I mentioned last week that through the synchronicity which often happens as I'm reading through various articles and surfing the internet, there was a confluence of a web-ad called "A Gathering Storm" and an article in Newsweek on Religion called "The End of Christian America."

In the article, author Jon Meacham makes reference to the 2009 American Religious Identification Survey which found that "the number of Americans who claim no religious affiliation has nearly doubled since 1990, rising from 8 to 15 percent."  Moreover, much of the shift has occurred in parts of America not associated with liberalism per se...the Northeast for example, has been a bastion for religious institutions, yet the article points out that it "has emerged in 2008 as the new stronghold of the religiously unidentified."

Meacham discussed the issue with R. Albert Mohler, Jr., President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.  Mohler is concerned that the growing number of religiously unaffiliated Americans indicates the "coming storm" (to borrow a phrase) where America's religious life is no longer the underpinning for America's social order.  Mohler (and I dare say the folks at the "National Organization for Marriage;" meaning the National Organization for Keeping Marriage exclusive to heterosexuals) tend to see these numbers as proof of the unravelling of the fabric of our society.

But as Meacham points out so succinctly, "As crucial as religion has been and is to the life of the nation, America's unifying force has never been a specific faith, but a commitment to freedom--not least freedom of conscience."

We are, I believe, at a cross-road when it comes to the intersection of religious freedom and equal civil rights for our gay and lesbian neighbors.  And I think Meacham's point about our unifying principle having more to do with freedom and liberty and less to do with particular faith paradigms is so crucial.

Precisely because we are at this cross-road, organizations like NOM (and religious leaders like Mohler) are in a position where they feel vulnerable and threatened.  In the past, it was easy to assume that everyone shared the same religious tenets; that the power exercised by religious authorities within the public square was not only right but natural.

But we have seen the crumbling of discrimination, in many cases fostered by the church, founder on the rocks of our national dedication to equality, freedom and justice.  We've seen it with slavery, with anti-miscegenation laws, with women's rights and now we are beginning to see the dawn of the day where gay men and women are recognized as full citizens with equal rights.

Unfortunately, the ad by NOM is addressed to the worst instincts of fear.  Actors intone that a storm is gathering, that "gay activists" want to change "my life."  (Which begs the thinking person to ask, "Really?  They want you to be gay?")  They cite a few situations where religious organizations and the State have conflicted over equal rights for gays.  Catholic Charities voluntarily withdrawing from adoption when they couldn't exclude adoptions to gay couples in Massachussets.  A church that received tax exempt status for a recreation area and was subsequently denied tax exemption (which had originally been a state incentive encouraging private charities and religious organizations to allow access to open spaces for the general public) when they refused to allow a lesbian couple to wed there.

And, of course, there are the ubiquitous protests of "They'll teach my kids that gay couples are equal to straight couples."  This argument will be painfully familiar to those who endured the Prop 8 ads last fall.  What I object to the most in this ad is the fear-mongering and the "aw shucks, we're just folks who don't want things to change" tone that puts me uncomfortably in mind of our former President's tactics for keeping us afraid for so very long.

And yet, I think we have solutions available to us that will allow churches and their adherants to maintain their religious freedom while also allowing the State to recognize gays and lesbians as fully equal citizens.  A few weeks ago, I wrote about an article proposing a third way--where religious freedom was protected specifically by law--allowing churches, synagogues and mosques to teach and practice their faith according to their doctrine; not requiring them to marry or even accept as members those who break with their doctrine.  The idea has grown on me.

In this interim, I don't see anything wrong with protecting ACTUAL religious freedom.  But when it comes to matters where the State has primary interest, commerce, education, equal employment and, yes, the right to marry the person you love--I think religious freedom is trumped by our national interest in adherance to our fundamental values of liberty and justice for all.

As Meacham said in his article, "The decline and fall of the modern religious right's notion of a Christian America creates a calmer political environment and, for many believers, may help open the way for a more theologically serious religious life."  I hope he's right and this cross-road leads to calmer, informed and respectful discourse among us all, regardless of our beliefs.

Had a great talk with Erik Kieser today about the faith journeys we've both been on in our lives.  I first said the prayer to become a Christian back when my hand was pierced by a pitchfork by my brother, Bob.

Depressed, stressed by recent abuse by a neighbor, in shock--I told my Mom "I might as well die.  Only bad things ever happen to me."  Mind you, I was about 11 years old. 

I'd been to church most of my young life, so I knew the story of Jesus.  But it was Mom who told me that day about his sacrifice so that I could live...and in that telling, something indelible took hold of my soul.  It would be another 5 years before the "born again" experience of my teenage years.  I worshipped God; loved His radical son, Jesus; felt the whispers of God's spirit in my deepest heart.

Somewhere along the way...partly due to the churches we went to, partly due to my past and my own mixed up thoughts, I forgot about the powerful, muscular, radical Jesus of the Bible.  I confused him with the message some churches teach about fitting into behavioral boxes of piety, self-denial, and martyrdom.  Jesus became the ultimate co-dependent in my mind.  He always gave all of himself away to everyone else.  And thus, so should I.

Except for two itty bitty points. 

1.  Jesus did not always give away all of himself to everyone else.  He went to the desert for 40 days and 40 nights to be alone, to wrestle with himself, his ministry, his temptations. 

He certainly didn't give himself away to the Sadducees and the Pharisees.  He answered their questions with more questions.  Questions designed to show their theological and philosophical flaws.  Not very "nice" of him.

And often, when he healed people, he acted strangely...either asking them to keep it a secret or asking them to proclaim the miracle.  Inconsistent of him.

He stopped people from stoning a woman.  He spoke with an unacceptable woman at a well.  He ate with sinners and tax collectors.  (Today's equivalent might be sitting down to a meal with AIG executives and the octuplet mom.)  But when he sat with these people, he asked them life-changing questions.  He did not pity or patronize them.  He challenged them.

2.  While I believe with all my heart that God wants us to be more like Christ, I also believe that I am human.  I make mistakes.  I fail to live up to standards of even moderate perfection let alone Christ-like purity.  Especially a false Christ.  The doormat Christ.  The one who looks and acts nothing at all like the person we see if we read the Bible.

It is such a blessing to be free of this delusion.  I realize that some of my readers aren't of the Christian faith.  Thank you for reading this entry anyway (assuming you've gotten this far).  Because I also believe that, whether or not you follow Christ, this realization today that I'd traded in my powerful beliefs for a group-think facsimilie has resonance with every human of every (and of no) faith.

We have some powerful paradigms in our culture about what it means to be "good," to be "successful."  We have very few examples of authenticity and the personal and cultural power it imbues.  I'm so grateful for a conversation with an old friend that reminded me of one such example and also affirmed my journey and my reasons for parting ways with the Fundamentalist church.

In one of those strange confluences of life, especially the life of the mind, I promised Erik Kieser yesterday that I would (at long last) finish The Good Book: Reading the Bible with Mind and Heart by Peter J. Gomes.  (Thus enabling Erik to borrow the book.)  The section I'm reading today is "The Bible and Science."

In it, Gomes argues that the two (science and the bible) essentially have nothing to do with each other.  The bible is not written from a scientific viewpoint and in fact doesn't mention science (as a discipline) at all.  Similarly, science does not have much to say about the bible or matters of faith.

Then today, in the LA Times, is a tenderly written piece about Darwin and his wife--she a believer, he a scientist--and how they made their marriage work despite their disagreement on what she termed the "most important subject."

As a woman of faith who is fighting cancer from both a position of science (using chemotherapy and nutrition and many more medications than I thought I'd ever use) and from a position of prayer and faith, I find that I agree with Gomes.  These two disciplines are not in opposition.  While it's true that there is much about diet, spirituality and other complementary ways of dealing with cancer that doesn't even form a blip on our oncological radar these days, there are also some who have no faith at all in science and would urge a strictly faith-based approach.

As usual, I choose the middle path...the third way.  I believe in God.  Who created scientists and doctors.  Who made these chemotherapies and targeted drugs to help people like me, with colon cancer.  And I believe too in the God who works miracles every day.  Even small ones.  Like the company of friends and the ability to enjoy a gorgeous day.

Which is not to say I'm not praying for a big miracle.  I just don't see why there's an either/or to faith and science rather than an enlarging of each by the other.

I will have more to say, likely tomorrow, on the contrast between the candidates as illustrated during MSNBC's Special: "McCain and Obama--Forum on the American Presidency" hosted by Rick Warren at Saddleback Church.  If you have two hours to spare and have not seen the special, click the link above because the interview-style "debate" gives a good sense of the candidates' positions and abilities.

What I want to focus on in today's blog, however, is the inexcusable bias presented during the five-minute, post-debate wrap up by MSNBC correspondent David Shuster and his two conservative commentators, Pat Buchanan and Michelle Bernard.

By way of background, David Shuster was with Fox News from 1996 to 2002 and was their lead correspondent on McCain's "Straight Talk Express" during the 2000 campaign.  Shuster's background doesn't necessarily make him biased, but it does help explain a post-debate "analysis" that began with Shuster saying:

"John McCain, of course, came across as very energetic, passionate--even seemed very comfortable in the format.  Barack Obama by contrast in his hour perhaps thoughtful, intellectual...um, maybe even more deliberate."

I've searched the internet for video of Shuster's introduction because it's even more clear that he's cheerleading for McCain and denigrating Obama when one hears the manner in which he says, "intellectual."

Pat Buchanan, by contrast, found Obama "tortured and almost tentative...like a college sophomore who had not studied theology and was now facing his orals." 

Shuster noted a few minutes later that McCain received 3 applause interruptions for every Obama applause line.  (Now there's an intellectual argument, eh?)  Of course, neither Shuster nor his conservative pundit guests bothered to contextualize the audience.  The forum took place at a conservative, evangelical church in the heart of Orange County, a Republican stronghold.  McCain got more applause than Obama because he was talking to his base while Obama was talking across the aisle.

Then Michelle Bernard joined in the love fest for McCain saying he was "comfortable" and "at ease."  "A real contrast," she added, "with Barack Obama.  With Barack Obama tonight you really saw a lot of gray areas...whereas with John McCain things were either black or white."

Shuster went on to say, "I thought the contrast was so clear.  For example, John McCain was asked what to do about evil and he simply said, 'Defeat it' and left it at that whereas Barack Obama gave this sort of winding intellectual answer."

There's that word again.

So tell me, when did being intellectual become a negative quality in a president?  Dictionary.com describes intellectual as "appealing to or engaging the intellect...possessing or showing mental capacity, especially to a high degree." 

Oh no.  We don't want that!

Seriously, a grown man said that we should DEFEAT evil.  Really?  How is McCain going to do that?  Does he have a cape and secret powers of which we are unaware?  Is he Super-McCain?  If not, how does he merit praise for his simplistic, even naive, statment?

Because McCain is not Super McCain.  He's going to defeat evil the old fashioned-way (which is to say not really) by defining it narrowly (in this case as "radical Islamic extremism') and then by announcing victory (presumably on some aircraft carrier to be named later).

Obama's answer to the question?  We are not able to erase evil from the world, that's God's job.  But evil has to be confronted.  We are responsible to do so on an individual basis.  And we are to do so humbly, mindful that much evil has been perpetrated in the name of good.

Give me the intellectual man, who acknowledges his humanity and his limits, who answers with thoughtful nuance and genuine hope.  I'll take him any day over the glib good old boy who promises no new taxes, wealth for everyone, and declares himself able to defeat evil.  (Why does the refrain, "meet the new boss...same as the old boss" run through my brain when I cover McCain's positions?)

So...two thumbs up to Pastor Warren for putting together and pulling off this forum.

Two thumbs down to MSNBC for biased coverage.

Let's hope people listened to the forum and the issues, not the post-forum punditry.

I did a little roaming on the internet yesterday, amid sniffles and decompressing from a (depressing as usual) visit to prison.  One item I ran across on YouTube piqued my interest enough that I listened to quite a bit more speechifying than I'd originally planned on.

First, I gave a listen to the (really audio) file of James Dobson's critique of Barack Obama's speech at the 2006 "Call to Renewal" conference.  The broadcast was aired two years after the speech in a  "Focus on the Family Action" segment.  The show was cohosted (I should say tag-teamed) by Tom Minnery, a VP in Dobson's political wing of his religious media empire.

The main critiques of Obama seemed to be as follows:

1.  He diminished Christianity.
2.  He diminished Dr. Dobson.
3.  He misunderstands scripture.

Those sound (especially to those of an evangelical background) like pretty serious charges.  So I headed on over to Obama's actual speech.  Funny thing was, I didn't quite read it the same way Dobson and Minnery did. 

Let's take the charges one at a time.

1.  Barack "diminished" Christianity.  According to Dobson/Minnery, Obama did this by saying the following:  "And if we're going to do that then we first need to understand that Americans are a religious people. 90 percent of us believe in God, 70 percent affiliate themselves with an organized religion, 38 percent call themselves committed Christians, and substantially more people in America believe in angels than they do in evolution...Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation and a nation of nonbelievers"

According to Minnery, the big diminishment was that the 70% figure should have been specified to be "Judeo-Christian religion"--which, if I read my history right, includes Islam.

So his point would be...what?  That we're not a society composed of many different people who are disciples of many different faiths? 

No...it's more along the lines of what we fled from in England.  Since most people believe this, everyone should be ruled by it.

2.  Obama "diminished" Dr. Dobson.  How did he do this?  By using Dobson in an illustration of "left" and "right" religio-political views in the same sentence with...GASP...Reverend Al Sharpton.

Here's the quote: 

"And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy?"

In my opinion, it takes a special sense of oneself as ultra-important (and at least semi-perfect) to take offense at a comparison of left and right political spectrum that nearly any conscious, reasonably informed person would simply nod his or her head over and understand the intent was contrast.

Not Dobson though.  He was "highly offended."

Get over your bad self.

3.  Obama misunderstands scripture.  How so, you ask?  By questioning "which version" of scripture should guide us.

In fact, this was the very point of his speech where I found myself grateful for someone using critical thinking to approach the nexus of political and religious life.  Here we have a man who says, "Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles."

And he's characterized as someone who is "twisting" scripture for his own ends.  I guess Dobson and Minnery would see genuine engagement as that sort of behavior since they're so familiar with selective reading of the bible themselves.

So why am I preaching to the choir?  Because you might know people who hum along and they need to see this stuff...they need to be truly informed.

And because I read the subtext in Dobson and Minnery's comments accurately (as shown by a followup quote by Minnery on July 7th).  They are not interested in actively engaging in a discussion with Senator Obama about his beliefs.  Rather they are interested in swaying their adherents to remain faithful to the Republican party even if they have to twist the truth to do it.

The subtext?  Barack's not really a Christian.

Think I'm overstating?

Here's a quote from Minnery.  "We have to question whether he's even sincere as he speaks so lovingly about religion."

Minnery reveals more than he wants to in his unconscionable questioning of another man's soul when he says that Obama speaks lovingly about religion.

Give these guys a listen and see if you agree with me.

It's Dobson and Minnery who are in love with religion.

It's Obama who has faith.

 

We enjoyed a visit this evening with our friends, Paul & Patty Ellis.  We met Paul and Patty over 20 years ago while we were attending Trinity Baptist Church in Indio.  The Ellises have been missionaries in the Philippines for 25 years now and our paths crossed during one of their home furloughs when we had a couple of their children, Bobby and Peter, in our youth group.

The years have led us on very different paths and yet whenever we sit with them, I am reminded more of our commonalities than our differences.  In recent years, I have been through a number of spiritual trials that have brought me to a different type of faith (although of largely the same brand).  The Ellises have been through many trials of their own and those trials seem to have led them in more traditional paths.  Yet we share the language of our young faith...we share the wiser understandings of the divine and the mundane to which our gray hair attests.

And we share a common interest in leaving this world better for having passed through it, along with a common hope for life beyond this particular, mortal realm.

It was good to break bread with them, to share fellowship.  To listen and to hear.

I received an email from my friend, Todd Truffin, this morning.  He has been published in a series of Lenten meditations by the Episcopalian diocese in Ohio.  His first meditation contrasts the story of Christ and the "woman caught in sin" (John 8:1-20) with the book of Susanna (an apocryphal book that this protestant-backgrounded heretic has never read).

Todd considerately explained the book of Susanna so those of us who were unfamiliar with the book would know the story.  In a nutshell, Susanna is a beautiful, devout, Jewish woman who finds herself entrapped by two evil men in her garden. They give her what seems to be an impossible choice--she must either have sex with them or they will tell everyone that they caught her with a lover. 

Susanna tells them to take a hike.  She won't give in.  And so they accuse her.  Enter Daniel, who knows that something's not quite kosher.  He questions the men, discovers huge discrepancies in their stories, and she is freed while the evil men are stoned.

Todd drew on the parallel New Testament story of the men who were poised to stone a woman "caught in sin" when Jesus stopped them with his admonishment, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

But I was struck by a different parallel--the story of Shakepeare's Measure for Measure.  In another nutshell, a virtuous woman (Isabella) is pressured by a government official to give up her virginity in order to save her brother from execution.  She refuses and, as is typical in Shakespeare, all ends well.

In college, I was one of two people who argued strenuously that Isabella should have given in and saved her brother.  She had no way of knowing that someone else would save him and I viewed it as a sacrifice worth making.

Needless to say, my friend Clay and I horrified the idealistic young Christians in our class who held that she would be sacrificing not only her virginity but her immortal soul to save her brother.  We saw it differently, believing that God would forgive her and her brother would be saved from death by her sacrifice.

I'm still torn as to what I would do.  I suppose scripture urges me to hold fast to the spiritual ideal of purity and let the chips fall where they may for my "brother."  But the example of Christ tells me that to sacrifice my self for my brother is a good thing. 

Though it's an abstract question, I think it's worth pondering.  What would you do?  Hold fast and leave the saving up to someone else?  Or sacrifice those ideals to redeem your brother's life?

The sun is an eerie, distant visitor this morning.  After I dropped Dan off at the airport for his trip, I drove toward the sunrise on my way home.  The sun was the size and shape of a harvest moon, only in shades of fuschia, with drifts of smoke cowling it in visible layers.  The dust and ash cover was so thick I could look at the sun directly.

I've stayed in the house 90% of the past two days, not even venturing to the gym because my chest was so tight after Monday's hour in the smoke.  I literally cannot imagine what it's like for the men and women on the fire line, breathing in smoke, ash, chemicals day after day.  I am so grateful to those who risk themselves to protect our lives, homes and businesses.

Thank you.

I also found the letter from Rev. Hughes at Malibu Presbyterian Church to be inspirational.  I've been checking out the website so we can donate to their rebuilding efforts.  Malibu Pres was an important way stop in my spiritual journey.  It was at Malibu Pres that I began to integrate the born-again fervor of my youth with critical thinking, love-based faith, and to understand that God didn't want to punish me but love me.  I am forever in debt to Rev. Dave and Nancy Worth for their investment in a college kid from up the hill. 

Thank you.

In the hiatus brought on by the smoke, I've been taking advantage of my hermetically sealed, hermit-like existence to complete paperwork, put together files, fill nail holes (today I'll paint) and generally clean up.  Amazing what some concentrated time will do for you.

I'm going to carry that principle over into the Nanowrimo (National Novel Writing Month) exercise.  I've got a tentative plan put together for culling writing time out of my day.  Here's what it looks like so far:

Activity                    Time Saved

Television                   2 hours/evening
Blogging                     1 hour/day (mostly research)
E-chats                       1 hour/week
Video Games               1 hour/day

With 4 hours saved each day (and by focusing them on writing) I should be able to hit my goal of 1667 words per day.  I'm actually aiming for that as a minimum and for 2300 per day as a maximum.  If I hit the max, then I will be able to take a day off here or there (Thanksgiving for example) and not get too far behind the gun.

Also, I'm headed to Hawaii for a Girls' Work Week with Lynne and Shari (we really do work!) 11/5 through 11/11...so I figure I'll get at most an hour in there each day...so I'll need the extra time to catch up.

So that's the plan for Nanowrimo.  I'm looking forward to the challenge.  In some ways, November will be a continuation of this time as a hermit.  I'll be staying mostly in the house, typing away, getting up to stretch and do little tasks, then returning to the computer.  

I'm also planning on paring most other activities to a minimum.  Emails will receive short shrift.  Cooking will likely be salads, roasts and take out.  Phone calls will roll to the answering machine.  Laundry may pile up a bit.

I will, however, be making time for two important things: 

1.  Hitting the gym.  I'll need it to work out the kinks!

2.  Golf on Thursdays with my friend Renee'.  Similar justification as above, but along with the necessary component of being outdoors.

Hey, I can't be a hermit all my life!
 

While there's been a rapid build-up of support for yesterday's "Laura Morefield Proposal," I feel I have no choice but to withdraw my idea. 

It occurred to me that there are some small issues with October Redux.  The first seemed frivolous: what would we do about horoscopes?  After that, they got more serious.  While kids might appreciate a second Halloween, would it make up for four more weeks of staring at Mr. Loomis's back as he solves white-board algebra equations and waxes poetic over his love of pi? 

No.

And what about my good friend in prison (and his countless co-inmates)?  I am sure they would rather have a shorter 2007 than a longer one.

So, I cannot allow this idea to grow beyond its current advocacy group.  It appears I will just have to make do with the twelve months we have for 2007.  I suppose that's a good thing.  What would I do with the extra month anyway?  Probably fritter it away thinking, "Hey, this time is gravy...I'm supposed to watch all 88 episodes of Farscape.  I deserve to watch all 88 episodes of Farscape."  So there I would be on November 1st, lamenting all over again about how there's not enough time left in 2007.

It was an interesting thought to contemplate, extra time.  The concept has made me appreciate, on this day of all days, the time I've had.  The time I have yet to have.  To pause a moment and reflect seriously upon those whose lives were taken 6 years ago in an abrupt, chaotic, harsh series of terrorist attacks.

I know their families wish with their very bones for extra time.  I imagine most of the victims uttered fervent prayers for more time.  The families of all of those who've died in the aftermath--war in Afghanistan, war and insurgency in Iraq--they all wish for more time too.

I trust their prayers will be answered in a world beyond this one.  Where time is elastic, the bonds of friendship and family are warm embraces.  A place where there are no more tears.

Selah.

 

There was an interesting and compelling article in the LA Times over the weekend.  It was written by William Lobdell, who has covered their religion section for a number of years.  I've read several of the stories he references in what turns out to be his sayonara to the religion beat and, it seems, his Christian faith in general.

Here's a link to the article, Religion Beat Became A Test Of Faith.

I felt a kinship with Lobdell when he described his conversion experience, his early years in faith and the struggle he's had to reconcile faith in God with the actions of those who call themselves "God's People."

It's been a tough several years for me and faith.  Heck, it's been a tough several years for me and life!  After struggling with the imprisonment of a dear friend, the tsunami of aftershocks to our lives, and recovering from depression, I've moved from a fairly rote set of spiritual practices (daily prayer, daily bible reading, weekly church services and weekly small group meetings) to an almost non-practicing faith.

I pray when someone asks for prayer.  I often express my gratitude to God for the blessings in our life (and they are indeed abundant).  But I don't keep lists of prayer requests nor do I feel like I must follow a particular prayer regimen.

I don't go to church anymore because the last one I went to just about did me in, in terms of faith.  Much more focused on the evils of homosexuality and liberal politics than they were on anything even remotely resembling talking about Christ and YHWH.

I feel a pull back to a community of faith...but no urgency to find one.

So one might expect that my faith is less than it was before.  In fact, I feel like it's stronger than ever.  It's my convictions about the extraneous stuff that's fallen away.  I believe in a larger, greater "mystery that we all call God" (as Depak Chopra put it on Larry King Live the other night).  I believe I live my life in relationship to God in a similar way that I live my life in relationship to others.

And, during the same Larry King show, Tammy Faye said, "I trust God with me."

That I do.

If that's not faith, what is?