I am a Christian Too

At the Path to Action conference I enjoyed meeting some people I already knew well from the blogosphere, and others whose blogs I wasn’t aware of but will be adding to my regular blog reading:

Jo Guldi, activist, conference organizer, and hallway recruiter-of-panelists

Kety Esquivel, organizer of the progressive Christian site CrossLeft and its new webzine

Helen Thompson, aka Gallycat

Salty Vicar

Sarah Dylan, aka Sarah Laughed

Public Theologian and Christian Alliance for Progress co-founder Rev. Tim Simpson

I also had the pleasure of meeting many other speakers and attendees, including quite a few from the All Saints contingent. Thank you all for making the conference so enjoyable and enriching!

Update: I knew I’d forget someone! Apologies to Br. Karekin, aka PunkMonkSF.

It’s late, and I’m tired after a great couple days in Washington D.C., but I’m going to post some highlights from the Path to Action conference.

First, an observation regarding the attendees to the conference. Since it’s sponsored by several Episcopalian organizations, I expected the Episcopalians would have a strong showing. However, I’m surprised at just how few attendees are here from other denominations. There is a wide diversity among the speakers and panelists, which include not only speakers from other Christian denominations, but also a Jew and an atheist — very commendable.

So why aren’t there more attendees from outside the ECUSA? Where are the Presbyterians, the Methodists, the UCCers, and yes, someone besides me from the ELCA? I understand attempts were made to market the conference more broadly, but they were unsuccessful. I hate to conclude that it’s denominational chauvinism, a reticence to attend an event outside one’s own denominational comfort zone, but I don’t know what else to think.

Progressive Christians from the mainline denominations need to come together. We don’t have to abandon our cherished denominational traditions and theological particulars to come together as Christians with a common cause. (And btw, I have felt entirely at home here among my Episcopalian brothers and sisters in Christ.)
(more…)

A quick couple of links to some items that are worth reading in full.

First, courtesy of Wildwest, an essay posted at CommonDreams.org titled “Wasn’t Jesus a Liberal, Part Two“.

The liberal Jesus challenged the rich to be generous with the poor. The liberal Jesus would much rather have the Beatitudes considered and embraced than public displays of the Ten Commandments. The liberal Jesus would not be arguing for the inclusion of God in the pledge of allegiance because He would find the whole concept of the pledge to be a shallow form of idolatry. The liberal Jesus is just as concerned for the welfare of the born as the unborn. The liberal Jesus said to render unto Caesar that which was Caesars when questioned about taxation.

In case you’re wondering, there is a “Wasn’t Jesus a Liberal [Part One]“, published a year ago. That was before I had begun blogging, so I missed it, but it also is worth a read.
(more…)

Armando at Daily Kos had a post Saturday titled Public Morality vs. Private Morality, and it’s worth a read through. I agree with his conclusion — that Republicans are more concerned with private morality, while Democrats are more concerned with public morality, aka the common good.

What really intrigues me though is that Armando made his point by quoting George Bush’s favorite philosopher:

The irony is that our emphasis on public morality is informed by religious thought:

In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you.

And so to is the liberal rejection of governmental intervention in private morality informed by religious thought:

Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.

(more…)

Update 10/2/05: A very interesting thread of comments has developed to this post. They are somewhat off-topic, but not really — they address the reason this conference is necessary at all. Take a look.

For close to a year I’ve been blogging about the progressive Christian voices in the US, people like Jim Wallis, E.J. Dionne, John Danforth, Patrick Mrotek and Amy Sullivan. For the most part, this has been a digital experience for me, reading the writings of these religious and political leaders, and posting my thoughts on my blog.

That is about to change. On October 13 through 15, these and many more progressive Christians will be gathering at the Path to Action National Conference 2005 in Washington D.C. It is sponsored by several Episcopal organizations, including a church in my neck of the woods, All Saints Episcopal in Pasadena.

Why is this conference important? Many of us have felt that we have been present at the birth of a new progressive Christian movement. However, this movement could easily be stillborn. To keep it growing, we need to organize and to act. This conference is an important step towards this end.
(more…)

Friend and former (and hopefully future??) blogger Lefty had a fanciful post early this year about the Christian Independent party in the US circa the year 2019. The picture she paints of a political party maintaining their independence from both Republicans and Democrats, but working for a more humane America, has stuck with me ever since.

Unlike parliamentary systems, I’m afraid that the US form of government preempts the formation of a sizable third party. Any time a third party gains some traction, it is coopted by one or the other major parties. Still, it’s an interesting idea to play around with. In that vein, here is my take on some elements of the platform of the Christian Independent party in the not-too-distant future.
(more…)

An article in The New Republic lays out a strategy for Democrats to win on the religion issue. In it, Kenneth Baer criticizes the knee jerk reaction of Democrats to political excesses of the Christian right: hit them over the head with the Establishment Clause.

Now don’t get me wrong. I’m a big fan of the separation of Church and State, and I suspect Baer is too. But Baer’s point is that it puts us progressives on the wrong side of the religion debate, making us appear to be anti-religion, which plays right into the hands of the conservative Christians. He has a better alternative: reach out to Christian moderates by talking about religious pluralism.

Less than a year since Bush’s reelection, evangelicals–in fights over judges, abortion, end-of-life care, stem-cell research, and the legal status of gays–have made clear they want their views written into law. But as seen in the dwindling popularity of the House Republicans after the opening rounds of these battles, there is a religious middle–faithful and tolerant, God-fearing and fully aware of their own human fallibility–that is searching for a political home. Adopting the mantle of religious pluralism, as opposed to accepting the mantle of secularism with which they are so often tagged, will allow Democrats to reach these voters–if, that is, the brand of pluralism they push is an affirmative one that acknowledges the contributions different faiths bring to the public square.

I think Baer is on to something here. Anyone speaking of religion in the first person (“my faith tells me that…”) is placing themselves on God’s side. When progressives object by saying that such religious speech is inappropriate, they are appearing to stand in opposition to God and those on his side.

In reaction to this dynamic, some have counseled Democrats to also speak about their faith. The problem with this tactic is that it seems forced or insincere, or else it turns into dueling religiosity, a game which conservatives are often going to win.

Instead, Democrats should speak about faith in the second person. “Your faith is very personal, and very important to you. You should be allowed to worship God as you choose. No one in government should infringe on your freedom to pray and to worship as you wish and when you wish. Government must be restrained because your religious beliefs and practices are too important to you. Your relationship with God is too important to you.”

Or, Democrats should speak about faith in the third person. “I understand that you are comfortable with Christian proselytizing in the Air Force Academy. But what about your Jewish neighbor, your Muslim co-worker? They cherish their religious tradition, and are sincere in their religious beliefs. Should they have no place in America’s Air Force?”

This frames the issue in a way that is hard for conservative Christians to argue with. After all, “conservative” used to mean anti-government, back before conservatives gained control over much of it. This is putting voters on God’s side, and any government endorsement of a particular religion is putting the government in opposition to God.

Most importantly, this argument isn’t just cynical spin, but the reason the Establishment Clause was written into the Bill of Rights to start with. Allowing government to intrude into the practice of religion is tyranny in the one area of our lives that deserves the most protection from it.

I don’t know how I missed it, but the newly formed Christian Alliance for Progress, the “Moveon.org for moderate and liberal Christians”, had their national launch last week. This very cool organization was founded earlier this year by a Jacksonville, FL, businessman and Christian, Pat Mrotek, and its leadership includes PCUSA pastor and fellow blogger, Tim Simpson. (Tim, aka Public Theologian, is now also blogging for the Christian Alliance for Progress, along with several of my favorite progressive Christian bloggers, FP, Carlos and Father Jake.)

Take a look here for a quick video of what the Christian Alliance for Progress is all about.

Last week, they held two press conferences, one in Washington D.C. and another in Jacksonville. Their story was picked up by some of the national media, including the American Prospect.

Deep in the heart of the reddest county in a red state, a new grass-roots movement is taking shape that means to break the religious right’s hold on the rhetoric of Christianity by developing a network of activists on the “Christian left” that can be mobilized to support progressive causes.

…

The Reverend Timothy F. Simpson, a Presbyterian minister and the group’s director of religious affairs, said in an interview Wednesday that the Christian left has for too long allowed the Christian right to be the public face of his religion in America. “The language of our faith has been placed in the service of policy ends that don’t reflect the Gospel, and we have become deeply troubled over that,” he said.

The Christian right, he says, in the persons of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and James Dobson, has come to stand for bigotry, intolerance, and division. Simpson says that his organization will try to repair the damage done by the right’s insistence that the United States is a “Christian nation” that ought to be governed according to their narrow interpretation of Scripture.

FP has all the details on the launch here at Faithful Progressive. To get involved, take a look at the Christian Alliance for Progress website, where you will be able to join the movement, sign the Jacksonville Declaration, and share your story. Oh, and you can give them money, too.

Amy Sullivan’s guest blog this week at Beliefnet is definitely worth a look. One notable quote about liberal Christians:

We’ve all heard the observation that the more often a voter attends church, the more likely they are to vote Republican. The implication is that good people of faith have left the Democratic party and that Democrats themselves, if they do still attend church, are spiritual slackers. It’s clearly more complicated than that. For one thing, as religion and politics have become more closely entwined on the right, individual churches have become more explicitly political and conservative. In other words, it may not be that liberal Christians left churches but that a number of their churches left them.

I first came across Amy Sullivan when I read her article on the Christian left a few months back in Salon. I meant to write a post on it, but somehow didn’t get around to it. But I was struck by how in tune she seemed with we poor progressive Christian bloggers bravely battling the merger between our religion and the Republican party. She wrote:

The decline and fall of the religious left has been so complete that news organizations regularly conflate terms like “religious voters” and “moral values” with “right-wing,” without a second thought. When Time magazine recently ran an article about Democratic religious outreach efforts, the piece concluded with the thought, “Religious voters might like the music, but they’re unlikely to be seduced by it as long as Democrats stick to their core positions,” as if religious Americans could only support the Democratic Party by putting their faith aside, not because of their faith.

…

[M]illions of Americans, outraged by post-election assumptions that “moral issues” are defined exclusively as conservative concerns, are hungry for a way to mobilize their religious progressive numbers.

Sounded a lot like me and my raison d’blog. Since then, I ran across her in The New Republic, and have now stumbled across her blog this week on Beliefnet. Having read her background there, her point of view now makes sense: she is an ex-Baptist Episcopalian Harvard Divinity School graduate who worked on Tom Daschle’s staff.

Something to watch for – she has written a review of a couple books chronicling the decline of mainline church membership for American Prospect (not yet available online for non-subscribers.) She quotes her article in her blog:

The real trouble starts when liberal Christians try to find a church to attend. Their options are not good, as those of us who have church-shopped know. Non-evangelical churches have been shrinking over the past few decades–each of the five mainline Protestant denominations lost between 6 and 12 percent of its membership between 1990 and 2000–and for good reason. Far too often, these churches offer lackluster worship. Or, in a well-intentioned but misguided attempt to differentiate themselves from fundamentalist Christianity, they strip away religious mystery, lessen the demands of faith, and sprinkle services with interpretative dance, drumming circles, or gender-neutral hymns that avoid “God the Father.” If such churches fail to meet their spiritual needs, liberal Christians can take their chances with more conservative churches. But they risk hearing–as the pastor at my childhood Baptist church declared last summer–that it is impossible to be both a good Christian and a Democrat.

I take exception to the statement about lackluster worship at mainline churches – I find the worship at my Lutheran church is not lacking in luster. But, I’ll wait to read her entire review before getting defensive about her critique.

Regardless, it’s nice to see a writer in the msm echoing so much of what I and other progressive Christian bloggers have been saying.

In the Monday LA Times op-ed, Mike McGough tackles the question of whether Muslims, Christians and Jews worship the same God. The word “Allah” creates a misconception that they do not:

“I would like to point out that the Arabic word ‘Allah,’ which is often erroneously perceived by many as some kind of a ‘Muslim God,’ is merely a translation of the word ‘God,’ ” wrote Nash Khatri [following 9/11], noting that “even Christian (i.e., non-Muslim) Arabs refer to God as ‘Allah,’ when speaking in Arabic.”

The editorial goes on to discuss the historical, theological and even etymological sides of the question, all the while advocating tolerance of religious differences, and is worth a read. But, I find the question itself a bit odd. How can we be worshiping different gods when there is only one God?

McGough quotes Gen. William Boykin, who “told Christian congregations how he was strengthened in his battle with a Muslim warlord in Somalia by his conviction that ‘my god was bigger than his’.” Spoken like a true polytheist. At the dawn of Judaism, the Jews believed that their God was the best God, and that he was a jealous God, but not that he was the only God. They quickly outgrew this belief, coming to the understanding that YHWH isn’t the strongest god or the best god, but the one and only true God. Christians and Muslims share this understanding. So how can Boykin’s God be bigger than the Muslims’ God if there is only one?

To be fair, Boykin also said that Allah is not a “real God”, so he is not really a polytheist. Actually, this statement makes him sound like an atheist. If we understand that there is only one God, and Allah is the Arabic word for “God”, then Boykin’s statement becomes “God is not real”.

My point isn’t to play word games, or at least not only. This debate about whether the three Abrahamic faiths worship the same God puts us at the center. We are the ones who are deciding which God we, and they, are worshiping. But that’s all wrong — God is at the center, and God decides what glorifies and pleases God, not us. God wants everyone to know and love God, Muslims as well as Christians. A sincere follower of Islam will hear God’s call, not because he is a Muslim, but because God is God.

This isn’t to say that the different understandings of God among the Abrahamic faiths, or within them, don’t matter. Theology does matter, because some understandings of God bring us closer to God and God’s will for us, and some the opposite. But to deny that Muslims are seeking the same one true God that we seek is to argue that God is only pleased by Christian hymns or Christian prayers, or is only interested in saving those of us in the Judeo-Christian faiths. And that is putting ourselves in God’s place.

I haven’t taken to trumpeting other blogs, mainly because there are so many great blogs popping up all the time that it’s hard to keep up. But I ran across a blog that I find very well-written and refreshingly personal: Disambiguation. Check it out.

I’m away from blogging for a few days (okay, a week) and look what happens…a new organization has been formed to take up the cause that has motivated this blog from its beginning. The Christian Alliance for Progress is a “movement to reclaim Christianity and transform American politics”. From its website:

The Christian Alliance advances a renewed, progressive vision of Gospel values and seeks to help Americans express this moral vision in our lives and in our politics.

They have developed a flash video that is definitely worth a look.

Faithful Progressive and Public Theologian are supporting the Christian Alliance as in-house bloggers, lending it the substantial credibility they have developed as progressive Christian bloggers. The site also provides opportunities for visitors to submit their personal stories and to sign the Jacksonville Declaration:

To The Political and Church Leaders of the Religious Right:

…We must tell you now that you do not speak for us, or for our politics. We say “No” to the ways you are using the name and language of Christianity to advance what we see as extremist political goals. We do not support your agenda to erode the separation of church and state, to blur the vital distinction between your interpretation of Christianity and our shared democratic institutions. Moreover, we do not accept what seems to be your understanding of Christian values. We reject a Christianity co-opted by any government and used as a tool to ostracize, to subjugate, or to condone bigotry, greed and injustice.

If your politics flow from your faith, then we do not know the Jesus you claim to follow.

Take a look at their website, and sign the Jacksonville Declaration.