IMPOLITE TOPICS

Welcome back!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

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

[This is the continuation of a series of posts beginning with "Should The Bible Be Taught In Public Schools?" about the decision by the Texas State Board of Education to authorize the teaching of an elective course on Bible in public high schools. It brings to the surface just about every question imaginable about the relationship between religion, politics, and the Bible.]

1. Comment. An individual expressed the belief that knowledge of Biblical stories would be advantageous to understanding allusions/archetypes of literature, but finds the course necessarily limited. The individual suggests a complementary course in Greek/Roman mythology.

Agency Response. The agency has maintained language as filed as proposed. State law and rule do not prohibit the teaching of a course on Greek/Roman mythology.

 2. Comment. An individual stated that mythologies of the Norse, Greeks, Romans, and Babylonians as well as the holy works of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam had an enormous impact on Western literature and should be included in this course as well.

Agency Response. The agency has maintained language as filed as proposed. State law and rule do not prohibit the teaching of suggested additional courses.  Comments

These two comments and the official responses to them point out how much our current rules, laws, and practices have complicated any effort to reach consensus about the place of the Bible in our shared public lives.

They point out the unintended consequences of efforts to restrict teaching the Bible in public schools. The Texas State Board of Education has no such restrictions for other religious books or mythologies.

This leads to all sorts of interesting and disturbing situations.

I used to live in the Bay Area of California. The local paper—the Contra Costa Times—published an article claiming that children in the Byron school district were being forced to adopt Muslim practices at the same time they were not allowed to wear crosses or say the name of Jesus.

You can read the original article that was republished in newspapers and on the internet as well as responses to the claims in the story in “Mandated Teaching of Islam in California Public Schools-Truth! & Fiction!”

I have made a few excerpts from the article.

The message says “Public Schools Embrace Islam – A Shocker.” It focuses on seventh graders in Byron, California, and says that although students in a growing number of public schools cannot wear crosses or utter the name of Jesus, they are being required to attend an intensive three-week course on Islam including mandated study of the tenets of Islam, the important people of Islam, wearing of a robe, adopting a Moslem name, and staging their own Jihad. It says that the California-required course uses a textbook that says a lot more about Islam than about Christianity and quotes a teacher who says she couldn’t teach Christianity like that and can’t even say the name of Jesus in the classroom, but the seventh graders are learning how to pray to Allah. Mandated Teaching of Islam in California Public Schools-Truth! & Fiction!

Tom Adams, the administrator for curriculum framework at the state education department, told the Contra Costa Times that state guidelines (for seventh grade) do include a unit on Islamic civilization in the medieval world, however, it should be an academic approach on the historical significance of the religion. It should not be construed as an endorsement of it. Mandated Teaching of Islam in California Public Schools-Truth! & Fiction!

How the guidelines are implemented in the classroom is largely up to the teacher and critics say that in many classrooms, Islam has been emphasized while other religions, such as Christianity and Judaism, have sometimes been hardly touched upon. In an article on WorldNetDaily.com, Diana Lynne said that other parents in California have reported Islam-related activities that have caused them concern. One parent says her daughter was indoctrinated about Islam for four months while in seventh grade in Elk Grove, California. She said one day, she arrived at school to find a banner in front that said “There is one God, Allah, and Mohammad is his prophet.” She says she had also seen children chanting from the Koran and praying. Mandated Teaching of Islam in California Public Schools-Truth! & Fiction!

Whatever the truth and fiction of this particular situation in Byron, it highlights some of the difficulties involved in teaching religion in public schools.

What is particularly ironic in the comments and responses in the Texas State Board of Education situation is that the rules and prohibitions against teaching the Bible in public schools do not apply to other religious sacred books, such as the Koran.

Although I don’t usually use the term “politically correct,” this is exactly the kind of situation in which the language of “political correctness” most applies, which complicates the whole effort to teach the Bible in public schools.

In the many years I subscribed to the Contra Costa Times, I noticed an evolution in how it treated Christian religious topics. I observed that Christmas and Easter—two major Christian holidays—were never mentioned on the front page. If they got any mention at all, it was about food drives to collect toys for poor children or meals served to the poor, but never on the front page.  The paper didn’t publish articles about Christian belief or practices at Christmas or Easter services. Meanwhile, the religious practices on holy days of Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, and other non-Christian groups received prominent treatment.

As an observer of religion, I became aware of this bias against acknowledging the religion of the majority population. In an effort to be unbiased against minorities, the paper practiced bias against the majority.

The second commenter claims that “the mythologies of the Norse, Greeks, Romans, and Babylonians as well as the holy works of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam had an enormous impact on Western literature.” It’s true that these mythologies and holy works have had influence, of varying degrees, but none of them has impacted Western society as much as the Bible.

And so we have a situation in which the religion of the majority of the population—and the sacred book of that majority—are treated as topics that must be controlled carefully, while the beliefs and holy books of other religious groups have no such guidelines.

As I continue to ponder the effort by the Texas State Board of Education to set guidelines to teach the Bible in public schools, I see no simple solution to the multitude of problems involved in this effort.

I remain convinced that any education that does not include the Bible would be equivalent to teaching students to read English using only the consonants and not allowing anyone to teach the vowels. The vowels are part of the alphabet and part of the language. To leave them out is to leave out a significant part of teaching anyone to read English.

The Bible has been an integral part of Western history—far more than Hindu, Buddhist, or Muslim scriptures. No one can be truly educated without it. But HOW to teach it in public schools in a way that respects freedom of religion—for Christians and non-Christians alike—remains the question. I don’t pretend to know the definitive answer. 

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

written by Kalinda \\ tags: Bible, Bible in public schools, Buddhist, Hindu, Islam, Kalinda Rose Stevenson, Koran, muslim, teach, teaching Islam in California public schools, Texas State Board Of Education

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

After writing several articles about evangelicals, I want to pause for a bit to consider the role of the media and their use of sensational language about religious topics.

Christianity Today—a reputable publication that really ought to know better— reported on a session at the Evangelical Theological Society meeting of November 14, 2007 with this title: 
“Postcard from San Diego: Fighting ‘Bibliolatry’ at the Evangelical Theological Society.”

They follow the headline with this quotation from a paper delivered by J.P. Moreland, “How Evangelicals Became Over-Committed to the Bible and What Can Be Done About It.”

“In the actual practices of the Evangelical community in North America, there is an over-commitment to Scripture in a way that is false, irrational, and harmful to the cause of Christ,” he said. “And it has produced a mean-spiritedness among the over-committed that is a grotesque and often ignorant distortion of discipleship unto the Lord Jesus.”

The problem, he said, is “the idea that the Bible is the sole source of knowledge of God, morality, and a host of related important items. Accordingly, the Bible is taken to be the sole authority for faith and practice.” Postcard from San Diego

The title, “Fighting ‘Bibliolatry’ at the Evangelical Theological Society,” is deliberately inflammatory, because of the word, “bibliolatry.”  Bibliolatry is a coined word, combining “Bible” with the idea of idol worship. It is used frequently as a pejorative to claim that evangelical commitment to an inerrant, infallible Bible is idol worship, in which the Bible becomes the idol.

As with any caricature, there is real truth in this charge. But the real truth behind the label is not my point here. My point concerns the tactics of the media when they ferret out something deliberately provocative, to incite anger, interest, and polarization. The media have done this for a long time. As the saying goes—”they want to sell papers.”

In another post, I will deal more directly with the issues that Professor Moreland raised in his paper, because they are significant in any discussion of the relationship between religion and politics. But before doing that, I want comment about the role of the media in both reporting and creating the news.

One of the consequences of watching many political campaigns is that I have seen how many campaigns turn into contests based on slogans. In the earliest televised debates, Kennedy and Nixon went on and on about Quemoy and Matsu. With Bush the Elder and Dukakis, it was Willie Horton. John Kerry was sunk by Swift Boaters. This election is following in the same slimesteps. The media find something provocative to glom onto and will not let go, all the while they tell us know how much they find the slime reprehensible.

One of my own personal frustrations is the way that the news media report on religious issues. When it comes to religion and Bible, the media usually get it wrong. I see it in the articles about John McCain and Barack Obama. The reporters in the various news media—who by and large have no training in biblical exegesis or theological hermeneutics—are looking for the hook, the interesting story, the outrageous claim to put into a headline. They don’t have the time, training, or interest to understand the deeper issues or put issues into larger context.

I imagine that anyone who is truly an expert in some area feels the same way. Journalists working on deadline—who know almost nothing about the topic they are covering—find some juicy tidbit and report on that, all the while missing the forest for the trees. In the process, the media are not reporting on news. They are creating it, and we are all the worse for it.

As a teacher, I think that my greatest teaching skill is my ability to help my students think differently, by nudging them to see beneath their own assumptions. This kind of probing after assumptions cannot happen as soon as anyone tags someone else with a label. Tell an evangelical: ”You practice bibliolatry,” and the discussion is over before it starts.

This reminds me of another story. Several years ago, I attended an internet seminar in Orlando on marketing information products. After the day’s session, the hotel provided a bar at the back of the meeting room, where people could buy drinks.

I noticed a man—I’ll call him Pete—standing in the middle of the room, holding a bottle of beer in his hand. I had met Pete at a previous seminar and even had lunch with him. He was a retired history teacher, and we had talked about teaching. So, as someone who is not a natural schmoozer, I was glad to see someone I had already met, and went over to talk with him.

Very early in the conversation, I said that the last time I was in Orlando, I was there to attend the “Annual Joint Meeting of the American Academy of Religion and The Society of Biblical Literature.”  These are two professional societies for scholars and graduate students in all areas of religion and Bible. I have been a member of both societies for years.

Pete held up his beer bottle and said: “I bet they didn’t have any of this at that meeting.” And then he began to laugh the kind of laugh that can only be described as guffawing.

I was momentarily speechless. I was truly surprised that a retired history teacher would jump to such a conclusion. He heard the words “religion” and “Bible” and apparently decided that anyone who would attend such a meeting was a teetotaling goody-goody at a Temperance Society picnic.

For a moment, I thought of telling him that the registration packet for the meeting came with two drink tickets for the annual reception, where both wine and beer were served along with the raw carrots, celery sticks,  cheese, and crackers.

I thought of telling him about the Lutherans and Episcopalians and Roman Catholics who use wine as part of the Eucharist.

I even thought of telling him that he had completely misunderstood that a scholarly meeting of academics is not a church service.

I could have told him that both societies comprise scholars who hold just about every imaginable religious belief and no religious belief, and just about every identity group or “ism” you can think of—from Jewish, to Buddhist, to Native American,  from Asian and African theologians, feminists and womanists, black liberation theologians, textual critics and archaeologists.

But then I decided it was not worth my time or effort to cut through his smug ignorance.

Instead, I thought of the words I read in a class on English poetry in college. They are from the poem by T. S. Eliot, “The Love Song Of J. Alfred Prufrock.”

And I have known the eyes already, known them all–  
The eyes that fix you in a formulated phrase,   
And when I am formulated, sprawling on a pin,   
When I am pinned and wriggling on the wall,   
Then how should I begin   
To spit out all the butt-ends of my days and ways?

And how should I presume? 

 The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock By T. S. Eliot

The words—”eyes that fix you in a formulated phrase” and the image of being “pinned and wriggling on the wall”— have stayed with me ever since. How do you begin to explain anything when you have been labeled, formulated, and pinned up?

And so, I ended the conversation and walked away, letting Pete drink his beer secure in the belief that Bible scholars at professional meetings don’t drink beer.

This is why labels kill any chance for real conversation.  Christianity Today took the most inflammatory word it could take from the professor’s paper, and claimed far more than he intended.

Unlike my decision to walk away from guffawing Pete, Professor Moreland did respond to the slew of comments posted on the Christianity Today blog about his paper. I have quoted parts of the first two paragraphs below. The entire comment is available here.

My paper was read at an academic conference for an audience of professors. Thus, precision was a premium. It was not intended for a lay audience because lay folk have a tendency—and this is not meant to be harsh—of running with ideas beyond the context in which they were originally given.
…
While I am sure it was well intended, the CT editor’s summary of my paper is generally fair (though the use of “bibliolatry” in the title is a bit sensationalistic—I used it once in my paper and clarified it’s meaning by the over-commitment claim), but it is still a summary, and as such, did not and could not provide the needed context for understanding my paper. What followed was a large number (but by no means all) of misleading, irrelevant and tangential comments that had little and, often, nothing to do with my paper. Professor Moreland Comments

This paragraph expresses the frustrations of an academic. I understand in my bones what Moreland is saying here. In each paragraph, Moreland uses the word that most defines what scholars do. It is the word “context.” The paper was read in the context of an academic meeting. An academic meeting is a context in which people are supposed to pay attention to the intention behind the paper, and not make it be something it was not meant to be.

My blog is, more than anything else, my effort to bring what I know as a biblical scholar to the intersecting dimensions of religion, politics and the Bible, and to do it without resorting to cheap shots, easy caricatures, and simplistic statements. I do it as a teacher—nudging people to consider their unconsidered assumptions—with an intention to be as kind as possible in the process.

I want to acknowledge that evangelical Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary—despite the harassment from students and professors who were sure they knew exactly what God intended—was also the place where I began to learn my skills as a biblical scholar from professors who were passionate about scholarship, committed to their faiths, and good and kind men. From them, I learned that there was so much more in the Bible than the restrictive vision of God and church that I had learned from Bible verses taken out of context.  My intention is to pass some of that liberating vision to you. 

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

written by Kalinda \\ tags: Bible, biblical scholarship, bibliolatry, evangelical, Evangelical Theological Society, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, inerrant, infallible, J P Moreland, Kalinda Rose Stevenson, media, news media

The Bible as Word of God—inerrant, infallible, and solely the work of God—remains the single most important distinction between evangelicals and other Christians.

In an interview with Stephen Mansfield, author of the new book, The Faith of Barack Obama, this is Mansfield’s answer to the question:

“So, where do you think Obama fits in the spectrum of Christianity?

I think Barack Obama believes about Jesus and about conversion what your average evangelical does. He believes that Jesus is the son of God and that he died for the sins of the world and God raised him from the dead again. Where he begins to depart from orthodox evangelical Christianity probably begins with his view of scripture. He believes some of it might be of human origin, and some scriptures may be of more weight than others. So in a sense, [his is a] traditional theological liberalism that tends to treat scripture as being at least partially of human origin. Stephen Mansfield Interview with Jessica Ramirez

This is a revealing quotation, both in what Mansfield claims and the language he uses to claim it. He says that Obama believes about Jesus “what your average evangelical” believes.

Mansfield then asserts that Obama “begins to depart from orthodox evangelical Christianity” with his “view of scripture” because Obama believes that some of scripture “might be of human origin.” According to Mansfield, this “view of scripture” is evidence of Obama’s “traditional theological liberalism.”

(In this post, I won’t even begin to address the second part of the claim: Obama believes that “some scriptures may be of more weight than others.”) 

There is so much going on in this paragraph that I hardly know where to begin. It is full of code language with specific meaning for evangelicals.
   
As a student at Gordon-Conwell, I had to learn three new languages: Biblical Greek; Biblical Hebrew; and a code language that I will call “evangelicalese.”
 
In evangelicalese, the phrase: “view of scripture” carries particular weight. On many topics, evangelicals fluent in “evangelicalese” will base their actions and opinions upon “a high view of scripture.”

A “high view of scripture” is that God is the sole source of scripture. Any suggestion that human beings played a part in the origin of scripture is evidence of a “low view of scripture.”

In my seminary years among the evangelicals, I heard a variation of this statement dozens—maybe even hundreds of times: “I would like to support the ordination of women to ministry, but I can’t, because I hold a high view of scripture.” 

Although Mansfield doesn’t use the word “high,” he is clearly contrasting the “evangelical high view of scripture” about the solely divine origin of scripture with the “liberal low view of scripture,” which asserts that human beings might have had some role in the writing of the Bible.

And so, Barack Obama—whose belief in Jesus is the same as “your average evangelical”—has a “view of scripture” that sets him apart from evangelicals. Obama’s belief that “some of it might be of human origin” turns Obama from “evangelical” into “liberal.”

Notice also the contrast between “orthodox evangelicalism” and “traditional theological liberalism.” “Orthodox” is a theological designation of correctness, in contrast to ”traditional theological liberalism,” with its implied “unorthodox” view of scripture.”

(At some point, I’ll explore how a perfectly noble word, “liberal” got such a bad reputation among evangelicals, but that will wait until another day.)

The key point is that Obama’s belief that human beings “might” have played a role in the origin of scripture makes him a theological “liberal with a low view of scripture.” This opinion about the Bible sets him apart from “orthodox evangelical theology” and its dedication to the belief in the Bible as the inerrant, infallible, Word of God.

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

—————————————————————

Do you know that you are the product of all the stories you have learned throughout your life? Most of us try to live with stories that don’t serve us. This is especially true with Bible stories. To find out why most of the Bible stories you learned about Jesus and money are not true, be sure to visit Going Broke With Jesus.

written by Kalinda \\ tags: Barack Obama, Bible, evangelical, Faith of Barack Obama, high view of scripture, inerrant, infallible, Kalinda Rose Stevenson, Obama, scripture, Stephen Mansfield

[This is the continuation of a series of posts beginning with "Should The Bible Be Taught In Public Schools?" about the decision by the Texas State Board of Education to authorize the teaching of an elective course on Bible in public high schools. It brings to the surface just about every question imaginable about the relationship between religion, politics, and the Bible.]

“The National Council of Jewish Women and an individual expressed concern that the vague guidelines under consideration focus on skills, not content, and include no meaningful standards schools can use to teach how the Bible has been influential in history and literature. The individual urged the adoption of clear, specific, and unbiased curriculum standards that promote a respectful study of the Bible and protect the religious freedom of students.”  Comments

The words in this comment that jumped out at me are: “focus on skills, not content.”
 
During my Air Force wife years in Arkansas, when I could not find a job because I had three-strikes against me—married, military, and Yankee—I joined the National Teacher Corps to find something to do with my life other than attend “Officer’s Wives Teas,” “Luncheons,” bake sales, and bridge games. Part of my Teacher Corps experience involved working as an intern in an elementary school in North Little Rock—the first elementary school in the district to be integrated.  

One day, all of the interns were required to attend a teachers’ convention on “reading skills.” We sat in a large auditorium and listened as speaker after speaker went to the podium and droned on and on about reading skills. At one point during a very long afternoon, I looked around the room with this thought in my mind: I wonder if any of these people love to read.

I had similar thoughts years earlier as I listened to my college roommate talk about reading skills. She was an elementary education major and her mother was the reading supervisor for a large school district. Between the two of them, they could talk about reading skills for hours. However, what I soon learned is that neither one of them much liked to read. I never saw my roommate read anything she wasn’t required to read.

And so, whatever “The National Council of Jewish Women and an individual” meant in their comments, I have a real concern about using the Bible as a textbook to teach “skills” in a way that misses the essence of the Bible itself. 

Since my years in Arkansas are on my mind, here is an example of what I mean.

I was in the National Teacher Corps during the school year of 1967-68. On April 4, 1968, Martin Luther King, Jr. was murdered in Memphis.

The night before he died, he gave his last speech, ”I’ve Been To The Mountaintop,” which ended with these words:

And then I got to Memphis. And some began to say the threats, or talk about the threats that were out. What would happen to me from some of our sick white brothers? Well, I don’t know what will happen now. We’ve got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn’t matter with me now. Because I’ve been to the mountaintop. And I don’t mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will. And He’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over. And I’ve seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land. And I’m happy, tonight. I’m not worried about anything. I’m not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord. “I’ve Been To The Mountaintop” 

You can listen to the entire speech here.  (And I defy you to listen without being moved by these words.)

This “I’ve Been To The Mountaintop” speech is probably the best example I know of why knowledge of the Bible is essential for any educated person. These are the words of a black preacher who was immersed in biblical language and imagery. And he is also a man who knew that he was going to die.

The: “I’ve been to the mountaintop” language is a direct reference to Deuteronomy 34:1-5. After years of leading the people of Israel out of Egypt and in the wilderness, Moses goes up to the top of Mount Nebo and sees the “promised land.” 

Then Moses went up from the plains of Moab to Mount Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, which is opposite Jericho, and the LORD showed him the whole land: Gilead as far as Dan, all Naphtali, the land of Ephraim and Manasseh, all the land of Judah as far as the Western Sea, the Negeb, and the Plain—that is, the valley of Jericho, the city of palm trees—as far as Zoar. The LORD said to him, “This is the land of which I swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, saying, ‘I will give it to your descendants’; I have let you see it with your eyes, but you shall not cross over there.”  Then Moses, the servant of the LORD, died there in the land of Moab, at the Lord’s command  (Deuteronomy 34:1-5, New Revised Standard Version.)

Moses saw the “promised land” that he himself would not enter. And King knew that he too would never see the “promised land” of racial equality that he envisioned in his even more famous, “I Have A Dream” speech on August 28, 1963.

How can anyone begin to grasp the power of the civil rights movement as a transformative force in American society who does not locate the motivation for this movement in a biblical vision of justice?

My concern is that “reading skills” teachers will point their students to the connection between King’s words and the reference in Deuteronomy 34 as a literary allusion, but miss the deep religious motivation behind the King’s quest for justice and equality. No one can begin to understand Martin Luther King’s role in the civil rights movement without understanding the place of the Bible in his life. 

And so my deepest concern is that the same type of educational process that can teach reading as a set of skills—without ever teaching students to love reading—will somehow drain the life out of the Bible, as “skills” educators devise guidelines to teach the Bible as simply a sourcebook for literary and historical references.

Once again, I return to the point I made in “Teaching The Bible In Public Schools: The Religious Elephant In The Living Room.” The Bible is a deeply religious book. If it were simply a sourcebook of literary allusions and historical references, no one would care very much if anyone taught it in pubic schools. 

The Bible matters precisely because it matters as a religious book, for good or bad. And it matters that educated people know how much the Bible—as a religious book—has mattered in our collective history.

And so, the challenge remains. How can the Bible be taught as a religious book without turning public schools into Sunday schools? 

I return to my previous assertion: ”It is possible for good teachers to teach the Bible as a religious book without indoctrinating anyone into a particular religious point of view.”

I promise that I will write much more about teaching the Bible in later posts.

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

written by Kalinda \\ tags: Bible, Bible in public schools, civil rights movement, I've Been To The Mountaintop, Jr., Kalinda Rose Stevenson, Martin Luther King, promised land, reading skills, teaching bible in public schools