IMPOLITE TOPICS

Welcome back!

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

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 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

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

Religion is at the heart of this political campaign. Candidates are involved in efforts to persuade religious voters by traveling to particular locations associated with specific religious groups.

In a transparent effort to persuade Catholic Hispanic voters, John McCain has traveled to Mexico.

McCain, whose home state of Arizona borders Mexico, began the day at Mexico City’s famed Basilica de Guadalupe, the country’s holiest site for Catholics.  (“McCain To Meet Mexican President”)

McCain not only visited the site, he received the blessing of the monsignor.

The Republican received a blessing from the basilica’s monsignor, laid a wreath of white roses at the altar and stood atop the Papal balcony there. (“MCain To Meet Mexican President.” )

There is nothing innocent in such gestures. Through Christian history, kings and emperors have sought the blessing of the Church. Politicians do the same. Blessings from the clergy, laying roses on an altar, and an appearance on the Papal balcony are all religious actions, done in an effort to demonstrate that God is on the side of the candidate. These are powerful strategies of persuasion.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama has gone into the lion’s den by going to Colorado Springs. Colorado Springs is the home of Dr. James Dobson, of “Focus on the Family,” who recently characterized Obama as distorting traditional understanding of the Bible.

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

Obama’s choice of Christian conservative Colorado Springs for his visit showed the degree to which he is courting Republican religious voters and trying to make McCain compete for their affections. (“McCain To Meet Mexican President.”)

My point is that candidates are attempting to persuade potential voters on religious grounds. As time goes on, we will see political candidates continue to make pilgrimages to religious sites, to seek the approval of religious leaders.

As voters and observers of the political scene, our task is to be aware of how such strategies are used as means of persuasion and manipulation.
 
Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

written by Kalinda \\ tags: Barack Obama, Catholic Hispanic, Dr. Dobson, Dr. James Dobson, Impolite Topics, John McCain, Kalinda Rose Stevenson, Kalinda Stevenson, McCain, Obama