IMPOLITE TOPICS

Welcome back!

For many of us, there are only two reasons to put both “religion”
and “politics” in the same sentence.

• The first reason involves etiquette in the form of this well-known social warning: “Never discuss religion and politics.” The belief behind this warning is that it is simply not polite. People get passionate about religion and politics. If religion and politics are topics of conversation at the dinner party, people might argue and never get around to oohing and aahing over the dark chocolate mousse with fresh raspberries. So, to save embarrassment for the hostess who went to all that trouble to make the chocolate mousse, polite people keep their political and religious beliefs at home, and talk about safer topics. “How about those Red Sox?” “Did you hear that Bob and Alice are divorcing?” “Can you believe the price of gas?”
• The second reason to put “religion” and “politics” in the same sentence is to claim that religion and politics don’t belong together. After all, we are supposed to have separation of church and state, don’t we? Religion is personal. Politics is public. Religion and politics have nothing to do with each other. Let’s keep them separate.

What about these reasons? I’m all in favor of politeness. In fact, we would probably all be much happier if we went out of our way to be polite and consider how our words and actions affect other people. If keeping your political and religious opinions to yourself will keep you from spoiling the dinner party, then the convention is a good one. But if not talking about religion and politics keeps you silent when you need to speak and powerless when you need to act, then this convention of etiquette needs to be tossed out of the window. Better
to be impolite than silenced and powerless.

What about the idea that religion and politics can and should be kept separate from each other? This notion is actually dangerous. Why dangerous? Because religions are always political and politics are always religious. It is dangerous to pretend that religion and politics are somehow separate because this effort to separate the inseparable blinds us to how much religious politics and political religion affect our lives.

And this raises other questions, which get to the heart of the reason for this blog.

• Why have we been taught to keep silent about religion and politics at the
  risk of offending people?
• Why have we been taught that religion and politics are somehow separate spheres, with very little connection between them?

The basic reason boils down to power and persuasion. The politically and religiously powerful have vested interests in keeping their political and religious power. One of the ways they do this is by teaching people that the religious should not be interested in political power and the politically powerful should not be interested in religion.

So, What Is “Impolite Topics” Blog About?

• It is a place to stop being so polite about these impolite topics of religion and politics, to see how religion and politics are intimately and inseparably related in our world.
• It is about techniques of persuasion as weapons of power. It demonstrates how you are persuaded to believe what you believe. And it also reveals how the powerful benefit from your beliefs.
• It is about religion and politics in the Bible. If you really want to know what the Bible says on any topic, you need to see how the inseparable connection between religion and politics affects every topic in the Bible. (If you want to see how religion and politics affect your bank account, see Going Broke With Jesus.)
• Most of all, “Impolite Topics” is a blog about how the Bible is used in our contemporary world as a tool of persuasion. Words are the most powerful weapons on earth. Words from the Bible are often used to persuade people to be silent and surrender their power.

What Is “Impolite Topics” NOT About?

• It does not challenge belief in God.
• It does not challenge Christian belief in Jesus as the Son of God.
• It does not attempt to prove or disprove the validity of the Bible.
• It does not demean believers or attempt to persuade non-believers.

Who Is “Impolite Topics” For?

This is a place for seekers, who are no longer satisfied with old answers that separate religion and politics.

Our world is constantly in turmoil because of conflicts that are both religious and political. We cannot create solutions for these conflicts if we pretend that religion and politics are somehow separate.

Most of all, this is a place where we can discuss the “Impolite Topics” without being impolite to each other. I invite you to join me in this discussion.

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

written by Kalinda \\ tags: Impolite Topics, Kalinda Rose Stevenson, Kalinda Stevenson, never discuss religion and politics, persuasion, politics, religion, separation of church and state

After years of observation, I have come to this conclusion. The greatest enemy of the Bible is the Bible verse. But why? My conclusion flies in the face of the dominant method of religious education for Sunday schools and churches.

The reason goes back to the adage I learned in my first preaching course in theological seminary.

“A text without a context is a pretext.”

The first fact to recognize is that a Bible verse is an artificial thing. Nothing in the Bible originated as a Bible verse. (In another post, I’ll tell the story of how the Bible got its verses.)

Bible verses were imposed long after books were written, by chopping whole books into little pieces, suitable for memorizing.

So far so good, but then the little buggers took on lives of their own. People forgot the books and focused on the verses. When this happens, the verses become little islands of meaning, totally disconnected from the context around them, the way a desert island is simply a speck of dirt with a few palm trees in the midst of the ocean.

Far too often, especially with children in Sunday school, memorizing Bible verses becomes part of a Bible Trivia game, where children learn Bible verses based on meaningless categories, such as “What is the shortest verse in the Bible?” The correct answer–which will win you a prize–is John 11:35. “Jesus wept.”

Let’s look at this verse. What on earth does “Jesus wept” mean? Did he stub his toe and start to cry because it hurt? Was he cutting onions and his eyes watered? Did his best friend die? How do you know? The only correct answer is: You can’t know from these two words. There is no context for them.

The only way to figure out this verse is to go back to the context of these words. Now it makes more sense. Jesus wept because Lazarus died. But even this is not enough. Why is this story about the death of Lazarus important in the Gospel of John? And so you have to back up farther. And before too long, you realize that this a story full of important topics, such as resurrection from the dead, and you realize you have to read the whole book to begin to understand why Jesus wept.

And when you read all of this, you might begin to think: If there was ever a case of missing the forest for the trees, this is it. Why bother measuring the length of Bible verses when the real issue is life and death?

(By the way, even the idea that this is the shortest verse doesn’t apply to all translations of the Bible. “Jesus wept” is two words in the King James Version. The New Revised Standard Version translates with four words: “Jesus began to weep.”)
 
But you might also be thinking: “Well, of course you have to put this particular verse in context. What about all of the other Bible verses where the meaning is clear?”  The assumption that other verses are clearer is exactly the problem.

In the case of “Jesus wept,” anyone who reads the words knows there is something missing. The real problem with Bible verses comes with other verses that have more words, but no more context. In these cases, people think they know what the words mean, but in fact, they have no more clarity about the meaning than they do with the words, “Jesus wept.”

Here’s an example about money. “Blessed are the poor.”

So what does this mean? You have to be poor to be blessed? (See Going Broke With Jesus, Chapter 8 for more on this particular verse.)

Or let’s get even more controversial. “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord” (KJV, Ephesians 5:22.)

Can you really build an entire biblical understanding of marriage based on these words (which by the way are a substantial mistranslation of Ephesians 5:22? You might be surprised to learn that the word “submit” does not occur in this verse in Greek. Read  Why Ephesians 5:22 Does Not Command Wives To Submit To Their Husbands.)   

How about, “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence” (KJV, 1 Timothy 2:12.)

(I will demonstrate in a later post that the Greek of this verse doesn’t even use the word “authority,” despite the fact that every English translation I know uses the word “authority” in this verse.) 
 
What all of these statements have in common is that they are Bible verses without contexts, and the last two are serious mistranslations. In other words, they have become pretexts, distorting the actual intent of the words in their own biblical contexts.

And now I will make an even starker statement.

Every time you hear someone say, “The Bible says…” about a particular topic…it probably doesn’t.

Nothing–and I mean, nothing–causes more hurt and confusion than religion doled out in Bible verses. Too often, Bible verses become weapons to be used against people, to proclaim that women may not lead, husbands must rule, slaves must submit obediently to their masters, and gays have no place in the church.

You can find Bible verses that seem to proclaim these rules. But when these verses are put into their own contexts, the strident clarity of the Bible verses turns into something else. The verses become pieces of a larger whole. And very frequently, the Bible verse that is so confidently proclaimed as the very word of God turns out to be a distortion of the original intention behind the Bible verse.

And once again, I will mention my experience on my first day of theological seminary. What did my angry inquisitor throw into my face? He hurled a Bible verse.

This what people do. They use Bible verses as if they were rocks, spears, or Uzis. The Bible verses become assault weapons used against people who have no defense, except maybe to quote other Bible verses. Such battles cannot be won. They can only be fought, leaving casualties along the way.

The only way to get beyond such battles is to stop using Bible verses as weapons. And the only way to do that is to put any Bible verse into the context of the larger story, and the story into the context of the book, and the book into the context of the society which produced the story.

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

(My next post will explain how the Bible got its verses.)

written by Kalinda \\ tags: 1 Timothy 2:12, bible verses, blessed are the poor, Ephesians 5:22, Jesus wept, Kalinda Rose Stevenson, Kalinda Stevenson, wives submit to your husbands

For many years, I subscribed to a newspaper that had a “Religion” section once a week. The Religion section was location on the last page or two of the “Home and Garden” section. Some weeks there was only one page, with one or two articles. Other weeks, there were two pages. The articles themselves tended to be human interest stories about religion. These minor articles followed pages devoted to helpful hints about redecorating your house or tending to your rose bushes.

In all of the years I subscribed, I thought that this practice by the newspaper spoke volumes about the ongoing confusion about how to deal with religion in a world shaped by conflicts between religious and secular worldviews. The newspaper had solved the problem by treating religion as a minor topic, suitable for mention once a week, in a section of the paper that was not devoted to real “news.”

In fact, day after day, the newspaper published articles throughout the paper that were religious at the core. But because the editors were not willing to bring religious issues to the forefront, they lost the opportunity on a daily basis to reveal how much religion shapes our lives.

In my next post, I’ll refer to the effort by Tony Blair, former Prime Minister of Great Britain, to demonstrate why religion matters in our world.

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

written by Kalinda \\ tags: Kalinda Rose Stevenson, Kalinda Stevenson, news media, newspapers, religion, religion in the news, Tony Blair

Is the Bible a book?  This is not a trick question. The Bible looks like a book. It has pages the way any other book has pages. It is bound between two covers. It is even called a book. And yet, the idea that the Bible is a book leads to all sorts of misunderstanding about what the Bible really is.

Let’s start with the name. The name “Bible” actually comes from the plural word, “books” in Greek. In Greek, one book is a biblos. More than one book are biblia.

The Bible (biblia) is a collection of writings, more accurately called “the books.”  Within this thing called the Bible, there are collected writings, which are themselves called “books,” such as The “Book of Genesis,” “the Book of Exodus,” “the Book of Leviticus,” and so on.

When they are bound together, all of the separate books are combined into a single document, and are treated as one single book. The benefit is that it gathers all of this material into one single document.

Why is this a problem?  A modern book, written by a single author, is a unified, coherent work. When we think of the Bible as a single book, we lose sight of the fact that it is a collection of writings, over a long period time, in different geographical locations, and even in different languages and dialects.

For most of their existence, the various “books” of the Bible were written on separate scrolls, not onto the pages of a single book.

When we see the Bible as a collection of writings, we are more able to see the differences between the various writings and not try to impose a unified perspective that does not exist in the separate books of the Bible.

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

written by Kalinda \\ tags: Bible, biblia, biblos, books of the Bible, Kalinda Rose Stevenson, Kalinda Stevenson, what is a book

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

If you wonder about the connection between religion, politics, and persuasion, read the story published by the Washington post about Barack Obama.

“Obama rumors fly in Flag City USA,” by Eli Saslow, Washington Post,  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25447998/

The story is not really about Barack Obama, but about persuasion. How do you believe what you believe?   Why do you believe what you believe?  How do you decide what is true and what is false when you are confronted with radically different claims about the same person? 

The central figure of the story is Jim Peterman, who lives in Findlay, Ohio, and doesn’t know what to believe about Barack Obama.

The reason for his confusion is that the news he hears about Barack Obama in the news conflicts with the stories he hears from people he has known for a long time.

The news media say that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and is Christian. The local stories say that he was born in Africa and is a radical Muslim. And just to make the stories juicier, the stories also suggest that Obama might also be gay.

This story demonstrates the power of what is called “social proof.”  It is similar to the old story of the emperor and his new clothes. If “everyone” says it, it must be so. You can be persuaded to believe something contrary to what you see with your own eyes.

“I’ll admit that I probably don’t follow all of the election news like maybe I should,” Peterman said. “I haven’t read his books or studied up more than a little bit. But it’s hard to ignore what you hear when everybody you know is saying it. These are good people, smart people, so can they really all be wrong?”

This story also demonstrates the power of “urban legends.” Urban legends usually have some truth to them, but turn false as they get embellished and told and retold. When urban legends take hold on the internet, they become impossible to kill.

And so Jim Peterman, a man who wants to vote responsibly, is confused by the conflicting stories and is not sure whether he ought to vote or not, because he doesn’t know whom or what to believe. Confused people don’t act. This is another way of saying that Jim Peterman is considering surrendering his power to vote, because he doesn’t know who is telling the truth.

“I don’t know. The whole thing just scares me,” Peterman said. “I’m almost starting to feel like the best choice is not voting at all.”

This is a story worth studying because this is how persuasion and manipulation work. If you have enough people repeating the same story, and if the people who tell the story are people you know and trust, you can be persuaded to deny what you see in front of you.

Jim Peterman is right. It is scary. The real point of this story is not Barack Obama, but all of the rest of us. How do we separate truth from lies, real facts from urban legends?  How do you know when you are being manipulated by lies?  How do you recognize the truth? How often do we surrender our power to act because we don’t know whom or what to believe? 

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

written by Kalinda \\ tags: Barack Obama, Kalinda Rose Stevenson, Kalinda Stevenson, politics, religion, social proof, urban legends

For many of us, there are only two reasons to put both “religion”
and “politics” in the same sentence.

• The first reason involves etiquette in the form of this well-known social warning: “Never discuss religion and politics.” The belief behind this warning is that it is simply not polite. People get passionate about religion and politics. If religion and politics are topics of conversation at the dinner party, people might argue and never get around to oohing and aahing over the dark chocolate mousse with fresh raspberries. So, to save embarrassment for the hostess who went to all that trouble to make the chocolate mousse, polite people keep their political and religious beliefs at home, and talk about safer topics. “How about those Red Sox?” “Did you hear that Bob and Alice are divorcing?” “Can you believe the price of gas?”
• The second reason to put “religion” and “politics” in the same sentence is to claim that religion and politics don’t belong together. After all, we are supposed to have separation of church and state, don’t we? Religion is personal. Politics is public. Religion and politics have nothing to do with each other. Let’s keep them separate.

What about these reasons? I’m all in favor of politeness. In fact, we would probably all be much happier if we went out of our way to be polite and consider how our words and actions affect other people. If keeping your political and religious opinions to yourself will keep you from spoiling the dinner party, then the convention is a good one. But if not talking about religion and politics keeps you silent when you need to speak and powerless when you need to act, then this convention of etiquette needs to be tossed out of the window. Better to be impolite than silenced and powerless.

What about the idea that religion and politics can and should be kept separate from each other? This notion is actually dangerous. Why dangerous? Because religions are always political and politics are always religious. It is dangerous to pretend that religion and politics are somehow separate because this effort to separate the inseparable blinds us to how much religious politics and political religion affect our lives.

And this raises other questions, which get to the heart of the reason for this blog.

• Why have we been taught to keep silent about religion and politics at the risk of offending people?
• Why have we been taught that religion and politics are somehow separate spheres, with very little connection between them?

The basic reason boils down to power and persuasion. The politically and religiously powerful have vested interests in keeping their political and religious power. One of the ways they do this is by teaching people that the religious should not be interested in political power and the politically powerful should not be interested in religion.

So, What Is “Impolite Topics” Blog About?

• It is a place to stop being so polite about these impolite topics of religion and politics, to see how religion and politics are intimately and inseparably related in our world.
• It is about techniques of persuasion as weapons of power. It demonstrates how you are persuaded to believe what you believe. And it also reveals how the powerful benefit from your beliefs.
• It is about religion and politics in the Bible. If you really want to know what the Bible says on any topic, you need to see how the inseparable connection between religion and politics affects every topic in the Bible. (If you want to see how religion and politics affect your bank account, see Going Broke With Jesus.)
• Most of all, “Impolite Topics” is a blog about how the Bible is used in our contemporary world as a tool of persuasion. Words are the most powerful weapons on earth. Words from the Bible are often used to persuade people to be silent and surrender their power.

What Is “Impolite Topics” NOT About?

• It does not challenge belief in God.
• It does not challenge Christian belief in Jesus as the Son of God.
• It does not attempt to prove or disprove the validity of the Bible.
• It does not demean believers or attempt to persuade non-believers.

Who Is “Impolite Topics” For?

This is a place for seekers, who are no longer satisfied with old answers that separate religion and politics.

Our world is constantly in turmoil because of conflicts that are both religious and political. We cannot create solutions for these conflicts if we pretend that religion and politics are somehow separate.

Most of all, this is a place where we can discuss the “Impolite Topics” without being impolite to each other. I invite you to join me in this discussion.

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

written by Kalinda \\ tags: Impolite Topics, Kalinda Rose Stevenson, Kalinda Stevenson, never discuss religion and politics, persuasion, politics, religion, separation of church and state