The View From Tupelo

November 10, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Civil rights, Domestic issues, Episcopal Church, Faith | Leave a Comment 

Marcia Segelstein, writing at OneNewsNow in Tupelo, Mississippi:

No wonder the Episcopal Church is in trouble.  Dioceses continue to make the difficult but principled decision to leave the US Episcopal Church, setting themselves up for protracted and expensive legal battles.  Meanwhile, Episcopal leaders just don’t get it.

The Bishop of Los Angeles, Jon Bruno, called Proposition 8 “a lamentable expression of fear-based discrimination that attempts to deny the constitutional rights of some Californians on the basis of sexual orientation.”

Other California bishops said the vote to uphold traditional marriage demonstrated a “fear of human sexuality,” and that Californians were driven by “fear, prejudice and injustice.”

As David Virtue writes on his website… “These bishops don’t give enough credit to the distinctions Americans can and are able to make.  Americans can reject racism and vote for a black president and at the same time uphold Christian standards for marriage…What Californians said was ‘no’ to gay marriage which they said is not marriage at all, either in God’s eyes or the state’s.”

Self-styled Christian traditionalists are prone to criticize the mainline denominations for toadying to people’s cultural and political whims. They proclaim that the gospel should stand as a rock against fickle fashion. Yet here Virtue invests the electorate with powers of keen discernment, rejecting racism while hewing thoughtfully to traditional marriage.

But how stood those wise voters with racism in 1860? And in Mississippi, for instance, in 1954? In each era, some in the church were opposing slavery and Jim Crow — some, but not all. A question for today’s witnesses is how our views, statements, and actions vis a vis our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters will be viewed in 50 years.

Prop. 8, Gay Marriage, And God’s Blessing

November 9, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Domestic issues, Episcopal Church, Faith, Richard Nixon | 1 Comment 

On Saturday, over 20,000 demonstrated against California’s Prop. 8. Melissa Etheridge says she’s keeping her $500,000 a year in state taxes now that her second-class citizenship has been affirmed.

Protesters may be hoping to influence the courts that will rule on lawsuits claiming that Prop. 8, which amends the constitution to ban gay marriage, is invalid. President Nixon used to say that judges read the papers and feel the political heat just like ordinary people, so we shall see. (He also predicted we’d have gay marriage by 2000.)

Opponents of gay marriage, including the President-elect, often say that they support civil union and domestic partnership laws instead. This primer shows how these expedients aim for but don’t match the sturdiness of the marriage contract. One can understand the frustration of those who object to society making that contract not impossible for them to get — just considerably more complicated and expensive. What is the point of giving a couple 60%, or 75%, or whatever percentage of a thing but then withholding the last bit on the basis of some immutable principle, especially when we’ve already ceded the principle by establishing civil unions in some states, including California?

The explanation for a paradox is usually in the heart, wrapped in people’s ideals and fears as well their foundational experiences. The mom-dad paradigm, dominant since the beginning of time, is at the root of most people’s definition of family. Pin me to the wall, and I’ll say it’s best for a child to have a mom and dad. The irony is that my father was almost never around, and my mother had to go back to work when I was three weeks old. I might have done better with two attentive moms or two dads. As it was, I went searching for replacement dads, not extra moms (though some men do that when they choose their wives). I needed a father in my life — because of my conception of the godhead, because I was male, or for some other reason.

Everyone else has their own set of experiences, beliefs, and sometimes pathologies. On Nov. 4, it added up to 52% of Californians being against same-gender marriage. You can blame it on funding from the Mormons if you like, but my guess is that relatively few voters needed help making up their minds. These were votes that came from the gut.

As for mine, I tried to think about being deprived of the right to marry the person I loved because I’d been born gay. Besides, as ex-Nixon speechwriter William Safire wrote several years ago, the gays are bound to do better with marriage than the straights. We may yet get back to the ideal of the traditional family, but in the meantime — and it will be a long time — men and women who beget children, both mindfully and not, will need significant help from nontraditional families to raise them.

In the end, I voted against Prop. 8, especially for the sake of the gay and lesbian people I care about, including mentors and partners in Christian ministry. I did so without being eager for the ban to fail. “Marriage” is a culturally defined term, and the best way a free people has to define their terms is at the ballot box. If the Holy Spirit was moving across the surface of the deep on this issue, I didn’t want my vote to be the one standing in her way. But as I voted, my heart and head were still tugging at one another.

Now that the measure has passed, gay and lesbian people are heartbroken and angry. Comparing their cause to civil rights for African-Americans and Hispanics, they criticize blacks for voting in favor of Prop. 8. It’s a harsh political reality that people’s visceral feelings about homosexuality run deeper than culturally and economically conditioned biases against ethnic groups. Instead of blaming those who voted yes, marriage equity advocates might look for new political and social partners. Those who oppose abortion also feel marginalized and unheard, not only by the majority of voters but the MSM, which at least is giving the anti-Prop. 8 demonstrators a fair hearing. Gay people and the unborn and their advocates — the last second-class citizens — may have the makings of an effective coalition.

As for how marriage is ultimately defined by secular society, my guess is that gay and lesbian people will soon be granted that last 40% or 25% of a durable legal contract. At that point, the debate will shift back to where the really difficult work is being done — the church and other faith communities.

Reformation scholars will tell you that the early Protestants didn’t think the church had any business solemnizing legal contracts between men and women or anyone else. The deed was done on the church steps, after which the couple came inside for the main event — the church’s mediation of God’s blessing, which God had envisioned for the couple at the beginning of all things. The church understands that the two people were meant for each other in the mind of God. In the marriage rites contained in the Episcopal Church’s Book of Common Prayer, the emphasis is not on the marriage itself, which the priest or bishop does as an agent of the state, but on God’s preexisting blessing.

That’s why the divisive debate in the Episcopal Church is over whether same-sex unions should be blessed. That debate won’t be any easier for churches, dioceses, or provinces just because polities decide to give all people access to the same durable legal contract.

For unchurched Californians, overturning Prop. 8, should that happen, will be the end of the drama. For the faithful, more scenes have yet to be played out, and on their stage, legislation, demonstrations, and court cases aren’t as helpful. The church won’t be of one mind on the subject until the preponderance of those in the pews have the epiphany experience of looking across the aisle at Fred and Ed or Alice and Grace (or perhaps across the table at the family Thanksgiving feast) and saying to themselves, “You know, I’m not wild about this whole gay marriage thing, but those two were meant to be together.” For the faithful, meant-to-be is in the mind of God, the source of all blessing.

1968: Lyndon, Dick, and Billy

November 7, 2008 by David R. Stokes | Filed Under American Politics, Barack Obama, Election 2008, Faith, History, Nixon Administration, Presidents, Religion, Richard Nixon, U.S. History | Leave a Comment 

Forty years ago, in the wake of the hard-fought 1968 presidential election, the nation faced what many assumed would be a turbulent transition. But it did not turn out that way. Whatever happened later, the country moved from what had been the one of the most divisive campaigns in our history, to a comparatively calm and remarkably orderly (considering the times) transfer of power.

This was due, in large part, to the combined and concerted efforts of two savvy politicians and a preacher.

President’s Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon have long since passed to their rewards, but the preacher is still alive and kicking. His name is Billy Graham, and he was born 90 years ago today on November 7, 1918, just four days before the guns fell silent ending what was then optimistically called the War to End All Wars.

In their book, The Preacher and the Presidents: Billy Graham in the White House, Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy chronicle the evangelist’s journey from White House visitor, to presidential confidant. Beginning with a somewhat embarrassing Oval Office meeting with Harry Truman - one that brought out the president’s profane side - he went on to learn the ropes during the Eisenhower and Kennedy years. By the time LBJ was in charge, Billy was a regular over-night guest at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Presidents loved to pick his brain. Eisenhower once asked him, “How do I know if I’ll go to heaven?” Jack Kennedy inquired about the second coming of Christ and wondered, “Why doesn’t my church teach it.” When Graham indicated that the doctrine was written in Roman Catholic creeds, JFK complained, “They don’t tell us much about it, I’d like to know what you think.” Johnson wanted to know if he would see his parents in heaven.

It was well into the morning of Wednesday, November 6, 1968 before ABC projected Richard Nixon as the winner over Hubert Humphrey (and George Wallace). The president-elect watched the returns at New York’s Waldorf Hotel. He had invited Graham to spend the evening with him, but the evangelist declined, adding: “If you lose, I will be ready to come over and have prayer with you.”

He did not lose, but he called Billy anyway and asked him to come over and pray before he went downstairs to meet with the press and talk to the nation. Entering the suite on the hotel’s thirty-fifth floor, the preacher met the president-elect, his wife Pat, and their daughters. They all joined hands as Graham prayed. The preacher specifically offered thanks for the vital spiritual influence of Nixon’s mother, who had passed away a little more than a year before. Hannah Nixon was the first to tell her son about Billy Graham after hearing him speak in Los Angeles in 1949. The evangelist had conducted her funeral.

The 1968 morning-after scene was very different from the one six years earlier when, after losing the race for governor in California, Nixon gave what he called his “last press conference.” There is no evidence that there was a hotel-suite prayer meeting that morning.

Soon after Graham’s prayer, Richard M. Nixon faced the nation for the first time as president-elect. Most memorable, and appropriate for the moment, was his reference to a sign he saw “at the end of a long day of whistle-stopping” in diminutive Deshler, Ohio. It said: “Bring us together.” He then indicated that this would be the great goal of his administration.

I am sure some reading this now may find such words to be cynical, ironic, - even sappy. But they were words “fitly spoken” and uttered in good faith. The American political reflex is to run from rancor to graciousness after a fierce battle – like weary boxers managing the arm-strength to embrace each other following the final bell.

This is something the country needs. Sure, it all eventually gives way to our default position of partisanship, but such “warm fuzzy” moments should be seized, whether “our” candidate won or lost. They are good for us – and for our children.

Not to mention our blood pressure.

I find myself sad that President-Elect Obama’s grandmother did not live to see him win. I also enjoy the “cute” moments as the Obama family begins to find a place in all of our hearts and prayers. I even like the whole “new puppy” thing. And I know that the young African-Americans in my congregation have a new reference point for achievement and success. I know also that their parents and grandparents are very proud that we have come so far as a nation. A dream has come true. This is historic and important. Let us all stop and smell the roses – it is definitely quite something to behold. I really like this stuff.

I am a conservative, just not a grinch about it.

I am sure there will be issues and policies that prompt me to speak out – but that does not take anything away from how fascinating this political moment is. Mr. Obama has my support – but more importantly – he has my prayers. I may be part of an eventual loyal opposition, but the accent will be on loyal.

But back to 1968, interestingly - though Billy Graham was a friend of the president-elect forty years ago, the man who was still president did not seem to mind sharing the preacher. In fact, Lyndon Johnson invited Billy Graham to spend his last weekend in the White House with him January 18-19, 1969. One evening he watched a movie with LBJ and his family, The Shoes of the Fisherman, starring Anthony Quinn. When the president dozed off mid-film, Billy quietly went to the projectionist and asked him to keep the reels around, thinking Nixon would like it.

The president and the evangelist went to church together on Sunday, January 19th. The next day, during the inauguration of the 37th president, Billy Graham delivered the invocation. Then, following Nixon’s address – as the Johnson’s quietly left the stage – the now ex-president’s daughters kissed the preacher. And Billy went back to the White House and spent the night with the Nixons on January 20th – completing a sleepover hat trick.

The following Sunday, President Nixon began a custom of holding worship services in the White House. The first clergyman to officiate was, of course, Billy Graham.

It seems to me that Billy Graham found the balance. He managed to stay faithful to the simple gospel message, even when surrounded by the seductive trappings of power. The man of God found a way to connect with politicians in a way that earned their respect and opened doors for personal ministry.

Maybe, just maybe, this is something Christian leaders should reflect on right now. The so-called Religious Right is a thing of the past. It was once a well-defined movement. Now it appears to be dissipating like a weakening storm somewhere over America’s heartland.

Some are sad about this. Some are very discouraged. I am not. My views have not changed. I am ardently pro-life, fiercely pro-American, and passionate about limited government. And I will stand for what I believe and work for causes I consider worthwhile and just.

I have never been comfortable with the politicization of church. In fact, some who read my columns might find it hard to believe, but I actually do not preach politics at church. The closest I come is to talk about the pro-life issue – which I do with passion, but not as a partisan thing. I never endorse candidates. I vote for Jesus every Sunday.

I think this election is a wake up call to many Christians – one that reminds us that, in the final analysis, our mandate is not to reform society via the ballot box, state house, or White House, but rather to proclaim the ultimate narrative, the one that really changes lives. In other words: “It’s the gospel, stupid.” We can’t get everything we want, all the time, at the ballot box, but we can always find comfort in the fact that the mercy and grace of God are sufficient.

Billy Graham has been a faithful servant of God and citizen of America. In a very Kipling-esque sense, he has walked with presidents, but he has never lost his “common touch.”

Happy Birthday, Billy!

A Post-Election View from Rome

November 5, 2008 by Jonathan C. Movroydis | Filed Under Barack Obama, Election 2008, Faith | Leave a Comment 

Fr. Thomas Williams reacts to an Obama Presidency, life issues, and challenging times:

The U.S. bishops will be facing an enormous challenge in the coming months. Not only do we now have the most radically pro-abortion president in history, we also have a Catholic vice-president who also supports abortion rights, in opposition to Church teaching.

The Church will continue to try to work together with those in office, while making clear its opposition to Obama’s unacceptable position on life issues. In November, at the annual meeting of the US Bishops Conference, the issue of whether or not to deny Holy Communion to pro-abortion Catholic legislators is on the docket for discussion, and will now be all the more important because of Joe Biden’s election as vice-president.

A look back at the history of Christianity helps put these times in perspective, and can instill hope in those who see only darkness. The Church has persevered in the face of intense persecution and governments that hunted down Christians in order to put them to death. We have not yet reached that point. It seems to me that the important thing is to stand firm in the truth, and to pray for courage to do the right thing regardless of the personal consequences.

As Saint Paul wrote to the Romans of his day, “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God — what is good and acceptable and perfect” (Rom 12:2).

In the end, this is what we are called to do, and on this will we be judged.

Exile On Main Street

November 4, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under American Politics, Election 2008, Faith | Leave a Comment 

The scripture verse of the day from progressive evangelical Christian Jim Wallis’s outfit:

But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare.  Jeremiah 29:7

“Beatitudes For Voters”

November 3, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Election 2008, Episcopal Church, Faith | Leave a Comment 

My Sunday sermon at St. John’s Episcopal Church in Rancho Santa Margarita, California. Executive summary:

– Blessed are voters who are just and righteous, because they recognize that the world isn’t and that their votes can make a difference.

– Blessed are the big-picture thinkers, because when they think about those who really have troubles, they’ll worry less and care more.

– Blessed are the hopeful, because they know that God has it well in hand.

– Blessed are the skeptical, because they know that politicians (left, right, and center) don’t always say what they mean.

– Blessed are the indecisive, because being too sure we’re right and others are wrong isn’t a godly virtue.

Revolutionary Church at Midday

November 1, 2008 by Jonathan C. Movroydis | Filed Under Episcopal Church, Faith, History | 1 Comment 

Bruton Parish Episcopal Church, Williamsburg, Va, November 1, 2008

Built in 1715, the Bruton Parish served as a sanctuary to legendary revolutionaries including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson , Richard Henry Lee, George Wythe, Patrick Henry, and George Mason.
 

Praying, Not Preaching

October 29, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under American Politics, Election 2008, Faith | Leave a Comment 

President and Mrs. Ford’s Episcopal parish in the California desert shows how politics and faith should mix.

The Messiah From Another Planet

October 27, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Book Review, Democratic Party, Election 2008, Faith | Leave a Comment 

Bruce Handy is a “Vanity Fair” editor who recently reviewed some children’s books about the 2008 candidates for the New York Times. Go here if you have iTunes and want to download the Oct. 10 Times Book Review podcast in which Handy talks with Book Review editor Sam Tanenhaus about his findings, which are a little creepy when it comes to the books about Sen. Obama:

They really are hagiographic….Some of these books almost present him almost in a kind of a spiritual light, he’s almost kind of a messianic, almost a Jesus-like figure. It actually reminded me a lot of when I was a kid going to Sunday school and the kind of the books we would have about Jesus — very sort of denatured, a sort of nice man who loved children. And that’s almost the presentation of Obama.

Even in the drawings — there’s one, a picture of him kind of praying in front of the Lincoln Memorial in one of the books, kind of taking on the mantle of Martin Luther King.

In one of the other books, there’s this scene of him where he’s got this sort of weird glowing aura. He almost looks like something out of Steven Spielberg’s “ET” or “Close Encounters.” There’s something about these books– I just think with politicians who are always flawed people like we all are, kids are bound to be ultimately let down.

Counting Noses In The Pews And The Senate

October 25, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Congress, Episcopal Church, Faith | 7 Comments 

From Julia Duin of the Washington Times, reacting to George Will’s recent superior-sounding column in celebration of former Episcopal bishop Robert Duncan, who left our church to get away from the homosexuals, more news about dwindling TEC attendance in the wake of the ordination of an openly gay bishop in 2003. Instead, Duin notes, people are flooding to Pentecostal churches (where they can enjoy being ridiculed not by Will but the New York Times).

As a priest and a vicar of a congregation, I find it a manifold blessing when people come to church. If TEC is making the wrong choices about giving gay and lesbian people a full life in the church, then it would be a shame to lose membership for that reason. But if the choices are correct, and people leave because of them, what does that say about us and them?

Either way, the numbers aren’t the issue. The issue is the most high God’s love and will for his people. Often enough in human affairs, justice isn’t necessarily on the side of the majority. After all, political conservatives, counting the smaller number of pews they are expected to retain in the chamber of the U.S. Senate after Nov. 4, are unlikely to give in to discouragement. Nor should TEC, if it’s sure it’s right.

Says a thoughtful letter to the editor writer in Pennsylvania,

Is it necessarily “evidence of spiritual vigor” when a diocese leaves the Episcopal Church, sincere as a departing bishop may be? Doesn’t it also take “spiritual vigor” to rise above dissension?

Those 650 bishops at the Lambeth Conference differed, often widely, in their views. Yet from reports of their meetings it seems they were able to discuss, and then set aside, their differences, and focus on prayer, meditation, and all that unites them as Anglicans.

Mr. Will says “The Episcopal Church… today… is ‘progressive’ politics cloaked — very thinly — in piety.” No church is perfect, of course, and our leaders can be as flawed as any others, religious or secular. But in the pews I see believers of various backgrounds, drawn together by a desire to seek God and live as much as possible in the spirit of Jesus. While fostering tradition and keeping core Christian doctrines (we say the Nicene Creed weekly), the Episcopal Church has room for various understandings of what the Christian life means for us today.

Some, though not all, of these understandings are new; and who is to say the Holy Spirit isn’t prompting them, on occasion? Didn’t a new understanding lead, for example, to the abolition of slavery?

Feeling Free In Difficult Times

October 24, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under American Politics, Faith | Leave a Comment 

What Happened to Middle Eastern Jewry?

October 23, 2008 by Jonathan C. Movroydis | Filed Under Faith, Islam and the West, Israel and Palestinians | Leave a Comment 

Reut Cohen gives a personal anecdote in a larger untold story, illustrating what millions experienced:

My paternal grandfather vividly recalls his experiences living as a Jew in Baghdad and the Farhud pogrom, which was a Nazi pogrom coordinated by Haj Amin al-Husseini. In a two-day period Arab mobs went on a rampage in Baghdad and other cities in Iraq. Nearly 300 Jews were killed and more than 2,000 injured; some 900 Jewish homes were destroyed and looted, and hundreds of Jewish-owned shops were robbed and destroyed. My older family members recall witnessing how Iraqi soldiers pulled small children away from their parents and ripped the arms off young girls to steal their bracelets; pregnant women were raped and their stomachs cut open. My grandfather hid his baby brother underneath his t-shirt when the violence began and ran home. My great-grandfather saved his entire family during the riots that broke out in Baghdad by claiming to be a Muslim when Iraqi troops came into their home with the intent of looting, raping, and killing. Eventually, when being a Jew was practically criminalized, my father’s family escaped to Israel with only the clothes on their backs — their belongings were confiscated — leaving behind everything that they knew. Their experience was not a unique one and was shared by several thousand Baghdadi Jews.

Other Islamic countries treated their Jewish populations similarly. My maternal grandmother escaped from Syria during the mid-1940s. Her parents had died and she was forced to live with an older sister. As a 16-year-old girl, she decided to pay a Druze man with the gold her mother left to her and made the long, tedious journey to modern-day Israel. Because Syrian officials would incarcerate any Jew fleeing in the direction of Israel, my grandmother and other individuals making their way from Syria to what eventually became Israel would only be able to walk at night. Several Syrian Jews found it nearly impossible to flee. The last few Jews from Syria made their escape in the early 1990s. Our male relatives who arrived in Israel in the 1990s shared their stories with us. They were taken by Syrian authorities and tortured for unspecified amounts of time, experiencing unspeakable cruelty at the hands of Syrian officials.

How About The Rest Of Us?

October 23, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Faith | 2 Comments 

AP:

Here is a foolproof way for politicians to score points with evangelical voters: Attack the media, an institution widely seen as lacking conservative Christian voices.

Republican presidential hopeful John McCain and his evangelical running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, have done just that at times during the campaign, with repeated jabs at the “liberal media.”

One way to change this perception, some church leaders, social commentators and journalists say, is for mainstream news organizations to employ - and keep - more evangelicals in their newsrooms.

The article’s about how conservative evangelical Christians can make sure their views are reflected in the MSM. But what about the views of mainline Christians? There’s a whole universe of faith practice thriving in the space between Pastor Rick Warren and secularism. These Christians are grappling with the ambiguity that comes along with the ineffable mystery of the Incarnation — questions of abortion and human sexuality, war and peace, poverty and justice, and a deeper spirtuality for its own sake.

Moderate, liberal, and center-right Roman Catholics and Protestants, they’re harder to pigeonhole, so the media overlook them (until there’s a schism). They’re harder to scapegoat and ridicule, so Bill Maher and Christopher Hitchens stick to fundamentalist-bashing.

Pretty ironic: Mainstream Christianity’s gone marginal.

Hat tip to Jim Wallis’s daily news digest

Faith And Crisis

October 22, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Economic issues, Episcopal Church, Faith | Leave a Comment 

On Sept. 11 and the days after, the good people of Trinity Episcopal Church at the foot of Wall St. and at nearby St. Paul’s Chapel faithfully served those who were suffering and sacrificing. Today Trinity’s rector is counseling those who are anxious about the economic crisis.

A Pious Will

October 20, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Episcopal Church, Faith, News media | 3 Comments 

If there’s one thing that can turn a moderate Episcopalian into a raging radical, it’s a column about the church by the hyper-righteous George F. Will:

Episcopalians’ discontents tell a cautionary tale for political as well as religious associations. As the church’s doctrines have become more elastic, the church has contracted. It celebrates an “inclusiveness” that includes fewer and fewer members.

The elastic doctrine in question is the admittedly modern idea that homosexual behavior is not inherently sinful and that gay and lesbian people are entitled to full access to the church’s sacramental work, including ordination as deacons, priests, and bishops. Many good, loving people with differing perspectives have worked the problem in our church for a generation or more, bringing to bear the witness of Holy Scripture, the church’s traditions, and the God-given reason of the people of God. As for Will, sniffing his way through a column that’s already been written 50 times by other church critics, he gets no further than the theologically bankrupt argument that righteousness resides with the majority view. Only schismatic ex-Episcopal bishop Robert Duncan, who has tried to take his diocese out of the Episcopal Church because of the homosexuals, gets a voice in Will’s column.

In TEC’s life, critics once accused it of doctrinal elasticity for letting African-Americans come down from the church balcony. A generation ago, skeptics could risk putting “inclusiveness” in quotes when the elastic church was stretching to include the then more easily ridiculed idea of the ontological equality of women. Today, some of the women who, thanks to the second big stretch, were welcomed to celebrate Holy Eucharist at the altar of Christ have turned and tried to bar the way to gay and lesbian people. Will is now proud to be an advocate of these self-styled traditionalists. I wonder how his column will sound 50 years from now.

Pro-Pro-Pro-Pro-Pro-Life

October 16, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Election 2008, Faith | 2 Comments 

This powerful video by catholicvote.com, which is run by the conservative Roman Catholic advocacy group Fidelis, will catch in your throat and perhaps, depending on your perspective, in your craw. Without endorsing a candidate, it summons the country’s 67 million Catholics to vote on the issues of “life, faith, and family.” With full-on Michael Bay production values, it touches on same-sex marriage, civil rights, pollution, peace, poverty, euthanasia, and the economy while reserving the place of honor, not unexpectedly, for abortion.

Oddly, the video excludes the death penalty entirely. The Catholic Church is at its most credible on the sanctity of life when applied across the board — anti-abortion, anti-execution, anti-violence, anti-assisted suicide, antiwar. But many in the church, and many Christians in general, are absolutists on abortion and homosexuality and moral relativists on war and the death penalty (or vice versa). How many people do you know who are pro-life right down the line? Maybe not so easy to be a Christian after all.

Obama And Prop. 8

October 10, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Election 2008, Episcopal Church, Faith | Leave a Comment 

Episcopalians against marriage rights for gay and lesbian people say that they are counting on pro-Obama voters to pass Prop. 8, which would amend California’s constitution to ban same-gender marriages. Conservative blogger David Virtue:

The irony is that substantial numbers of black voters turning out for Obama will vote Yes on 8. Homosexuality goes against the grain for the vast majority of black church folks.

Be Still

October 10, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Episcopal Church, Faith | Leave a Comment 

The Rev. Ann Holmes Redding, an Episcopal priest in Seattle, is on the verge of being defrocked because she also professes a belief in Islam. Here is her story. Easy to ridicule her, but think about someone who is evidently called to embrace God in two  seemingly irreconcilable faith communities, who can’t bring herself to renounce either, and who feels completely welcome in neither. Who would want to go through that? When people suffer in this way, it is sometimes good to still the voice of judgment in our hearts and remember that, in God and in Christ, nothing is irreconcilable. Remember that one about how God works?

Will the Trend Continue?

October 10, 2008 by David R. Stokes | Filed Under American Politics, Congress, Democratic Party, Economic issues, Election 2008, Faith, History, Political Philosophy, Presidents, Religion, Republican Party, Richard Nixon, U.S. History | 1 Comment 

With just a little more than three weeks to go before America goes to the polls to elect the next president, Barack Obama maintains a lead in the polls. To use a Richard Nixon phrase from election night in 1960, “if the trend continues…” he will be our next president. And he will most likely be working with an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress.

But will the trend really continue? Can the momentum in this roller coaster race shift back to McCain? Might Obama be peaking too early?

The fact is, with all the dynamics of this historic political year – including recent economic developments - the election should really be over. The lights should be turned out. Oprah should have finished her final chorus by now.

Yet John McCain remains within striking distance, despite the fact that he is the candidate perceived as representing a very unpopular incumbency.

Why? Possibly it is because Americans are afraid, not only of what is happening on the road from Wall Street to Main Street, but of the idea of turning the reins of leadership over to an unproven neophyte.

Or maybe it has something to do with a growing reluctance to give one party the run of the place during chaotic times.

If Mr. Obama and a Democratic Congress are, in fact, elected, they will be well positioned to launch a top-down government-knows-best blitz of socio-politico activism. They would be able to reinvent America in their image – or at least try. This has only happened a couple of times in the past century: 1932 and 1964. And in those cases the government’s hegemony over all things individual grew exponentially. First, there was the New Deal; then there was the Great Society.

Any questions?

This is a theme John McCain should return to again and again between now and November 4th. He should ask Americans at every turn:

What do you think is better for the nation during these extraordinarily difficult days – one party in control – or a two-party system working in the best interests of the people?

Harry Truman campaigned, quite effectively in fact, in 1948 against the “do-nothing” 80th Congress. He seldom even mentioned the name of his opponent (the infamous Mr. Dewey) – not even calling him, “that one” – “the one” – or “that man.” But he did not mince words when it came to blasting the Republican Congress.

Harry was the original comeback kid.

Far from a “do-nothing” Congress, however, the looming 111th version promises to be a “do-everything-for-everyone” Congress. That is, unless there is someone in the White House with the courage to say “no” - a lot.

Everything we know about Barack Obama suggests that he would have a difficult time resisting a Democratic Capitol Hill. His tepid handling of certain associations (Ayers, Rev. Wright, etc.), suggests that he has difficulty being decisive and confrontational. It is very hard to imagine a scenario where Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi would be stonewalled.

One suspects that what he had to say about labor unions in his book, The Audacity of Hope, indicates how responsive he would be to political cronies:

I owe those unions. When their leaders call, I do my best to call them back right away. I don’t consider this corrupting in any way; I don’t mind feeling obligated.

“Feeling obligated” – the motto of an Obama White House.

The problem with a candidacy that promises everything is that it is hard to say no when pledges come home to roost. Possibly there will be a scene on election night, somewhere in the Obama suite at Hotel Change, reminiscent of the ending of the 1972 movie, The Candidate. Bill McKay, played by Robert Redford, a surprisingly successful aspirant for a U.S. Senate seat from California, takes a few of his staff into a room after learning he had won and asks: “What do we do now?”

Mario Cuomo used to talk about politics being “poetry,” with actual governing being “prose.” He was right. And Barack Obama is a pretty good poet. He can arrange words in a way that inspires audiences. When asked what the poet actually said, however, many misty-eyed hearers are at a loss to explain. It is that way with poetry, the trick is to figure out what the poet really meant. Some poets have stumped students for centuries.

John McCain can actually still win this thing. But he has to kick his campaign up several notches. It is time for an aggressive political fourth-quarter offensive, culminating in an energetic two-minute drill. He has to manage the clock, move quickly, and put the Obama campaign on the complete defensive.

One issue to seize is found in the answer Barack gave in the last debate on the issue of health insurance. He clearly said that he believed health care was a “right.” Really? Is a “right” something that is done for you, or something you are granted in general but must exercise yourself? He believes all of us have the right to have health care given to us. This is new ground.

What’s next? Is there a housing right? How about food? Thomas Jefferson wrote in The Declaration of Independence about our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. On the last one, he borrowed from John Locke – “happiness” being a euphemism for property – the “pursuit of property,” in other words.

The key word back then was “pursuit.” Property was not conferred as a “right” – but we had the right to go for it.

Americans have always had a right to obtain health care, in the sense of not being legally prevented from having it. Whether it is accessible or affordable is, of course, another matter – and the pertinent issue. But calling it a “right” implies entitlement.

Mr. McCain should also, during these final three weeks of campaign 2008, rally the values voters on the right. As I listen to my “oldies” station in the car, I have heard many radio ads warning that John McCain wants to take away the “right to choose.” These ominous sounding words are always followed by the voice of Barack telling us he “approved this message.”

I often wonder what it would be like for someone to have been frozen in time, or castaway on some island, to come back and hear some of this. Right to “choose” what? Why don’t they finish the sentence? Why not just come out and say: “the right to choose to have an abortion?”

It is probably because of the effective audacity of deliberately incomplete mantras.

The facts are, that Barack Obama has consistently supported and voted for, not only abortion rights, but also some of extreme and abhorrent examples of the practice – including voting three times in the Illinois Legislature to thwart bills protecting the rights of clearly alive survivors of abortion. In the U.S. Senate he stood against a bill requiring parental notification if a minor had an abortion across state lines.

He has also intimated that early on in his presidency he would sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would not only re-legalize partial-birth abortion, but also lead to tax-payer funding.

And is there any doubt about what kind of jurist Mr. Obama would appoint to the Supreme Court? It is very likely that the next president will have a shot to replace a current liberal member of the nation’s highest court. In a chronically 5-4 court, the next appointment will define its direction for years to come.

Pro-life conservatives are very close to critical mass on the court – but that is only possible with a John McCain presidency. This is a vital thing for the current evangelical Diaspora to seriously consider before bailing on the Republicans this time around in favor of “change” they really can’t seriously believe in.

Rick Warren, who moderated the best debate of the year back in August, told the Wall Street Journal a while back that the notion that the evangelical vote is “up for grabs” and “over-hyped.” And he held up his thumb and forefinger an inch apart when asked about the “significance of the evangelical left.”

I hope so.

There is much talk about the Bradley Effect this year – the idea that polls may be deceiving and some will simply vote differently than they have been indicating to pollsters. The theory is that these votes will reveal a secret reluctance to vote for Obama because of his race.

Frankly, I do not think this will be much of a factor at all. I hope – and very much believe – that we are better than that as a nation. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. longed for a day when a person would be judged, “not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character.” Race is not a legitimate political consideration.

Character, however, is.

On the other hand, I do wonder about what I might call the Carter Effect. By this I mean the idea that some, who have been enamored of Mr. Obama’s charm and charisma, and have connected with the whole idea of change, will have an awakening in the voting booth. Will they remember how conservative faith-voters believed in Jimmy Carter and thought he was one of them?

Those 1976 voters soon felt betrayed. And so will some who abandon long-held values for short-term political gratification this time around.

Though Barack Obama has reached out to evangelicals this year (particularly younger ones) in a way not seen by a Democrat in 32 years, this should not be interpreted to mean that he is, in fact, an evangelical. He is not.

Stephen Mansfield, author of the book, The Faith of Barack Obama, recently told Christianity Today:

There is no question Obama is a Christian, but he is definitely of a post-modern, liberal, and, to some small extent, black liberation theology perspective.

It is a free country, and I certainly believe he has the right to believe what he believes. My point is simply that it would be wrong for evangelicals to vote for him because they buy into the idea that he thinks like them. He does not.

Mr. McCain has his own history with evangelicals – and it has not always been a friendly one. But his clear pro-family positions and fervent “country-first” patriotism is very Ronald Reagan.

And Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter, who after four years in the White House, had proven himself to be – well – Jimmy Carter.

Class Warfare Artists, Take Your Marks

October 8, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Culture, Faith | Leave a Comment 

A useful primer in “Newsweek” about why the financial meltdown isn’t solely the fault of Carter-era policies to encourage lending to poorer people. While we’re on the subject of class warfare, it’s also not the fault of a group of executives from the solvent parts of AIG staying at a nice hotel.

At the risk of igniting the ire of Bill Maher, a reading from St. Paul’s letter to the Philippians:

Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others.

Assigning blame has to do with who wins the election, I realize. It’s part of an honest, necessary argument about the policies we’ll pursue to avoid future calamities, some of which would be a lot better than others. But our tribal instincts don’t always make for good politics. In a crisis, our DNA says to blame others for our troubles. Our more discerning (if I may, divine) mind eschews pinpointing the other person’s accountability in favor of understanding and admitting our own. Thus may we find our way (haphazardly but continually) to a conception of the common good.

Prayer For Ike’s Victims

September 13, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Faith | Leave a Comment 

Most merciful God, in the midst of natural disaster we look to you in hope and trust, acknowledging that there is much in life beyond our present understanding. Accept our compassion for the suffering; bless those who are working for their relief; and show us what we can do to share in their task, as your faithful servants. Amen.

(Taken from New Parish prayers, Edited by Frank Colquhoun)

Law Of Unintended (We Hope) Consequences

September 1, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Faith, Republican Party | Leave a Comment 

From “The Christian Century“:

A Google search for “Obama” and “Antichrist” gets nearly a million hits. Some conservative evangelicals are identifying Obama with a character in the apocalyptic Left Behind series, a young politician who starts the One World religion, a sign of the Antichrist. A recent ad from the McCain camp attributing to Obama messianic qualities has played into this hysterical reaction.

I guess Sen. McCain should’ve nixed that ad.

Prayer For The Victims Of Gustav

August 31, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Faith | 1 Comment 

Most merciful God, in the midst of natural disaster we look to you in hope and trust, acknowledging that there is much in life beyond our present understanding. Accept our compassion for the suffering; bless those who are working for their relief; and show us what we can do to share in their task, as your faithful servants. Amen.

(Taken from New Parish prayers, Edited by Frank Colquhoun)

The Christian Question

August 22, 2008 by David Emig | Filed Under Election 2008, Faith, Religion, Richard Nixon | 1 Comment 

In the midst of reporting about the Saddleback forum, cnn.com provided a flashback to a incident back last December involving Senator McCain and the question of his faith. This was of course when the Senator from Arizona wasn’t the “presumptive” nominee, but a struggling candidate trying to get on track.

During a campaign stop in South Carolina, a gentleman asked Senator McCain: “I was wondering if you have accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and savior?” McCain responded:

I am a man of faith. I have deep religious beliefs and values. I had experiences in my life where I had to rely on God not to get me through another day or another hour but another minute.

When the questioner pressed, McCain answered:

I also believe that talking too much about one’s faith and religion, in my view, is something between me and God.

While reviewing the article, I wondered how Richard Nixon would have answered the question. According to his writings in In The Arena, while RN thought that faith and religion were important in American society, he was uncomfortable with public pronouncements:

My reticence about public displays of religious faith flows both from the style of my family’s religious observances and from a belief that God’s will is expressed by men through their actions toward and on behalf of others….It would have been out of character, even demagogic, for me to inject my personal religious faith into my speeches.

The Senator’s answer concerns me less than the question does. In reading his answer, I sense the Senator’s discomfort. I feel uncomfortable about the question as well. On an employment application, questions about one’s faith are illegal…unless of course one applies for a position where one’s faith is important to the job.

I understand that most present will state that the question goes to personal character. However, as historians, and as presidential historians, we should also know that character takes many forms. Belief and faith are not the determining factor in character.

After all, as RN wrote in Arena:

[T]he basic teachings of religion, especially those that have to do with people’s relationships with one another, can easily be translated into secular terms. You don’t have to believe in God to honor your parents, or to be honest in your business dealings, or to treat others as you would have them treat you.

Another element about the question that concerns me is the precedent that it sets in American politics. Are we going to make a belief in God, or being a Christian a litmus test for national office? The implications of this are troubling for me.

Guess that I’m nostalgia for another time in which a candidate for national office didn’t have to profess his faith or belief to win votes. After all, the President of the United States leads the country — Democrats and Republicans, and believers and non-theists alike.

“Wish I’d Said That” Dept.

August 20, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Election 2008, Faith | Leave a Comment 

Hurray for this Tucson-based letter-writer to the New York Times, Barbara Jensen:

Now that we’ve heard Senators Barack Obama and John McCain answer questions from the evangelical pastor Rick Warren at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., on Saturday, I would like to hear them respond to a set of questions from an altogether ecumenical panel. Such a panel might include a Jewish rabbi, a Roman Catholic priest, a mainstream Protestant minister, an evangelical pastor, a Muslim cleric and a nonreligious person known for a strong understanding of ethics.

Ethics, morality and worldviews need to be discussed in a larger context than that of evangelical Christians alone. An ecumenical forum could proceed along the lines of the forum on Saturday but could also reflect a broader spectrum of assumptions and represent the views of the American people as a whole with far greater accuracy.

That’s A Pretty Big Goal

August 19, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Congress, Faith | Leave a Comment 

Pastor Rick Warren does not underestimate his gifts. He told Jeffrey Goldberg:

One of my three life goals is to help restore civility to civilization.