IMPOLITE TOPICS

Welcome back!

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

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

On Saturday, August 16, Barack Obama and John McCain will attend a “Civil Forum” at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California. The forum will be moderated by Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church.

Time Magazine made Rick Warren the subject of a recent cover article. The cover identifies Warren as “America’s most powerful religious leader” (Time Magazine Cover, August 18, 2008 Issue.)

A more cautious figure than Warren might have passed on the opportunity to become a political lightning rod. But he has spent the past few years positioning himself for just such a role as a suprapolitical, supracreedal arbiter of public virtues and religious responsibilities.
…
The payoff is the Aug. 16 event, a kind of coronation for the 54-year-old, jovially hyperactive preacher. “It’s remarkable. The candidates are according him tremendous status,” says William Martin, author of the definitive biography of Billy Graham, A Prophet with Honor. “I don’t see them doing it with an Episcopal bishop or a Cardinal – or another Evangelical.”

If Warren is not quite today’s Graham, who presided as “America’s pastor” back when the U.S. affected a kind of Protestant civil religion, he is unquestionably the U.S.’s most influential and highest-profile churchman. The Global Ambition of Rick Warren

The idea of the forum as a “kind of coronation” for Rick Warren raises all kinds of interesting questions about the connections between religion and politics.

What is clear is that Obama and McCain are making a kind of religious pilgrimage to one of America’s evangelical megachurches, to make an appearance before “the U.S.’s most influential and highest-profile churchman.”

What is obvious by now is that neither Barack Obama nor John McCain is an evangelical. This means that both are problematic candidates for a significant number of evangelical Christians. The reason this matters politically is that so many American Christians identify themselves as evangelicals.

“It’s quite an extraordinary thing, it’s the first time a preacher has convened the two presumptive candidates …

They are both fighting for that vote,” said Michael Lindsay, a political sociologist at Rice University in Houston.

Evangelicals account for one in four U.S. adults and have become a key conservative base for the Republican Party with a strong focus in the past on opposition to abortion and gay rights and the promotion of “traditional” family values.

Such issues delivered almost 80 percent of the white evangelical Protestant vote to President George W. Bush in 2004 but the movement is more fractured and restless this year though it remains largely in the Republican camp. Obama, McCain Aim For Faith Vote At Forum 

So, both Obama and McCain are in the position of having to prove themselves sufficiently evangelical to satisfy evangelical voters, especially on the litmus test issues of abortion and gay marriage.

McCain has not excited conservative evangelicals because of his past support for stem cell research, his blunt criticism of the movement’s leaders in 2000 and other political heresies.

But the Vietnam veteran and former prisoner-of-war has long been opposed to abortion rights, a trump card with this group.

“McCain has a good record on that issue (abortion) and he must show that he will continue it as president,” Tony Perkins, the president of the conservative lobby group the Family Research Council, told Reuters. Obama, McCain Aim For Faith Vote At Forum 

The most significant point I want to make here is that the “faith” of these two candidates is being defined by their stances on these issues—especially the issue of abortion.

Once again, public discussion of religion has been reduced to a few critical, hot-button issues. Complicated issues of faith, the relationship of religious groups to political power, the role of religious education in public schools, and a multitude of social justice issues get little attention. Instead, religion and faith become defined by a few issues.

It is important to note how Rick Warren has expanded his focus beyond the evangelical hot-button issues since the 2004 presidential election.

During the 2004 presidential election, he seemed to toy with using his new influence to become the next Jerry Falwell or James Dobson. Although he did not officially endorse George W. Bush, the mega-author made no secret of his preference. Two weeks before the election, he sent an e-mail to the several hundred thousand pastors on his mailing list, enumerating “non-negotiable” issues for Christians to consider when casting their votes: abortion, stem-cell research, gay marriage, euthanasia and human cloning. The Global Ambition of Rick Warren 

Since then, Warren has started a global program to mobilize churches in the Third World to deal with poverty, disease, and illiteracy, among other global issues.

And he is both leading and riding the newest wave of change in the Evangelical community: an expansion beyond social conservatism to causes such as battling poverty, opposing torture and combating global warming. The movement has loosened the hold of religious-right leaders on ordinary Evangelicals and created an opportunity for Warren, who has lent his prominent voice to many of the new concerns.

A shift away from “sin issues” – like abortion and gay marriage – is reflected in Warren’s approach to his coming sit-downs with the candidates. He says he is more interested in questions that he feels are “uniting,” such as “poverty, HIV/AIDS, climate change and human rights,” and still more in civics-class topics like the candidates’ understanding of the role of the Constitution. There will be no “Christian religion test,” Warren insists. “I want what’s good for everybody, not just what’s good for me. Who’s the best for the nation right now?” The Global Ambition of Rick Warren

Yet, despite Warren’s larger vision, for many evangelicals in this election season, “faith” is neatly defined by the “right” answers on a handful of hot-button issues.

So, Barack Obama and John McCain will sit down as Rick Warren—who promises that there will be no “Christian religion test”—will ask Obama and McCain about abortion.

And many Evangelicals have, like Warren, broadened their agenda of concerns to include issues that should favor Obama like global poverty and the environment. But in practice, abortion continues to be a threshold issue for a large number of Evangelical voters.
Warren has already said he will raise the issue with the candidates on Saturday, and Obama could well take advantage of the opportunity.
…
Large numbers of Evangelical and Catholic voters will be listening for Obama to articulate his abortion position in his conversation with Warren. A significant number of them remain undecided in the race, and their votes may hinge on his answer. Obama and McCain’s Test of Faith

When I read the words of Jesus in the four gospels, I wonder how abortion and gay marriage have become the defining issues for evangelicals. As far as I can tell, Jesus had nothing to say about either topic. Does this mean that Jesus would approve of abortion and gay marriage? It only means that they were not mentioned in the gospel narratives. It is hard to make any case on any issue based what someone didn’t say about it.

Although Jesus did not directly address current hot-button issues, he had plenty to say about power, justice, and the poor. My impolite question is: How is that these are not the defining issues for people who base their identity on scripture as the sole authority in faith and practice?

Emphasis on the “sin issues”—as Time magazine calls them—without giving at least equal weight to such central gospel topics as justice, power, and poverty is an example of “selective hermeneutics.”

Exegesis focuses on “what it meant.”  Hermeneutics focuses on “what it means.” Selective hermeneutics occurs when people pick and choose portions of the Bible, to decide which parts are relevant and which are not relevant to their lives. This is what has happened with abortion and gay marriage, along with stem cell research and cloning. They have become the defining issues of faith, even though none of them is explicitly mentioned in scripture.

When selective hermeneutics is at work, religion becomes reduced to a small set of issues. This means that politicians find themselves in the position of having to tiptoe carefully on a tightrope between the hot-button issues and their own religious beliefs—whatever they are—to placate potential voters who have reduced ”faith” to a limited set of beliefs on a few defining issues.

“Faith” reduced to these few topics is dramatically diminished biblical faith. We all deserve more than a few carefully chosen responses on a handful of topics to determine how any candidate for public office will address the relationship between religion and political power in a multi-cultural, multi-religious nation.

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

written by Kalinda \\ tags: abortion, Barack Obama, Bible, civil forum, evangelical, exegesis, gay marriage, hermeneutics, Jesus, John McCain, Kalinda Rose Stevenson, politicians, politiics, Rick Warren, Saddleback Church, selective hermeneutics

When religious authority conflicts with political authority, which authority takes precedence?

Any consideration of the relationship between religion and politics in the United States must take into account that most churches, religious organizations, and ministers are tax exempt.

Congress has enacted special tax laws applicable to churches, religious organizations, and ministers in recognition of their unique status in American society and of their rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Churches and religious organizations are generally exempt from income tax and receive other favorable treatment under the tax law; however, certain income of a church or religious organization may be subject to tax, such as income from an unrelated business. (“Churches and Religious Organizations:  Benefits And Responsibilities Under The Federal Tax Law” )

Now we come to another fine line. What is the difference between legal and illegal actions by religious organizations with tax-exempt status? This an important question, especially in an election year.

 
Political Campaign Activity

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all IRC section 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches and religious organizations, are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise tax.

Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including the presentation of public forums and the publication of voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not constitute prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner. On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that: (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.

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”

My intention at this point is to post this IRS material on the blog for future reference as we go farther into the political campaign.

For now, I will include two references to cases when Roman Catholic priests denied communion to church members.

Word spread like wildfire in Catholic circles: Douglas Kmiec, a staunch Republican, firm foe of abortion and veteran of the Reagan Justice Department, had been denied communion.

His sin? Kmiec, a Catholic who can cite papal pronouncements with the facility of a theological scholar, shocked old friends and adversaries alike earlier this year by endorsing Barack Obama for president. For at least one priest, Kmiec’s support for a pro-choice politician made him a willing participant in a grave moral evil.

Kmiec was denied communion in April at a Mass for a group of Catholic business people he later addressed at dinner. The episode has not received wide attention outside the Catholic world, yet it is the opening shot in an argument that could have a large impact on this year’s presidential campaign: Is it legitimate for bishops and priests to deny communion to those supporting candidates who favor abortion rights? (“Denied the Rite“)

In Kansas City, Kan., Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann has ordered Ms. Sebelius [Governor of Kansas] also an Obama supporter, not to receive Communion after she vetoed abortion legislation riddled with constitutional red flags. The bill in question made it easier for prosecutors to search private medical records, allowed family members to seek court orders to stop abortions and failed to include exceptions to save the life of the mother. Along with many public officials, Ms. Sebelius recognizes the profound moral gravity of abortion. She has supported prudent public policies that have reduced abortions in Kansas by investing in adoption services, prenatal health care and social safety nets for families. But in his diocesan newspaper, the archbishop blasted the governor over her “spiritually lethal” message and her obligation to recognize the “legitimate authority within the Church.” (“Don’t Play Politics With Communion”)

In recent posts, I have been raising questions about the relationships between religion, politics, and the Bible by offering a series of specific, current examples of the collisions between political and religious beliefs.

Behind the specifics of any particular incident, lawsuit, political campaign, or religious organization, the basic challenge is this: the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States requires that we must respect the rights of others whose religious beliefs and practices are different from our own.

It is also important to recognize that any belief about religion comes under the category of religious belief. Atheism is as much a religious belief as belief in God. (For a perceptive commentary on this point, see the comment by John Thomas.)

As our society continues to become more and more religiously, culturally, ethnically, and linguistically diverse, this means that clashes between religion and politics will grow more and more frequent. The question then becomes a matter of authority. Which authority is the ultimate authority on such matters? Does religious belief trump federal law?  Or does Federal law trump religious belief?

I remember the 1960 presidential election when John F. Kennedy’s Roman Catholic faith was a major political issue, based on the question of authority:  Would John Kennedy abide by federal law or be obedient to the authority of the Pope?  

The basic question of authority has not changed, and applies to Roman Catholics who must decide if they are going to follow church teachings or federal, state, and local laws at the risk of being denied sacred rites.

The same question applies to evangelical Christians who treat the Bible as their highest authority. When there is a conflict, do they obey the Bible or the law? 

What happens when churches provide sanctuary to illegal immigrants against federal law, based on a claim that they are following a higher authority? 

Under Martin Luther King, Jr, the civil rights movement was fundamentally a proclamation that a biblical vision of justice carried higher authority than Jim Crow laws requiring segregation by race.

And since the question of Barack Obama’s faith continue to be the stuff of internet urban legends, with endless claims that he is really a Muslim and would take the oath of office on the Koran, what happens when a non-Christian is elected to political office? 

And if we are going to teach the Bible in public schools, are we willing to provide money to teach the Koran in public schools? Will we spend tax dollars to educate Muslims in private Muslim schools?

We might even add to the list, is it really possible for someone in the United States to run for President who claims to be an agnostic or atheist?

I don’t pretend to know the answers to such questions. I know only that religious and political beliefs can never be treated as if they inhabit separate realms. Like it or not, every religious question is also political and every political question is also religious. And in each case, the real question comes down to authority.

When religious authority conflicts with political authority, which authority takes precedence? This is the most impolite and the most difficult of the Impolite Topics.

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

written by Kalinda \\ tags: authority, Authority And The Bible, communion, Impolite Topics, IRS, John F. Kennedy, Kalinda Rose Stevenson, muslim, obedience, obedience to authority, political authority, politics, Roman Catholic, tax code, teach Bible in public schools

A recent decision by the United States Court Of Appeals Tenth Circuit raises significant questions about the relationship between religion and politics.

The question at issue was whether students at Colorado Christian College could receive scholarships from the State of Colorado.

In other words, should public money be used to fund private religious education?

This case raises the question: When does religious education stop being merely religious and start being “pervasively sectarian?”

The criterion in place has been the “pervasively sectarian” test. Students who attend private religious schools have qualified for public scholarships. However, the students at Colorado Christian College were denied public scholarship money because their college was deemed “pervasively sectarian.” As evidence, students are required to attend chapel and the faculty must sign a statement asserting the infallibility of the Bible.

On July 23, 2008, The Appeals Court ruled in favor of Colorado Christian College.

The State of Colorado provides scholarships to eligible students who attend any accredited college in the state–public or private, secular or religious–other than those the state deems “pervasively sectarian.” To determine whether a school is “pervasively sectarian,” state officials are directed, among other things, to examine whether the policies enacted by school trustees adhere too closely to religious doctrine, whether all students and faculty share a single “religious persuasion,” and whether the contents of college theology courses tend to” indoctrinate.” Applying these criteria, state officials have extended scholarships to students attending a Methodist university and a Roman Catholic university run by the Jesuit order. They have refused scholarships to otherwise eligible students attending a non-denominational evangelical Protestant university and a Buddhist university. Colorado Christian University, one of the two schools held pervasively sectarian by the State, contends that excluding its students on the basis of this inquiry violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court disagreed, and granted summary judgment in favor of the state defendants. We find the exclusion unconstitutional for two reasons: the program expressly discriminates among religions without constitutional justification, and its criteria for doing so involve unconstitutionally intrusive scrutiny of religious belief and practice. We reverse, and order that summary judgment be granted in favor of the university.

No. 07-1247, United State Court Of Appeals Tenth Circuit

Consider this decision in relationship to the decision by the Texas State Board of Education to offer elective classes in Bible in public high schools. “Should The Bible Be Taught In Public Schools?”

In each case, public authorities have attempted to make a distinction between instruction and indoctrination.  According to the State of Colorado, state officials were supposed to:

• Examine whether the policies enacted by school trustees adhere too closely to religious doctrine.
• Whether all students and faculty share a single “religious persuasion.”
• Whether the contents of college theology courses tend to” indoctrinate.”

Notice the language. “Adhere too closely.” “Share a single religious persuasion.” “Tend to indoctrinate.”

How do public officials make such decisions? The court ruled that officials of the state of Colorado cannot use such questions to deny scholarship money.

The decisions in Texas and Colorado make clear that these are not simply interesting questions to debate. They are questions of public policy.

The ruling in favor of Colorado Christian College is just one more ruling in favor of religious schools to receive public money.

Last year, California’s Supreme Court upheld the rights of “pervasively sectarian” institutions to benefit from government programs that issue bonds on their behalf. Another federal appeals court, the 4th Circuit in Richmond, Va., sided with Columbia Union College in Maryland, a school affiliated with the Seventh-day Adventist Church that had been denied access to a state bond finance program. The 6th Circuit in Cincinnati upheld bonds issued on behalf of Lipscomb University, a school in Tennessee affiliated with the Churches of Christ where students attend daily Bible classes. In 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the state of Washington against a student who claimed discrimination because he couldn’t use a publicly funded scholarship to pursue a degree in theology. Religious Schools Win Again

Why does any of this matter? These are two current decisions, which are themselves part of a growing trend to blur the line between religion and politics. Any line between secular and sectarian is being slowly erased. 

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

written by Kalinda \\ tags: Colorado Christian College, Federal Appeals Court, indoctrinate, indoctrination, pervasively sectarian, public money, religious, religious colleges, Texas State Board Of Education