form of this question with the delegates I interviewed. I asked, “Do you think it will be a problem for religious conservatives who hold that women should not have authority over men and who do not allow a woman to be a pastor of a church or teach a Sunday school class with men in it? Will they have a problem with a woman vice-president?”

To a person the response was “Yes, I am sure they will. But they will just need to get over it.”

 
I was fascinated to think that this nomination could actually weaken the complementary view or the view of the president being God’s chosen leader because of the commitment to support the pro-life ticket. It will be quite a dilemma for some religious conservatives who will have to choose between commitments. And there is no doubt that the support for Governor Palin rests squarely on her pro-life stance.  Doug Pagitt: Sarah Palin and the Role of Women in Religion and Politics

Whatever this candidacy says about Sarah Palin, it demonstrates clearly that obedience to the authority of Scripture can be a fickle thing for believers. 

I have observed this fickleness more than once. A firm declaration of authority to Scripture can be replaced by a stronger desire for something else. When this happens, the Scripture that held primary authority is replaced by a higher claim. In the case of Sarah Palin, her resolutely anti-abortion stance was apparently more important than any prohibition against women in leadership.

I watched a similar transformation in a seminary student I got to know quite well. We were in the same preaching class together, and despite his opposition to women in leadership, we became friends.

We sat in the cafeteria one day and he explained his dilemma to me. His denomination ordained women to ministry. All candidates for ordination were required to answer this question: Would you participate in the ordination of a woman? 

This meant that his ordination to ministry required him to agree that he would support the ordination of women. Up to this point in the conversation, the discussion about his “obedience to the authority of Scripture.” And then he said something that brought the real issue to the surface.

At the Christian college he had attended, one of his professors was adamantly opposed to the ordination of women. The professor extracted a pledge from his students who were going to study for the ministry that they would not agree to participate in any ritual that would ordain a woman to ministry. They were supposed to stand firm in their faith and be willing to forgo ordination rather than submit to this “unbiblical” decision by the denomination to ordain women.

Suddenly, I realized that the issue was about something more than obedience to Scripture. It was a highly emotionally charged choice. He said to me. “Please tell me. I want to know. How can I be obedient to Scripture and support the ordination of women?” But I saw clearly that the real issue was that he had made a promise. He could be ordained or he could refuse ordination to uphold the promise made to his professor.

At that moment, the whole issue clicked into a different focus for me. I saw that claims to the authority of Scripture are seldom as straightforward as people claim they are.

That is when I began to see how much obedience to Scripture is a fickle allegiance, based on shifting sands. A non-negotiable, bottom-line commitment to the authority of Scripture can be quickly replaced by allegiance to something else with a higher emotional charge.

Since that moment in the cafeteria, I have seen this again and again. People will cite Scripture as the ultimate authority until they reach a point where what they want conflicts with any sort of abstract notion of biblical authority. At this point, they begin to change their opinion of the meaning of Scripture.

My name for this process is “selective hermeneutics.” Hermeneutics is the process of interpreting what the Bible means. And more often than not, “what it means” depends on what you want. And if what you want changes, “what it means” must change as well.

In the well-known adage from sales, people buy based on what they want and then justify with logic. This same principle applies to the authority of Scripture. It can be breathtaking to watch people abandon avidly held positions to accommodate a new want, and watch them attempt to justify the validity of their new positions with strange logical contortions.

In the case of my friend from seminary, he wanted to be ordained to the ministry. This want was more important to him than his promise to his professor. You will not be surprised to learn that he was ordained to the ministry in his denomination.

What changed for him? It wasn’t that he suddenly changed his understanding of biblical verses that seem to prohibit the leadership of women. What changed is that he had to choose between being ordained and being obedient to his “high view of scripture.” In his case, his desire to be ordained won.

In the case of Sarah Palin, objections to a woman in leadership have been shoved aside—at least publicly—in favor of higher claims of allegiance. In this case, the higher allegiance was to her anti-abortion stance.

I have no idea how this election will turn out, and if Sarah Palin will be elected to the office of vice-president of the United States. I do know that sudden fame is a fickle thing, and will give the last words to Henry Miller.

Fame is an illusive thing / here today, gone tomorrow. The fickle, shallow mob raises its heroes to the pinnacle of approval today and hurls them into oblivion tomorrow at the slightest whim; cheers today, hisses tomorrow; utter forgetfulness in a few months.  Henry Miller.

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

Have you watched the video with my original nature photos?  Click here to watch ”Rise Into The Blue.” 

written by Kalinda \\ tags: authority of scripture, Bible, biblical authority, Doug Pagitt, hermeneutics, Kalinda Rose Stevenson, obedience to authority, Republican convention, Sarah Palin, Women And Leadership

The nomination of Sarah Palin as the vice-presidential nominee of the Republican Party represents an astonishing Evangelical flip-flop on the role of women in leadership by self-proclaimed social and religious conservatives.

Let’s put this in perspective. If John Cain is elected President, Sarah Palin will hold the second highest leadership position in the nation—and as the saying goes, will be within a heartbeat of the highest leadership position. And conservative Christians declare themselves ecstatic over the choice.

In one of my first posts, I told the story of my first day at an Evangelical seminary when I was challenged with a Bible verse, the infamous—and universally mistranslated—1 Timothy 2:12, by a fist-pounding student who told me that “God does not call women.”  God Does Not Call Women

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence (1 Timothy 2:12, King James Version.) 

There are a handful of other New Testament verses that have been quoted again and again to prove that it is a violation of God’s order for a woman to be in a leadership position. Women are meant to be subordinate to men, and to be mothers and homemakers.

In future posts, I will be doing some careful Bible study of each of these verses to show that traditional interpretation of these Bible verses to argue for the subordination of women to male authority distorted the intended meanings.

But here, I want to point out how much Sarah Palin has risen to leadership as the direct beneficiary of the feminist movement and her Pentecostal roots.

“Conservative churches” have blamed the feminist movement for all sorts of social evils, claiming that the feminist agenda is an effort to reverse God’s chosen order of male leadership and female submission. Feminists have been blamed for all sorts of social problems and disasters, including the terrorist assault on September 11, 2001 and the ruination of American men and boys.

JERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I’ll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way — all of them who have tried to secularize America — I point the finger in their face and say “you helped this happen.”  Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson on September 13, 2001 telecast of the 700 Club
 

It is impossible to understand what is happening to our kids today, both male and female, without considering the influence of feminist ideology. Swirling out of it was an attack on the very essence of masculinity. Everything that had been associated with maleness was subjected to scorn. Men who clung to traditional roles and conservative attitudes were said to be too “macho.” If they foolishly tried to open doors for ladies or gave them their seats on subways, as their fathers had done, they were called “male chauvinist pigs.” Women presented themselves as victims who were “not gonna take it anymore,” and men were said to be heartless oppressors who had abused and exploited womankind for centuries. Divorce skyrocketed as a surprising number of women simply packed up and left their husbands and children.

Although these early feminists called attention to some valid concerns that needed to be addressed, such as equal pay for equal work and discrimination in the workplace, they went far beyond legitimate grievances and began to rip and tear at the fabric of the family. By the time the storm had blown itself out, the institution of marriage had been shaken to its foundation, and masculinity itself was thrown back on its heels. It has never fully recovered. James Dobson, Radical Feminism Shortchanges Boys

In a blatant display of groping for right wing Christian support, John McCain chose a woman as his vice-presidential nominee.

Hoping his pick of Sarah Palin as running mate will soothe the concerns of evangelical Christians about his candidacy, John McCain will hold a sold-out rally here today in the hometown of James Dobson, the influential evangelical leader of the Focus on the Family ministry who once vowed he would never vote for McCain.

“It’s a better track he’s on these days,” Focus on the Family senior vice president Tom Minnery told the Denver Post about his selection of Palin. “She is a polished, thorough-going social conservative. That’s what’s brought life to the Republican Party.”

Athough he hasn’t formally endorsed him, Dobson said last week that he would vote for a McCain/Palin ticket.  John Bentley, McCain Aims Towards Right With Palin Choice

In one of her blazingly insightful articles, Anna Quindlen writes:

The Republican Party has undergone a surprising metamorphosis since Sarah Palin was chosen as its vice presidential candidate. In Palin I recognize a fellow traveler, a woman whose life would have been impossible just a few decades ago. If she had been born 30 years earlier, the PTA would likely have been her last stop, not her first. Her political ascendancy is a direct result of the women’s movement, which has changed the world utterly for women of all persuasions. It is therefore notable that Palin has found her home in a party, and in a wing of that party, that for many years has reviled, repelled and sought to roll back the very changes that led her to the Alaska Statehouse. Anna Quindlen,  Can You Say ‘Sexist’?

What is even more astonishing is that Sarah Palin is regarded as a “quasi-feminist.” Despite those who might quibble that a quasi-feminist is something like being quasi-pregnant, Sarah Palin is now the official representative of socially conservative feminism. She is a mother, whose five children are being used as props for her persona, just as the bear skin rugs, dead moose, guns, short skirts and high heels add up to a complicated portrait of Sarah Barracuda, the loving mother,and tough quasi-feminist politician who represents conservative social values.

In many ways, this quasi-feminist is the anti-Hillary, who has been treated with extraordinary scorn by the Christian right.

John McCain has been no advocate for women; when asked during the primaries, on the subject of Senator Clinton, “How do we beat the bitch?” he responded, “Excellent question.” (Note to the GOP: that IS sexist.) Anna Quindlen

And consider this snide remark by Cal Thomas, which is a clear reference to Hillary Clinton’s preference for pantsuits. The implication is that Sarah Palin is a real woman because she wears skirts and high heels.

And she wore a skirt and heels at her introduction last week in Dayton, Ohio. That should count for something among men and women who are tired of pantsuits. Cal Thomas: Sarah Palin, steel magnolia

(What Thomas doesn’t meniton is that Hillary Clinton stopped wearing skirts years ago after her legs became a major topic of criticism from snarky columnists.) 

In addition to having great legs for a 44 year old mother of five, Sarah Palin’s primary qualification as a socially conservative quasi-feminist is her view on abortion. However, the critics of women in leadership positions have been strangely silent about her leadership role. Whatever happened to their objection to women having authority over men?

The list of Christian right advocates who announced enthusiastic support for Sarah Palin’s nomination is a Who’s-Who of the Christian right.

Friday morning, before the major news outlets made any definitive announcements, Christian right pundits were buzzing about Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s likely nomination for vice president. Rev. Rob Schenk, President of the National Clergy Council and a member of the National Pro-Life Action Center, and Steven Petrouka, founder of Pro-Life Radio, both made early predictions based on confidential sources, and sung of the governor’s conservative credentials. She’s a devout Christian, a vocal antiabortion advocate and gay rights opponent, and the mother of five children – including a new baby diagnosed with Down’s Syndrome. Palin’s decision to continue the pregnancy after learning the diagnosis was declared proof positive, to pundits of the religious right, of how good the Alaska native would be for the pro-life cause: a beautiful, quasi-”feminist” face for social conservative politics.

In short order the announcement was lauded by the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, the Christian Coalition for America, the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission – which proclaimed Palin “a true Christian” (as compared to Obama and Biden) – the Population Research Institute, Fr. Frank Pavone’s Priests for Life, the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America and the Beverly LaHaye Institute. Indeed, Rush Limbaugh has been promoting Palin since February. Ralph Reed, the former head of the Christian Coalition, said the religious right was “beyond ecstatic” at the choice, while Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, who endorsed McCain with extreme reluctance, called the pick an “outstanding choice” that reassured conservatives of McCain’s pro-life judicial intentions. Richard Viguerie, one of the architects of the new right, observed in a press release that, “Conservatives, the base of the party, have been listless. But, now, nearly all will work enthusiastically for the McCain-Palin ticket. In fact, this is the most enthusiastic conservatives have been since the era for Ronald Reagan.”

The Family Research Council, already elated that the GOP platform was “the most conservative, pro-life, and profamily platform in Republican party history… articulated with the dedicated efforts of many conservative women, standing on the shoulders of long-time conservative leaders such as Phyllis Schlafy,” saw Palin as the icing on the cake. They declared succinctly, “Conservative Women Rule.”
Kathyn Joyce, McCain’s VP Courts Conservative Evangelicals

A “thorough-going social conservative” who happens to be the female governor of Alaska, has been the female mayor of a small town in Alaska, and, if elected—could potentially become the first female president of the United States. This is a social conservative from a movement that has declared that leadership by women violates the infallible, inerrant, Word of God?

Sarah Palin is a complicated woman who is the direct beneficiary of the feminist movement that social conservatives have denounced every step of the way. Sarah could not stand before crowds cheering her “quasi-feminism,” if it weren’t for the generation represented by the much maligned Hillary Clinton. This generation prepared the way for women to become governors, senators, and presidential and vice-presidential candidates.

There is another piece of the complicated history of Sarah, and this goes back to her Pentecostal history. 

Although news reports claim that she was never Pentecostal, and now attends non-denominational churches—even though the Juneau Christian Center is affiliated with the Assemblies of God—Sarah Palin gives every indication of being Pentecostal.

Margaret Poloma, at the University of Akron, has written several books on Pentecostalism and is herself a Pentecostal Christian.

Poloma has listened to the tape of the governor’s Assembly of God address and says of Palin’s faith: “It seems to me that she’s the real McCoy.”Poloma says faith in divine revelation, prophecy and an outpouring of the Holy Spirit are hallmarks of the Pentecostal faith. Barbara Bradley Hagerty, Examining Palin’s Pentecostal Background

One of the fascinating bits of history about the Pentecostal moment is that the leadership of women was accepted in the early years of the Assembles of God. Although I don’t have the exact figures available to cite here, I have seen several references to a substantial percentage of women clergy in the early days of the Assemblies of God—as many as twenty percent.

The more respectable the Assembly of God churches became over time, the more they moved toward the values of mainstream Evangelical churches. The percentage of women clergy decreased as the Assemblies moved away from store-front churches to larger, more affluent suburban churches.

In the video of Governor Palin at the Wasilla Assembly of God, I was struck by the story about the founding pastor who recognized her leadership qualities, and prayed for God to make a way for her. Sarah Palin At Wasilla Assembly Of God

This is classic Pentecostalism. Instead of arguing that a woman has no authority to lead, the earliest Pentecostal attitude was: “Who am I to challenge the one God has chosen by outpouring gifts of leadership?”  In the Wasilla Assembly of God, her gifts for leadership were recognized and blessed.

This is a far cry from my experience at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, where women students were harassed relentlessly as being disobedient to God for seeking to become leaders in the church.

Although I have no way to prove it, I suspect that if Sarah Palin had grown up in a traditional Evangelical church, in which men were recognized as God’s appointed leaders—at home, in the church, and in the world—and women were taught to submit to the authority of men, the world might never know Sarah Palin, the Governor of Alaska, the current Republican vice-presidential nominee, and potential national and international leader.

In many ways, Sarah Palin is the product of feminism—which social conservatives have blocked ardently at every step of the way—and a Pentecostal church that blessed her for leadership and did not treat her as disobedient.

Yet, despite these two strong influences, she is being put forward as the quasi-feminist, socially conservative antidote to Hillary Clinton style feminism. And the same conservatives who have condemned feminists publicly promote her qualifications to lead. This is the mother of all political flip-flops.

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson 

written by Kalinda \\ tags: 1 Timothy 2:12, Evangelicals, feminism, feminist, Hillary Clinton, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, John McCain, Kalinda Rose Stevenson, Sarah Palin, Women And Leadership

John McCain has courted Evangelicals for much of his political campaign. Meanwhile, the Evangelicals have not quite trusted him to be one of their own. McCain made the ultimate effort to woo the Evangelical vote in his appearance at the Civil Forum at Saddleback Church.

After all of this effort to capture the Evangelical vote, it is rather astonishing that McCain did not choose an Evangelical to run as his vice-presidential nominee. Instead, he chose a woman deeply rooted in the Assemblies of God.

As I have written before, John McCain is clearly not an Evangelical. If news reports are correct, John McCain wanted either Joe Liebermann or Tom Ridge as the vice-presidential candidate, but was told that their pro-choice stances would alienate Evangelical voters. And so he chose a candidate who is ardently anti-abortion, to appeal to those Evangelical voters who have made abortion the central issue of the campaign.

However, with his selection of Sarah Palin, I wonder if he really understands the dramatic differences between the Assembles of God and Evangelical churches. As a result of this choice, Evangelicals have even more reasons to question his commitment to Evangelical beliefs.

And as I have read news reports of Sarah Palin, I wonder how many members of the media have a clear understanding of the distinctive beliefs and practices of the Assemblies of God.

The Assemblies of God originated in the early 20th century, as a uniquely American church. As a denomination, it shares many fundamental beliefs with other Christian denominations. It also places its claim about the authority of scripture as the first item in its list of “16 Fundamental Truths.” The complete list of the “16 Fundamental Truths” of the Assemblies of God is listed on the official website of the General Council of the Assemblies of God.  16 Fundamental Truths

The first “fundamental truth” concerns the infallibility and authority of Scripture.

 1. The Scriptures Inspired
The Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, are verbally inspired of God and are the revelation of God to man, the infallible, authoritative rule of faith and conduct. 16 Fundamental Truths

Although this priority of Scripture as the infallible, authoritative rule of faith and conduct would seem to align the Assemblies of God with Evangelicals, in actual practice, the Assemblies of God places a higher priority on the baptism of the Spirit than the authority of Scripture.

The most significant characteristic of the Assemblies of God is that it is a Pentecostal church. Both the designation, “Pentecostal,” and the distinctive Pentecostal experience, come from this account in the New Testament book of Acts.

And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance (Acts 2:1-4, King James Version.)

The seventh and eighth “fundamental truths” derive from this episode.

7. The Baptism in the Holy Spirit
All believers are entitled to and should ardently expect and earnestly seek the promise of the Father, the baptism in the Holy Spirit and fire, according to the command of our Lord Jesus Christ. This was the normal experience of all in the early Christian Church. With it comes the enduement of power for life and service, the bestowment of the gifts and their uses in the work of the ministry.

8. The Initial Physical Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit
The baptism of believers in the Holy Spirit is witnessed by the initial physical sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit of God gives them utterance.  16 Fundamental Truths

The Pentecostal distinctive of speaking in tongues sets the Assembles of God apart from almost all other Protestant denominations. It also sets it apart from traditional Evangelical theology. In fact, for much of its history, the Assembles of God, along with other Pentecostal denominations, was denigrated and ridiculed as “holy rollers.” Few Evangelicals would have anything to do with Pentecostal churches or practices.

In the United States there are a number of Christian denominations which have taken the label “Pentecostal,” at least in part because they regard the act of speaking in tongues to still be a sign that someone has been touched by God and that a congregation is following the true path set down by Jesus. The theology of pentecostal sects is fundamentalist in character, although other fundamentalist groups tend to look up pentecostal chuches with at least suspicion, if not hostility, because of the charismatic nature of their services and leaders.

Because of the highly emotional nature which characterizes their services, they acquired the derrogatory label “holy rollers,” a term which is not used as much today but which had wide currency in the first half of the 20th century. Holy Rollers

It was only during the glory days of the charismatic movement in the late sixties through late eighties that speaking in tongues started to become respectable. Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, with their 700 Club and PTL Club, brought the Pentecostal distinctive out of storefront churches in down-and-out neighborhoods into glitzy and extremely profitable prominence on national television.

Bakker was the original star of CBN’s popular 700 Club talk show, later hosted by Robertson… After the scandals, his standing as a minister was removed by his religious denomination, the Assemblies of God… Jim Bakker, Evangelist / Convict

As soon as Sarah Palin was chosen by John McCain, a video appeared online of her appearance at the Wasilla Assemblies of God in June, 2008. Wasilla was Palin’s home church from the age of 12. Almost as soon as it was available online, the Wasilla Assembles of God removed the video from its website. However, the video is available at the Huffington Post. Sarah Palin Speaks to Wasilla Assembly of God.

At this point, I need to acknowledge that—as part of my own religious journey— I spent several years attending Assemblies of God churches. Just as I studied with the Evangelicals, I went to church with the Pentecostals, but never felt at home in either place.

However, my experiences among the Pentecostals have made me keenly aware of the worldview and the particular vocabulary and verbal idioms of the Assemblies of God.

If you want a quick immersion into the defining mindset, worldview, and speech patterns of Assemblies of God churches, this video offers three letter-perfect examples. The introduction by the pastor, the talk by Sarah Palin, and the prayer by the founding pastor of the Wasilla Assembly of God reveal the essence of Assembly of God belief and practice. Each one speaks in the characteristic style and vocabulary of the Assemblies of God.

I have read various news reports claiming that Sarah Palin no longer attends an Assemblies of God church. Instead, she attends the Juneau Christian Center. As a point of fact, many Assemblies of God churches have attempted to undo the denomination’s early “holy roller” reputation in the Christian world by a strategic name change. Many Assembly of God churches no longer call themselves “Assemblies of God.” Instead, they call their churches “Christian Centers.”

As an example, the website of the Juneau Christian Center does not identify itself as an Assembly of God church in its ”About Us” page.  Juneau Christian Center 

However, the Alaska Assemblies of God website identifies the Juneau Christian Center as an Assemblies of God church. Alaska Assemblies of God

In this post, I want to emphasize only one point: the heart of Assemblies of God theology is a personal experience of God through “the baptism of the Spirit.” Even though the official statement of the “16 Fundamental Truths” places scripture first, in actual practice, believers base their actions on their own individual and emotional experiences. This means that the ultimate authority is not an inerrant, inspired, infallible Word of God in the form of written scripture, but the inspired word of God as perceived through personal experience.

Religion is front and center in this election campaign. With the nomination of Sarah Palin, another Christian religious ideology has been thrown into the mix—one that is much less familiar to voters than mainline and Evangelical Protestantism, and Roman Catholicism. Whatever the implications of this choice for national and international leadership, the media and voters will do well to understand how Sarah Palin’s Pentecostal, Assemblies of God experiences and theology shape her worldview and how she would act from that worldview if elected to national office.

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson 

written by Kalinda \\ tags: Assemblies of God, baptism of the Holy Spirit, civil forum, Evangelicals, Jim Bakker, John McCain, Juneau Christian Center, Kalinda Rose Stevenson, pentecostal, Saddleback Church, Sarah Palin, speaking in tongues, Tammy Faye Bakker

It is time for a confession. I have fallen into the trap. I have let Evangelicals define the agenda, even here on this blog. I’ll explain what I mean by telling a personal story.

While I was pregnant with my second child, I was under the obstetric care of two brothers who shared a joint practice. I never knew which brother I would see at any visit. I knew only that I liked one brother and didn’t like the other.

The first brother, Doctor Sidney, seemed to enjoy being a doctor and seemed to like his female patients. The second brother, Doctor Harold—an early Dr. House misanthropic type—gave the impression that he regarded pregnant women as a major annoyance, who were utterly unworthy of his superior intellect.
 
Harold was a master at asking the kind of questions that made patients wrong at the outset. It was the kind of question that comes under the category of: “do-you-still-beat-your-wife” questions. And so Doctor Harold would ask with a condescending tone: “How many times did you forget to take your vitamins?”

Such questions are a power strategy to make clear who is in charge of the conversation. The question is designed to put the person who is asked such a question into a reactive, defensive position. There was no room in Doctor Harold’s worldview for a patient who took her vitamins without fail.

Why do I bring up memories of my unpleasant encounters with a doctor who was clearly in the wrong profession?  

It is because this is the stance that Evangelicals often use to define the discussion about religion and politics. This is why the pilgrimage by John McCain and Barack Obama to Saddleback Church for the Civil Forum was such a problematic precedent in American politics. An evangelical megachurch pastor asked questions that presupposed that Evangelicals have the corner on God and Bible. Part of this assumption is that only the Republican Party represents an authentic Christian perspective.

I’ll let an Evangelical pastor express his opinion on these assumptions, in his letter in Time Magazine, September 1, 2008. 

As an Evangelical Pastor, I find the high percentage of fellow Evangelicals who believe that Senator John McCain is the candidate “most guided by his religious beliefs” hard to fathom. The testimonies of the two candidates in your “In Their Words” section shows McCain, in fact, to be far less connected to Evangelical spirituality than Barack Obama, who can also lay claim to an authentic born-again experience. Unfortunately, what this shows is that many Evangelicals believe that Republican and Christian are synonymous terms. It’s time that myth be put to rest. Time Letters, The Rev. John Hubers, Chicago

These are the assumptions that led James Dobson to assert that Barack Obama does not follow traditional Christian faith, in his widely publicized statement.

“I think he’s deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology,” Dobson said. Obama ‘Distorting’ Bible, Pushing ‘Fruitcake Interpretation’ of Constitution”)

Such statements are Doctor Harold statements. Since Evangelicals make up a quarter of the electorate, the media and politicians treat Evangelicals as being the true exemplars of Christian faith. This means that religious questions are framed in Evangelical terms, according to Evangelical presuppositions. As a result, everyone else is put on the defensive.

I have fallen into a similar trap with this blog, by reacting to the ways that Evangelicals have claimed the right to ask the defining religious questions. And so, I resolve to stop letting Evangelical presuppositions and assertions define my agenda for this blog.

The truth of the matter is that Evangelicals might make up a quarter of the electorate but they do not “own” God or the Bible. And the claim that an Evangelical viewpoint is consistent with “the traditional understanding of the Bible” does not stand up to any sort of historical, theological, or ecclesiastical scrutiny.

In my next post, I will refer to an article by Greg M. Epstein, Humanist Chaplain at Harvard University, in which he makes these statements:

Happily, though, I’ve seen several signs that an Obama administration might recognize the single most essential truth of American religion and politics in the 21st century. That is, not only is the U.S. not merely a “Christian Nation,” we have become something new entirely: the world’s first truly “Interfaith Nation.” As my Harvard colleague Diana Eck has eloquently described, the U.S. is now the world’s most religiously diverse nation. If we embrace the values of religious pluralism, our diversity will be a rich resource, rather than a source of division.

However, this historic opportunity would become an historic tragedy of prejudice and discrimination if we fail to recognize that an Interfaith Nation must make room for Humanists, atheists, and the non-religious as equal partners alongside Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and many others.  Don’t Exclude Humanists, Atheists from the Melting Pot

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

written by Kalinda \\ tags: Barack Obama, evangelical, James Dobson, John McCain, Kalinda Rose Stevenson, Rick Warren

Here’s my helpful tip: never trust a journalist who gives “biblical” advice. In the most recent issue of Time Magazine, Joe Klein makes this statement about what Barack Obama “should have said” to Pastor Rick Warren at the “Civil Forum” at Saddleback Church.

But Obama seems not to have fully assimilated what should be the message of his campaign: It’s the economy, egghead. The economy was almost entirely missing from his dialogue with Pastor Rick Warren at Saddleback Church – and there were more than a few opportunities to insert it. When Warren braced him on abortion, Obama fumbled around, attempting to sound reasonable. He should have said straight out, “We’re gonna disagree on this one. I respect your view on abortion, but I’m pro-choice … And you know, Pastor Rick, Jesus never mentions abortion in the Bible. He did say, though, that it’s easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter heaven. Now, that’s a metaphor – but it’s also good tax policy. Unlike John McCain, I want to make it easier for rich people to go to heaven.”   Where’s Obama’s Passion?

Joe Klein authoritatively quotes Jesus: “He did say, though, that it’s easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter heaven.”

With this statement, a lazy journalist has once again misquoted the Bible without taking the time to verify the accuracy of his quotation. 

This particular Bible verse is misquoted so often that many of the most devout Bible readers don’t pay attention to the actual quotation.

In the three biblical versions of the story about Jesus and a “rich young man,” Jesus made a statement about a rich man entering the Kingdom of God or Kingdom of Heaven. He didn’t say anything about entering Heaven.

“How hard it will be for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God!”  (Mark 10:17-31, Revised Standard Version.)

“Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” (Matthew 19:16-30, Revised Standard Version.)

“How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God! For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” (Luke 18:18-30, Revised Standard Version.)

The gospel stories of Mark, Matthew, and Luke share a common underlying metaphor—the idea of the Kingdom of God or Kingdom of Heaven.

Klein is right to refer to metaphor here, but he has missed the point of the metaphor.The critical idea that most people simply don’t understand is that the Kingdom of Heaven is not Heaven. Jesus is not referring to an afterlife. Instead, he is referring to the idea of the rule of God on Earth.

“When Jesus says that the rich cannot enter the Kingdom of God he is not talking about an afterlife. And he’s not saying that if you have money, you can’t get into Heaven. He is talking about the overthrow of the existing order of things in which those who are rich and at the top of the social system will lose their advantage.” Going Broke With Jesus

In fact, Jesus really did have a lot to say about government, religion, money, and abuse of power, but it was not this kind of simplistic notion about whether or not rich people can get into Heaven.

I wrote my book, Going Broke With Jesus, precisely because of such Bible misquotations, which turn into what I call, “biblical urban legends.”

I have created the term, “biblical urban legend,” for at least three reasons.

The first is that the phrase gets to the essence of what urban legends do. Urban legends might start with an element of truth, but they take on a life of their own, as they are perpetuated. In the same way, Bible verses turned into biblical urban legends might start with an element of truth, but they take on lives of their own as they are told and retold.

The second reason is to call attention to our own era. When Bible verses become disconnected from their original story and social contexts, they take on meanings in our own time and place. This is when they become strange new creations—”biblical urban legends.”

I can think of no better description of so many of the contemporary stories told about Bible verses about money. The core of truth becomes false as it takes on a life of its own apart from the original context of the story, turning a gospel story into a warning about money, as if the words of Jesus could be applied directly to a different time and place as if time and place don’t matter.

The most important reason to use the phrase is to make clear that Bible verses cut off from any connection to original context very quickly turn into cautionary tales, rather than heroic stories. Biblical urban legends do what urban legends do. They create fear, anxiety, and confusion in the minds of believers, as they warn against the dangers facing anyone who violates the rules.  Going Broke With Jesus

Of all of the biblical urban legends about “what the Bible says,” my candidate for the most destructive and misleading of all the biblical urban legends is this assertion that “Jesus said that a rich man can’t get into heaven.”

This one verse—as much as any other Bible verse—has made millions of believers afraid to have money, out of fear for their own salvation.

The focus of much Evangelical, Protestant religion has been on personal salvation. This misquotation simply reinforces this idea that religion is all about a personal relationship with God and getting into Heaven. 

With this focus on getting into Heaven, much of the Evangelical world has missed that Jesus was talking about life on Earth. He was talking about his vision of a just world on Earth.  By making these words say that rich people cannot enter heaven, this misquotation has often robbed people of the capacity to use money effectively and wisely.

The two major points of Klein’s criticism of Obama is that Obama is not sufficiently passionate to win the election and that Obama missed the opportunity to talk about the economy with Rick Warren. 

“One of the great strengths of the Obama candidacy has been the sense that this is a guy whose blood doesn’t boil, who carefully considers the options before he reacts—and that his reaction is always measured and rational. But that’s also a weakness: sometimes the most rational response is to rip your opponent’s lungs out.” Where’s Obama’s Passion?

It could very well be that Klein is right on both points.

• Obama is not passionate enough to connect with voters.
• It’s about the economy, egghead.

But that is not what “gets my blood boiling” about Klein’s article. By nature, I also tend to be careful and measured—probably much too careful and measured for my own good. But if there are ever times when I would like to rip someone’s lungs out, it is when I see this kind of careless misquotation of the Bible.

One of the principles of responsible journalism is to verify your sources and check the accuracy of your quotations. All Klein needed to have done was consult a Bible before he so confidently quoted Jesus. But he didn’t. Instead he used a misquoted Bible verse to tell Obama how he “should have” misquoted the Bible to talk about the economy. And in the process, he reinforced distorted notions about the Bible and money.

Since Klein is putting words into Obama’s mouth, let’s see what might have happened if Obama had followed Klein’s suggestion, and quoted the verse correctly. This is what he might have said.

“We’re gonna disagree on this one. I respect your view on abortion, but I’m pro-choice … And you know, Pastor Rick, Jesus never mentions abortion in the Bible. He did say, though, that it’s easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter [the kingdom of] heaven. Now that’s a metaphor [about economic justice for everyone---not just record profits for oil companies.]

By using the actual biblical metaphor of the Kingdom of Heaven, instead of Heaven, Obama could have talked about the economy in biblical terms. If Obama had put the current economic situation in terms of the metaphor of the Kingdom of Heaven, he could have reframed the entire discussion, from a single-minded focus on issues such as abortion to matters of government misuse of power, taxation, and waging war with borrowed money. 

He could also have engaged Pastor Rick on Warren’s newly found efforts to deal with poverty and disease in Africa. Based on the metaphor of the Kingdom of God, Obama would have had plenty to say about the Bible and the economy. 

Of course, this reframing of the conversation assumes that Obama knows the Bible well enough to know that Jesus was not talking about a rich man getting in heaven. I have no idea if he does or not. 

Klein is right. “It is about the economy, egghead.” And misquoted Bible verses about money don’t help Christians—or anyone else affected by misquoted Bible verses—to get the economy right.

And so Mr. Klein…..If you are going to write about the Bible, it’s about getting the Bible verses right, journalist.

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

written by Kalinda \\ tags: Barack Obama, Bible, bible verses, biblical urban legends, economy, heaven, Jesus, Joe Klein, Kalinda Rose Stevenson, kingdom of God, rich man and kingdom of heaven, Rick Warren, Time Magazine