There Is No Technical fix

A New York Times article, Our Fix-It Faith and the Oil Spill quotes Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press,

Americans have a lot of faith that over the long run technology will solve everything, a sense that somehow we’re going to find a way to fix it.

He cites a 1999 poll in which he says they found us to be "naïvely optimistic about the fruits of technology: 81 percent said there would be a cure for cancer, 76 percent said we would put men on Mars." The article ends with Kohut referring to complaints when an Icelandic volcano sent plumes of ash over the continent, grounding airlines for a week. He said, "The reaction was: ‘Fix this. Fix this. This is outrageous.’" But there was no technical fix. The planes needed to wait until the ash dissipated. Not all our problems can or will have technical solutions.

The problems facing those seeking to master the deep sea oil leak reveals the problem of putting our faith in technology as not all our problems have technical solutions. Turning from such larger matters as volcanos and oil leaks to the more personal, we find folk looking for technical solutions in cosmetic surgery and abuse of alcohol and drugs. Instead of dealing with problems more directly, realistically, we can opt for technical solutions. Here again, there is not always a technical fix, but that does not mean we can get beyond God's redemption.

I am reminded me of a quotation I have shared previously in this space. Albert Rhett Stuart, the Sixth Bishop of Georgia told the techno-tuned folks of 1956,

People are discovering that a life full of gadgets is no satisfactory substitute for a life lived in the power and presence of God.

I am not seeking to minimize the natural disaster taking place deep under the Gulf, but to use this to point beyond the current crisis to the problem of relying on technology to save us in some larger sense, and while redemption is possible, it doesn't come through technology, but in relationship.

peace,
Frank+
The Rev. Frank Logue, Pastor

Social Justice

At The Washington Post and Newsweek's On Faith online forum, the panelists are hitting the recent hot button debate over justice and Christianity in answering

Fox News commentator Glenn Beck claims that faith-based calls for "social justice" are really ideological calls for "forced redistribution of wealth . . . under the guise of charity and/or justice," and that Christians should leave their churches if they preach or practice "social justice."

Rev. Jim Wallis disagrees, saying social justice is a faith-based commitment "to serve the poor and to attack the conditions that lead to poverty," central tents of the teachings of Jesus and at the heart of biblical faith.

Who's right? How does the pursuit of justice fit into your faith? Is 'social justice' an ideology or a theology?

The responses include my friend Rabbi Jack Moline who wrote in part,

Arguing from presumptions about the American form of government and economy about the mandates of the Bible is dishonest, specious and irresponsible. It is also irrelevant. The values taught by the diverse interpretations of religious communities in the United States do not determine, individually or collectively, what kind of government we ought to have. Likewise, American values do not determine the beliefs and practices of diverse communities of faith.

It is irresponsible for a religious figure to lay claim to government policy by dint of his or her faith. It is likewise irresponsible for a self-proclaimed "rodeo clown" to lay claim to understanding of religious teachings by dint of his television ratings.

What is responsible is for each of God's children to take responsibility for a just society and a just world.

Quaker recorded minister Max Carter wrote in part,

Query #41 in Britain Yearly Meeting's book of faith & practice says, "Try to live simply. A simple lifestyle, freely chosen, is a source of strength. Do not be persuaded into buying what you do not need or cannot afford. Do you keep yourself informed about the effects your style of living is having on the global economy and environment?"

I'm not the one to start throwing stones, myself, though. I am among the privileged of the world and have, even on a Quaker educator's salary, more than my share of the earth's wealth. I gladly re-distribute what I have been blessed with - but I should do more. I would hope Glenn Beck does the same, voluntarily, from the enormous wealth he gains from his "bully pulpit." I would hope that his major complaint is about "government mandated" re-distribution of wealth, not about Jesus' advice to a person of wealth in his day seeking advice about gaining "eternal life." Jesus' response? "Go; give all that you have to the poor, and follow me."

Sounds like re-distribution of wealth to me! Maybe Jesus should leave the church.

R. Albert Mohler Jr., President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, offered a nuanced response both conceding the point on justice, while wanting to hold churches accountable if that is their only Gospel. He wrote in part:

As an evangelical Christian, my concern is the primacy of the Gospel of Christ — the Gospel that reveals the power of God in the salvation of sinners through the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. The church's main message must be that Gospel. The New Testament is stunningly silent on any plan for governmental or social action. The apostles launched no social reform movement. Instead, they preached the Gospel of Christ and planted Gospel churches. Our task is to follow Christ's command and the example of the apostles.

There is more to that story, however. The church is not to adopt a social reform platform as its message, but the faithful church, wherever it is found, is itself a social reform movement precisely because it is populated by redeemed sinners who are called to faithfulness in following Christ. The Gospel is not a message of social salvation, but it does have social implications.

Faithful Christians can debate the proper and most effective means of organizing the political structure and the economic markets. Bringing all these things into submission to Christ is no easy task, and the Gospel must not be tied to any political system, regime, or platform. Justice is our concern because it is God's concern, but it is no easy task to know how best to seek justice in this fallen world.

You can read the full statements of any of these writers by clicking on their name in the text above to go to their own full response. All the panelists responses are linked from here: Social Justice.

I agree with Mohler's central argument, if not with all of his text. We are to be all about the Gospel of Jesus. The whole Gospel. So, yes, we are to be about justice. We should not ignore the needs of those around us. The Book of James states it this way:

Judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment. What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? (James 2:13-16)

Justice is something that God will bring about in the fullness of time, but that we are to be about in the meantime as we share the love of God with others. Liberation theology is on to something important in saying that persons of faith should help end oppression and injustice in the here and now.

Yet we must admit that this good theology can become an ideology if we divorce the justice itself from the connection to God whose love for us is what spurs us to reach out in love to others. This is not a political view. This is much more important than the merely political. We should not trade the Good News of Jesus for the news of any political idea or system as it is always a bad trade. In the process, we miss any idea of sin and redemption as well as forgiveness and healing. The shalom of God is not simply a lack of hostility, but health, healing and wholeness and we don't want to lose this theology.

The love of God is broader and deeper than any ideology. I am dancing along the edge of politics to make the apolitical statement that we are to love God with all our hearts and love our neighbors as ourselves, which is always Good News.

That's my take, what's yours?

peace,
Frank+
The Rev. Frank Logue, Pastor

The above fits with my earlier video Jesus Said...Love

Facebook users can find the video here: YouTube—Jesus Said

The Sound of Silence

"For God alone my soul in silence waits."
—Psalm 62:1a

A Salon.com article considers silence in interviewing George Prochnik, the author of, In Pursuit of Silence: Listening for Meaning in a World of Noise. Salon writes,

For most Americans, silence is hard to find these days. Traffic, airplane noise and public transport fill most major cities. Cellphone conversations have taken over the parks and sidewalks, buzzing electronics have invaded our homes, and each store has its own carefully shaped "sonic environment."

Most of us accept these noises as a normal byproduct of our gadget-obsessed times, but in his new book, argues that this barrage of noise is more than just a nuisance; it poses a real threat to our cardiovascular system and mental health, our ability to concentrate, and, perhaps most dangerous of all, it turns our political discourse into a shrill barrage.

The full interview is here: In Pursuit of Silence.

Noise seems omnipresent. Where and how do you find silence? What is its value?

peace,
Frank+
The Rev. Frank Logue
Pursuer of a post-Lent, Post-Easter silence

We need to find God,
and he cannot be found in noise and restlessness.
God is the friend of silence.
See how nature - trees, flowers, grass- grows in silence;
see the stars, the moon and the sun, how they move in silence...
We need silence to be able to touch souls.
—Mother Teresa of Calcutta (1910-1997)

Talk Deeply, Be Happy

Less small talk and more deep discussions about import things. According to one new study, this pattern of conversation is common to those who are happier. Matthias Mehl, a psychologist at the University of Arizona, study, published the study in the journal Psychological Science, which found a correlation between conversations on important topics and happiness.

What one small study can not show is whether talking about the meaning of life leads to happiness or whether it is happier people who spend less time on small talk. So we don't know cause and effect, but we do know that those who struggle with the meaning of life are those who find more meaning in their lives.

Not relying on self reporting, they actually recorded slices of conversation at random over a period of time. The study also did not rely on self-reporting alone with regards happiness, but interviewed persons who knew the subjects. According to a New York Times blog post on the study,

But the happiest person in the study, based on self-reports about satisfaction with life and other happiness measures as well as reports from people who knew the subject, had twice as many substantive conversations, and only one-third of the amount of small talk as the unhappiest, Dr. Mehl said. Almost every other conversation the happiest person had — 45.9 percent of the day’s conversations — were substantive, while only 21.8 percent of the unhappiest person’s conversations were substantive.

In summary, the journal article states,

Together, the present findings demonstrate that the happy life is social rather than solitary, and conversationally deep rather than superficial.

Of course I like the study as I readily agree with the results. I have preached and taught for years that we are created for connectedness. For example, there is this sermon from May 2003, Koinonia—A Deeper Connectedness which uses the writings of Father Maximillian Kolb in comparison to the lead singer of Queen, Freddy Mercury. We were created for communion with God and with one another, so when we, by deeper conversations rather than small talk alone, connect to others we find greater happiness.

That's my take. What do y'all think?

peace,
Frank+
The Rev. Frank Logue, Sometime Deep Conversationlist

In What Way Is God Involved?

How directly involved is God in your personal affairs? The March Journal of Sociology of Religion takes up just this question by way of a survey. Top consider the question, look at the start of this New York Times article, Most Believe God Gets Involved,

,When the “American Idol” judge Simon Cowell recently predicted the departure of the contestant Jermaine Sellers, the young singer shook his head in disagreement. “I know God,’’ he replied, pointing upward.

Two days later, when Mr. Sellers failed to make the cut, he still had faith. “What God has for me is for me,’’ he said. “In God there is no failure.’’

According to Scott Schieman, professor of sociology at the University of Toronto,

The interesting thing is that when you press people to start talking about things like speeding tickets or losing weight, a lot of people will weave a divine narrative in, describing God as somehow setting up situations or setting up scenarios for success or failure.

Pooling data from two large, national surveys, they found:

82 percent of respondents said they “depend on God for help and guidance in making decisions.”

71 percent believe that good or bad events are “part of God’s plan for them.’’

One in three respondents agreed with the statement: “There is no sense in planning a lot because ultimately my fate is in God’s hands.”

As for me, I absolutely agree that I depend on God for help and guidance. I believe that not all things good and bad are God's plan, but that people by free will can do things that are not what God willed, yet God will work all things together for the good. So I therefore think that I should make plans, but include God in the planning, asking for God's will rather than mine.

That's where I come down on this. How about y'all?

peace,
Frank+
The Rev. Frank Logue, Pastor

In Peru, Evangelism is Ducky

Bill Godfrey, the Anglican Bishop of Peru writes for an Anglican Communion Evangelism and Church Growth Initiative Newsletter,

“Bishop, thirty ladies have given their life to Jesus.” Norma, a deacon, calls me in excitement. It wasn’t an ‘evangelistic campaign’, but a duck rearing project in the extreme poverty of Lima’s shanty towns. It’s a three month course for 90 women. It aims to improve nutrition for their families (protein from meat and eggs, or added income if they’re sold), raise self-esteem, and enable learning to work together.

Often one of the first questions to Norma and her helpers is, “Are you nuns?” “No, we’re married and have children.” Over the weeks the women discover the team are inspired by faith, but the issue’s not pushed. By the end of the course, however, there’ll be prayers, for their families and the sick, open conversation about faith, and all in the most natural way.

We believe social outreach and the proclamation of the Gospel go hand in hand. This practical project is good news for the women and very often changes lives. It could be any project, but in this case it’s ducks and faith in Jesus. Gospel -good news- was the word chosen by the apostles as the best way of describing Jesus, what he taught and what he did. There is no conflict between the two. Serving others and the proclamation of Christ’s name belong together. “If I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have set you an example... (Jn.13:14-15). To him be the glory.

Sharing faith is to be a natural act, the way one shares a good book, movie or recipe. If God is doing good things in your life, how can you not share it? This is evangelism. The project above works because the duck initiative is for the purpose of raising income, self-esteem and a sense of community and has the side-benefit of sharing faith. If the duck project were ruse, a front for an evangelism campaign, then it wouldn't ring true to the participants. That's my take anyway. What do you think?

peace,
Frank+
The Rev. Frank Logue, E-evangelist


Bishop Godfrey, at right, at a baptism in the River Chillón, Peru

Atheists Pastoring Christian Flocks?

"The world needs and expects believing priests."

This rather self-evident statement was made to the clergy of the Diocese of Georgia by then Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey at a clergy conference at Honey Creek. I agrre and can say as clearly as possible that I know in my bones and it does not contradict what I know with my brain, that there is a God who made us, loves us and wants to redeem us. I believe the Bible that we read here each week and try to pattern my life to follow its teachings. I do not have to cross my fingers when saying the Nicene and Apostle's Creed.

George Carey went further though. He said, “Do I doubt? Of course. Every thinking person doubts. The opposite of faith is not doubt, but certainty.” Carey said doubts and uncertainties can be God’s spirit leading us beyond the lesser truths where we have stopped along the way to a fuller understanding of who God is and how God acts in our lives. He went on to say that the faith we should have then is an active faith not afraid of working through doubts and uncertainties to greater truth. I also agree and in my ministry have tried to encourage folks not to pack doubts away, but to ask questions, find answers, using the doubts learn and grow.

I mention all of that because I ran across two newspaper articles that caught my attention. Religion News Service article tells that a regional body has reviewed the case and determined that a self-proclaimed atheist can continue to serve as a local pastor of the Protestant Church in the Netherlands. Pastor Klaas Hendrikse first made news with his 2007 book, Believing in a God That Does Not Exist: The Manifesto of an Atheist Pastor in which he said that God does not exist, but refers to God instead as "happening." The article, Dutch Aethist Pastor Won't Face Discipline quotes the pastor as saying he has reached a goal and is "very satisfied with the result."

In Australia, there is news of a Roman Catholic priest not being removed from the priesthood, but being forced out of his Brisbane Church in the article Priest Doesn't Believe in God from the Rockhamption, Australia paper The Morning Bulletin. That article quotes the priest, Peter Kennedy, as saying,

He doesn’t believe in the priesthood anymore, nor the virgin birth, nor the infallibility of the Pope. In fact, he doubts that Jesus ever existed and although he is the spiritual leader of a 500-strong Christian community, he says he no longer prays because there’s 'no one to pray to.'

His church was large by Australian standards with 500 members, and was growing at the time he was forced out.

I find it sad that these Christians leaders became unbelievers and continued in the pastoral and preaching roles. And I am certainly not lashing out against their denominations as retired bishop John Shelby Spong of The Episcopal Church has published similar and if we went poking around, I am sadly confident we could find others who have come not to believe who continue as pastors in most denominations. But to do so would take a look at the heart, which only the Holy Spirit can do rightly.

I wish they would find it within to go sell shoes or something. If your doubts have overpowered you, find another way to make a living so that the life-changing, life-giving message of the Gospel can be proclaimed.

That's my take. What do y'all think.

peace,
Frank
A convinced Christian, trying to live it out best I can

Genetic Testing for the Masses

The New York Times reports in the article Firm Brings Gene Tests to Masses that it can help eradicate 100 diseases through genetic testing. The company takes DNA from two prospective parents and tells them if they are both carriers for diseases including cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs, spinal muscular atrophy, sickle cell disease and Pompe disease (featured in the new movie "Extraordinary Measures" which is giving this company extraordinary publicity). If both parents are carriers, there becomes a one in four chance that a child will have the disease.

The next step for the would-be parents is then to use in vitro fertilization, testing each embryo before implantation to discard any that have the disease. I'm no Ludite, but this sort of unbridled use of genetic testing is scary. Not only is the technology untested, but the end result of parents going through expensive tests as a part of an already costly fertilization process means that the wealthy or the willing to go in to debt now have a high tech means to accomplish the deplorable practice from ancient times of leaving undesirable babies exposed to the elements.

I don't know and can't pretend to know the emotional toll raising a child with an inherited disease like the ones tested takes on a family. Alleviating that suffering would seem to be worth a great dollar cost for those who could afford it. But this process of elimination means to get the right baby seems to solve the problem of suffering with yet more suffering. The DNA testing will create heightened anxiety for prospective parents and lead to sure pain and loss as a means to prevent the possibility of problems. I say the gains are too small. The emotional cost is too high. What do you think?

peace,
Frank+
The Rev. Frank Logue, Pastor

Having Your Cake and NOT Eating It Too

There's an interesting blog post at BeliefNet, Reason, Religion and Moral Behavior where writer Rod Dreher concludes:

Religion that engages the emotions, and trains them to react in particular ways, will be more likely to get better behavior out of its adherents than a religion lightly held, and that makes fewer demands on those who profess it. It's an obvious point, I suppose, but there appears to be scientific data showing that people whose religious faith trains their emotions to respond and conform to a particular behavioral code will be more successful at convincing people to live out its moral teachings than a religion that remains mostly analytical/cerebral, or that doesn't bury itself deeply in the "heart" (= a metaphor for the emotional part of the brain).

Given that we live in a world in which the conscious brain is overwhelmed by information and stimuli as like never before, forming the emotional brain to give the morally correct response to problems presented it is perhaps more important than ever for parents and religious educators. This information also suggests strongly that reason, while important to moral behavior, is not nearly as important as emotional instinct.

He makes a case for why traditions that include some training in denial (more the Orthodox emphasis on fasting, than our keeping of Lent) can benefit your brain. You can read the full text of his post here: Reason, Religion and Moral Behavior.

Equally important is to read the article that started his own thinking. It's the National Public Radio story Willpower and the Slacker Brain which reveals the neurological reasons why you have trouble making some choices. For example, they show why having to hold a longer phone number in memory can make you more likely to choose chocolate cake over fruit. There's also the link to the dizzying array of Crayola choices that lead to Crayola's law, which is that their number of color options doubles every 28 years...and this is not a good thing.

I found the BeliefNet blog post and the two attached NPR articles to be thought-provoking reads. Enjoy!


Crayola options from 1903 to 2010.

And if you still remain unconvinced that we live with too many choices, take a look at this video clip from Borat in an American grocery store. It gives you brain freeze to think of the choices we face. I think I'll go have chocolate cake.

Pope Blesses Blogging

Pope Benedict XVI has issued a message The Priest and Pastoral Ministry in a Digital World in which he encourages the use of new media to spread the timeless message of the love of God. He writes in part,

The development of the new technologies and the larger digital world represents a great resource for humanity as a whole and for every individual, and it can act as a stimulus to encounter and dialogue. But this development likewise represents a great opportunity for believers. No door can or should be closed to those who, in the name of the risen Christ, are committed to drawing near to others. To priests in particular the new media offer ever new and far-reaching pastoral possibilities, encouraging them to embody the universality of the Church’s mission, to build a vast and real fellowship, and to testify in today’s world to the new life which comes from hearing the Gospel of Jesus, the eternal Son who came among us for our salvation. At the same time, priests must always bear in mind that the ultimate fruitfulness of their ministry comes from Christ himself, encountered and listened to in prayer; proclaimed in preaching and lived witness; and known, loved and celebrated in the sacraments, especially the Holy Eucharist and Reconciliation.

Pope Benedict strikes that balance I find important that both acknowledges the gifts of what he calls the new "agora," referring to the places of open assembly in ancient Greece, and states clearly that humans must still interact in person.

Obviously, I find it worth continuing my daily blog posts, which for a year or so now autoload to my Facebook page as notes as well as appearing at Irenic Thoughts. And as you are reading this, you must find value as well. But what is the downside of eMinistry? What do hear from those who shun the digital agora? What problems do you see?

peace,
Frank+
The Rev. Frank Logue, Pastor

Near Death Experiences

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Christians flock to worship amid attacks

Use of the word "Allah" for God by Christian churches in Malayasia led to attacks against churches with nine buildings damaged (with no injuries to people yet). Now, an article from the Ecumenical News International, reports that the Christians in Malaysia are worshipping in greater numbers.

The Rev. Hermen Shastri, the general secretary of the Council of Churches of Malaysia, said "People's faith is greater than what's happening around [them] so they continue to go to church and pray for themselves as well as for the nation."

The article goes on to say that,

About 60 percent of Malaysia's 26 million-population is Muslim. The rest are Buddhists (19 percent), Christians (nine percent), Hindus (six percent), Sikhs and other faiths.

Adherents of minority religions have expressed concern in recent years that the country is becoming "Islamized" following a series of court decisions and government laws that minority groups have said impede on their freedom to worship.

The Malaysian government has appealed against a court decision to allow non-Muslims to use the word "Allah" for God after a judge earlier this month cleared the way for a Catholic newspaper to use the word in its Malay-language edition and determined that the word "Allah" was not exclusive to Muslims.

The court decision was criticized by Muslim groups, who have expressed concern that allowing the word "Allah" to be used by other religious groups would encourage proselytizing of Muslims to convert them to Christianity and other faiths.

Pray for Christians in Malaysia.

Blasphemy

There is a law in Ireland, which too effect with this new year that makes blasphemy illegal, with a punishment up to $35,000. Specifically the statute names as violating the law anyone who "publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion."

To flaunt the law, a website called Atheist Ireland has published 25 Blasphemous Quotes. Bishop N.T. Wright of Durham, England has written in response:

My view has been, and remains, that though a case can be made for offending public scruples -- on all sorts of issues, not only 'religious' ones, and especially when the 'public' concerned are a minority — there is something deeply self-contradictory about defending the God revealed in Jesus Christ in this way. Jesus, after all, refused to defend himself, spoke severely to his closest aide when the latter tried to defend him with force, and then allowed himself to be publicly humiliated, beaten up, tortured, mocked and crucified. Who are WE then to defend HIM?

Of course there should be standards in public life but as I say they apply much more widely. The 'blasphemy' charge -- which interestingly was what the Chief Priests accused Jesus himself of! -- is inappropriate precisely because of the nature of who Christians believe God actually is. This, ironically, might be a point at which Christians reveal that the God they worship and the incarnate Lord they profess to follow are radically different from some other gods. As the First World War poet Edward Shillito put it:

The other gods were strong; but thou wast weak;
They rode, but thou didst stumble, to a throne;
But to our wounds, only God's wounds can speak,
And not a god has wounds, but thou alone.

Beware of defending Jesus, lest you make him an idol in the image of your own dreams of power and control.

(You might like to know that I argued this case in a speech in the House of Lords a year or two ago, to the amazement and anguish of some of my right-wing friends who assumed that I, being known as a 'conservative' theologically, would have stood up for the blasphemy laws, especially granted that it's the atheists who are opposing them. I pointed out that it is precisely because of my 'conservative' theology — taking the Bible seriously, taking the incarnation and cross seriously — that I made this point.)

I have written of blasphemy previous here: Breaking our false images to discover God. What do you think of blasphemy laws?

peace,
Frank+
The Rev. Frank Logue, Pastor

Executing a New Method for the Death Penalty

This week, an Ohio prisoner was put to death using a new form of lethal injection. Cleveland's The Plain Dealer reports on it here Kenneth Biros becomes first inmate executed using single-drug method. Rather than using the three-drug cocktail more commonly in use, the 51-year old convicted murderer was put to death with five grams of thiopental sodium, used in smaller doses by veterinarians to euthanize animals. It took about 30 minutes for a half dozen attempts to find a suitable vein.

The new drug worked and within nine minutes, Briros was dead. His final statement made just before he was put to death was:

I'm sorry from the bottom of my heart. And I want to thank my friends and family that helped me and supported me and believed in me," he said.

Now I'm being paroled to my father in Heaven and get to spend all of my holidays with my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Peace be with you all. Amen.

While I appreciate Ohio's attempt to provide for a painless method of execution, I remain opposed to the death penalty no matter the method used. I was once a strong proponent of executions for a variety of reasons, including its serving as a deterrent to crime, giving closure to survivors, and reducing cost to the state to maintain a criminal for life without parole. I have come to oppose the death penalty for two main reasons: 1) Sometimes we are wrong, and 2) Vengeance belongs to God alone.

Opposition to the Death Penalty
The bare possibility that someone could be put to death wrongly is enough to give me pause altogether. I add the part about God and vengeance as I also feel that those who commit heinous crimes should be given what their victims were not granted, time to make peace with God. A life spent behind bars with the crimes on one's conscience would be tough on those with a conscience (admittedly not all). We can always hope for a conversion within prison, which would not alter the decision of the state in terms of the punishment, but could open the door to lasting peace not otherwise possible. With life without parole, the survivors can have a semblance of closure, crime is deterred to the degree it is by the death penalty and even the cost of maintaining a criminal in prison is less than the seemingly endless appeals for those on death row.

The Sopranos and Repentance
My favorite episode of The Sopranos is the episode "second opinion" in season three in which mafia boss Tony Soprano's wife, Carmella, sees a therapist who says she needs to separate herself from Tony's "blood money." The straight-talking therapist tells her that he needs to go to prison and spend some years reading Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment while he repents of his sins. I know this is an ideal and many convicted criminals would not spend the time in reflection and repentance, but would get in further trouble within the institution. But the state is not accountable for whether the inmate repents. The state is accountable for its role in executions. I feel that true justice waits on God and that earthly justice can be meted out without the death penalty.

The Test case
So let me take on the test case offered by those who favor the death penalty: What if we were considering what to do with someone whose heinous crime was against my wife and daughter instead of against a 22-year old woman living in Ohio as in this case? Wouldn't I want to do violence rather than counsel mercy? Of course I would. There remains enough redneck flowing through my veins (a proud distinction by the way) that I would want something much worse than a life behind bars. Of course, I would want vengeance. But the state should restrain this desire, not take part in it.

Full Disclosure
Full disclosure is also in order. My great grandfather was shot to death by his brother-in-law and my great grandmother testified at his murderer's trial for mercy, which the court granted. The family did not all agree and hired someone to kill the man who killed their relative. By the time the dust cleared, the sheriff was also dead and the state of South Carolina had put my great-great aunt and great-great uncle to death (in the electric chair pictured here) along with the man they hired. A great uncle was also sentenced to death and had that sentence commuted by the governor in a last minute appeal. That story is covered here: The Meeting Street Murders and also here: 1943: Sue Logue, George Logue and Clarence Bagwell and various other places on the Internet. I also have a step-brother-in-law and a parishioner both serving life without parole. So perhaps my views on the death penalty are influenced by these experiences as well as what I cite above.

What do you think?
I know this is a very controversial topic and many who share my faith will not share my strongly held views on the death penalty. But I prefer the state dispenses just sentences in prison and stops its role as executioner. What do you think?

peace,
Frank+
The Rev. Frank Logue, Pastor

The Nativity and The White House

I was pleased to see my friend/mentor/rabbi Jack Moline chiming in as one asked to respond to a question at the On Faith online forum run by The Washington Post and Newsweek. I was a student of Rabbi Moline's at Virginia Theological Seminary where he taught a course on Judaism and he has provided ongoing support to me as I have needed to provide pastoral support to Jews in Camden County.

Rabbi Moline was asked to write in response to a discussion on a Nativity Scene being displayed by the Obamas in the East Room of the White House. This is not in their private quarters, but in the public part of the building.

Rabbi Moline (pictured here) wrote It's about the Constitution saying

The members of the Obama family ought to be able to observe their own faith traditions as they choose in their private residence. In the public areas of the White House, however, every American ought to feel at home, not a guest. The display of a creche makes a religious statement and is as out of place as...well, as a chanukkiyah (menorah) that is kindled according to Jewish ritual requirements.

I am not a person who believes that my religious freedoms are endangered by the sight of a tree or a devotional tableau. This question is not about "what harm could it do"—the answer is, "not much." Instead, the question has to do with what is consistent with the principles of the Constitution, and a creche in the East Room of the White House isn't.

Rabbi Moline's response is clear and reasonable. However, I do not completely agree with him on the distinction between the public and private areas of the building, as the whole building does reflect the President and functions as a residence in terms of welcoming visiting dignitaries as well as closer family and friends. I therefore think naming a display in the public part of The White House a constitutional issue goes a bit too far.

When a Jewish president is elected, I would expect the official residence might reflect the seasons of the Jewish year and would expect a seder in the public area of The White House, not just in the private residence. And with the Obamas in The White House, a creche is not inappropriate. No violation of the constitution occurs when one religion is preferred over another in the President's official residence/office any more than when the first family decides which church to attend. The constitution is violated when one religion is preferred over another in the public sphere so as to make it the established religion of state. Our great nation has good cause to steer a wide berth around establishing any form of religion as the religion of state. I just don't think this crosses that line.

That said, I serve as a pastor in a Christian church and not as the rabbi of a Jewish synagogue. My own view may be skewed by being a part of the religion which enjoyes the majority of the public sphere. So, I do listen to my rabbi's words and wonder who has it right here. What we would think if we were Father Moline and Rabbi Logue? The rest of the On Faith responses are online here A Crèche in The White House?.

What do y'all think?

peace,
Frank+
The Rev. Frank Logue, Rabbi Moline's secret agent in Georgia

PS: Another take on this with background information on how the creche (used in the East Wing since 1967) nearly got politically-corrected out of The White House see GetReligion.org's Obama Dodges a 'Christmas Wars' Bullet and for a full report on The White House's Christmas theme of Reflect, Rejoice, Renew, see Washington Spaces blog's White House Decorations Unveiled: Reflect, Rejoice, Renew.

Islam and the Fort Hood Shootings

Over at Newsweek and The Washington Post their On Faith Forum is discussing "What effect will the Fort Hood shootings have on the American public's perception of Islam?"

Rabbi Brad Hirschfeld wrote in part,

With 13 dead, 30 wounded and a Muslim officer who shouted 'Allahu Akbar' as he opened fire on them, we must do three things: first, most importantly, we must care for the injured, support their families, and comfort the mourners. Second, we must fight all efforts to use this tragedy to cast aspersions upon an entire tradition and all of its followers. And third, we, and more importantly those followers, must ask tough questions about the relationship between the faith which the shooter, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, followed and the actions which he took.

The human issues really are job one. And the test of that commitment will be in the way which people not only reach out to the families of the victims, but also to the Hasan family as well. They too, by all accounts, are victims. There is no evidence that they supported Maj. Hasan in his terrorist attack, and they are among the most vulnerable to any potential backlash which may occur. While the military and the FBI will certainly continue to investigate all aspects of this case, including Hasan's family, until we know otherwise, they too deserve our compassion and concern....

All this having been said however, when a man commits mass murder and shouts 'God is great' as he does so, hard questions must be asked. And the place they must be asked the most, is where they seemed to be asked least i.e. the community from which the murderer came. It's not enough to say that this was the work of a lone madman, or that this "has nothing to do with Islam". None of us operates in a vacuum and clearly for Maj. Hasan it did.

Collective guilt is never appropriate, but collective responsibility always is. In fact, it is the hallmark of any ethical community.

The full text of his response is online here: For God's Sake

Muslim and 25 million record selling pop star Salman Ahmad wrote

The Qur'an teaches us that "Killing one person is like killing the whole of humanity and saving one person's life is like saving all of humanity". Obviously the solitary shooter's disturbed and tormented mind could not grasp that clear and unequivocal edict to treat all people with compassion and mercy.

His full response is here: Act of One man, Not an Act of Faith

The rest of the panelists responses are online here: What effect will the Fort Hood shootings have on the American public's perception of Islam?

I think it is a given that the attacks have already damaged public perception of Islam. I hate to see Christianity as a whole tainted by the acts of the few and so feel sympathy for those who will be prejudiced in the eyes of others all the more because of the Fort Hood attack.

I have no doubt that there are many Muslims who do abhor this act of violence. I am sorry that this one man's actions put a burden on the backs of Muslims in America. Yet, though it is faulty reasoning to see the actions of the one as representative of the many, the burden does (as the Rabbi writing above states it) fall to those many to repudiate the actions in word and deed and so to show Islam in America to be a religion of peace. That's my take. What do you think?

peace,
Frank+
The Rev. Frank Logue, Pastor

Tear Down the Walls of Division

When you hear of Baptist burning Bibles, you know something is wrong with the story. And now that I have discovered what is happening, it just strengthens my resolve to work with my fellow Christians. After all, there is only one Jesus, yet, with so many, seemingly irreconcilable ideas on how to follow Him you would never guess we Christians are all on the same team.

This issue of the differences among us hit home for me a few days ago. I read of Amazing Grace, an independent Baptist Church in Canton, North Carolina, that is hosting a Bible burning on October 31. I know well that my brothers and sisters in Christ who attend Baptist churches love the Word of God. I share that deep love for the Bible. That’s why the story of this 14-member church got my attention.

It turns out that the congregation is one that adheres to the 1611 Kings James Version only. That’s not a problem for me as most of the scripture I know by heart I know in the words of that very version. And while I do not agree with those who see that translation as the only English version which carries the authority of God, I certainly understand their love of that translation.

But for that congregation’s pastor, Marc Grizzard, other translations such as the New International Version are “satanic” and “perversions” of the true Word of God. So his church will be burning other translations of the Bible on Halloween. They will also toss in the flames Christian books by authors they consider heretical. Their list of heretics includes the Revs. Billy Graham and Rick Warren. And their list of heretical music includes southern Gospel and contemporary Christian music.

I want to be clear that I defend the pastor’s right to hold to the 1611 King James Version and to not listen to or advise others to listen to contemporary Christian music. But I will admit to taking exception to his rounding up Bibles and Christian music, naming them satanic and casting them into the fire.

The main reason I care is that this sort of thing could give non-Christians the wrong idea. Those who have not yet come to faith in Jesus Christ could use this Bible burning, a decidedly fringe event in Christianity, as yet another way to show how we Christians are so deeply divided. And while I will acknowledge divisions within the one flock who is following Jesus, I also know that which joins us together is so much stronger than that which would divide us.

The same week in which I read of bonfire plans in North Carolina, I also met with a diverse group of Christian men. I am taking part in an upcoming Kairos weekend at D. Ray James Prison in Folkston. Kairos is an ecumenical program bringing together folks of a variety of denominations to work together to open the hearts of those in prison to the freeing and life-giving Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I have attended two Kairos team meetings so far and have been mightily blessed from better getting to know Christian men from a variety of churches. We are Baptist, Methodist, Church of God of Prophecy, Catholic, Episcopal, and more. There are certainly many practices of the Christian faith which could divide us. But we share a desire to follow Jesus who taught us that to visit someone in prison, is as if we are visiting Jesus himself (Matthew 25:36).

For a Kairos team, we set aside some practices of the faith which matter to us (such as communion and baptism) knowing that these are areas of disagreement. Instead, we trust that those important matters will follow. But first we come together to share that which completely unites us and that is sharing the love that Jesus first freely shared with us.

From nearly a decade of serving in Camden County, I know of the many ways in which churches work together. There is the inspiring Christmas for Camden Kids program and then other groups like Habitat for Humanity and Missions for Camden, all of which run because Christians of various denominations come together to make these important ministries happen.

There is a joke told about two Christian working together in disaster relief and coming to really enjoy one another’s company and to see Christ in each other. As they part, the one man says, “You know, I don’t know about the others in your denomination, but you are all right by me.” The second man replies, “I feel the same. So why don’t you keep worshipping God in your way and I will keep worshipping God in His way.”

The joke makes the point, that we even when we agree there will still be things which divide us. Yet, I think that is a gift to be received rather than a problem to be solved. After all, God created us as unique persons with a variety of abilities and interests. And so, there will naturally be a variety of ways in which people feel called to live into their common faith.

When we tear down the walls of division between our churches, we don’t have to give up on the particular beliefs or worship styles meaningful to us. We are all free to still worship in the ways we feel God has called us to worship. We also don’t have to give up on matters of doctrine we consider essential. Yet, we should acknowledge, the more walls of division we tear down, the more inviting Christianity becomes to those who remain outside the faith.

Jesus prayed for exactly this. One the night before he died, Jesus asked God the Father, to make us one. He prayed, “Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (John 17:20).

The walls of division among Christians make it more difficult to non-Christians to come to believe in Jesus. And the more we tear down those walls and work together to share the love of God, the more the Kingdom of God is made a present reality.

The above is my religion column for today's issue of the Tribune & Georgian.

peace,
Frank+
The Rev. Frank Logue, Pastor

"Heretics Like Billy Graham"

The 14-member Amazing Grace Baptist Church in Canton, North Carolina has gotten a lot of ink and air time this past week. The church is planning a Bible burning on Halloween to destroy what it calls "Satanic Bibles" which refers to any translation, but the orginal King James Version. Even the New King James will be tossed in the flames. The group will laso burn other Christian books by writers it considers to be heretics, which includes Billy Graham, Mother Teresa and Rick Warren. Not stopping there, the congregation will also burn "Satan's music" which includes southern Gospel and contemporary Christian music.

One news article quoted Pastor Grizzard saying that "the Scriptures shall be interpreted according to their normal grammatical-historical meaning, and all issues of interpretation and meaning shall be determined by the preacher." You can also hear him for yourself in the video embeded above.

I know that any preacher in an independent church has no accountability and can become their own dictatorial pope. There is simply too much room to go off the rails. It's one of the things I like about denominations, even if the words "Institutional Church" should be an oxymoron. There is at least some accountability. Don't believe me? try planning a Bible Burning in a more hierarchical denomination (Methodist, Episcopal, Lutheran, etc.) and see what happens to the pastor. Even in a more congregational church, which is in a denomination, there will be a reaction.

Yet, this church is not simply wrong, but they are damaging the faith. The harm comes in gaining the sort of broad publicity (and yes I know I am adding to that) which turns off those who admire Jesus and might want to find out more about Him, if it weren't for the assorted nuts (me included) who are Christians. Gandhi reportedly said, "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." When I read stories like this one, I tend to agree with him.

I don't really care if Pastor Grizzard doesn't want to own or read The New Living Translation. I just wish he wouldn't drag down the faith I know can transform lives for the better with a stunt like the one they have planned.

peace,
Frank+
The Rev. Frank Logue, Pastor

Assisted Suicide

Physician-assisted suicide, assisted suicide, euthanasia are names attached to the debate over whether terminally ill persons have the right to be assisted in ending their own lives. Some countries make legal, the open assistance in ending the life of terminally ill persons at the patient's request. These include Switzerland, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, where there are a variety of legal steps to assure the legal option is not abused. A summary of laws around the world is found here World Laws on Euthanasia.

In the United States, 341 Oregon residents used that state's Death with Dignity law to have an assisted suicide death in the laws first ten years of existance according to Oregon's state website.

A news article at London-based Religious Intelligence notes changing views in England where a recent poll in The Times showed 74 per cent those surveyed want to permit doctors to assist terminally ill people in ending their own lives. England's Royal College of Nursing also changed its official position in opposition to assisted suicide to take on an officially ‘neutral position.’

The Religious Intelligence article states,

Two principles are likely to sway the debate. On the one side there is the sanctity of human life and the fear that if assisted suicide is permitted under certain clearly defined circumstances we will find ourselves on a slippery slope leading to a situation where old and vulnerable people who sense that they have become a burden to others will feel obliged to put an end to their lives. It is not hard to see a precedent in the way reform of the abortion law led to abortion on demand.

On the other side is the great modern creed of human autonomy. Individuals, it is argued, have the right to self-determination and this must include the right to take away their own life. We live in a society that emphasises freedom of choice. It is not surprising that doctors should be criticised for showing ‘therapeutic zeal’ and ignoring the wishes of their patients in battling against death.

One of the difficulties Christians face in the debate is how to put forward their own point of view in such a way that will appeal to fellow citizens who do not share their faith. Professor Nigel Biggar has provided an excellent discussion from a Christian perspective in his book Aiming to Kill. There he suggests that the value of human life lies not in the freedom to decide value but ‘in the freedom to acknowledge and decide the value that is given by God’....

Euthanasia and assisted suicide become acceptable when people fail to see any objective value in human life and assume it has only the worth we choose to assign it. Without belief in God, it is difficult to see how anyone can give objective value to human life.

I believe that our lives are in God's hands and that we are called to be faithful unto death, even inthe midst of great suffering. That is not easy to ask of others, and yet I see no Christian basis for supporting euthanasia. All I see is the slippery slope of what would follow from making assisted suicide legal.

That's my take. What's yours?

peace,
Frank+
The Rev. Frank Logue, Pastor

Religion in public schools?

The On Faith forum for Newsweek and The Washington Post is asking their panelists about the Texas Board of Education deciding how to characterize religion's influence on American history as the K-12 curriculum is revised. As the second largest public school textbook buyer, a lot of eyes are watching their choice On Faith states that several consultants have recommended "emphasizing the roles of the Bible, Christianity and civic virtue of religion." They ask,

As America's children go back to school, how would you advise the Texas board? How should religion be taught in public schools?

Columnist Chuck Colson writes,

Professor George P. Landow, from my alma mater, the very liberal Brown University, said, "[Without the Bible] it's like using a dictionary with one-third of the words removed." Professor Ulrich Knoepflmacher at Princeton said that the lack of "Bible knowledge is almost crippling in students' ability to be sophisticated readers."

American Baptist pastor Willis Elliott observes the irony that religion has made a comeback in Russian schools, but not American ones. While Rabbi Brad Hirschfield writes seeking a middle ground,

Most Americans are somewhere in the middle on this issue, as we are on most of the so-called hot button issues. We know, even if we are believers, that there is a difference between teaching about the history of religion in America and preaching the Gospel to a captive audience of children in our nation's classrooms. Most people would like to see the former and reject the latter. But they need leaders who will advocate for that sane middle ground which neither turns teachers into preachers nor ignores the role of religion in general or Christianity in particular, as crucial to our shared history.

I think that the rabbi is right in his middle ground approach. I also agree with Colson that learning the language and stories of the Bible make any one in the West better able to understand the ongoing conversation in literature and philosophy that springs from the Bible.

To bridge that gap, I advocate for private schools to fill that void. I am a product of a private Christian school and King of Peace is working to create a private school that builds on the proven success of our preschool. This gives parents, who choose to do so, a quality education that unapologetically includes a religious dimension. Public schools must limit their treatment of any faith to the approach Hirschfield describes. But private schools can provide a high quality of education, which includes familiarity with the Bible in a way not possible in public education. That's my take. What's yours?

peace,
Frank+
The Rev. Frank Logue, President
King of Peace Episcopal Day School