Saturday, June 28, 2008

Dobson & Obama : Two years ago, Barack Obama gave a speech on politics and religion. Two years later, James Dobson attacked it.

It's tempting to go along with BeliefNet's Brian McLaren, who defends Obama. McLaren calls Dobson on several points. Among them: his logical inconsistencies; his name-calling and mockery; his confusion of democracy with theocracy; and his misrepresentation of Obama's views.

But, to me, David Kuo, another BeliefNet blogger, has cut through to the deeper issue. Dobson and Obama are more alike than they know (or would like to admit):

Both men see their religious faith as one of their primary political weapons. They take that faith and move in opposite directions, but their philosophy, their spirituality is very similar.

Dr. Dobson attacked Sen. Obama for having a flawed view - a deliberately skewed view - of Biblical theology "deliberately distorting the Bible," "dragging biblical understanding through the gutter," "willfully trying to confuse people," and having a "fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution." Obama responded by saying Dobson either hadn't read his speech (at a Sojourners event on poverty) or was just trying to score political points.

That back and forth, however, is simply the exchange of men who long ago decided that their faith was a tool for material ends.

It is a common mistake, a common temptation - the temptation to take the very hard work of the spiritual life - living humbly, loving your enemies, putting others first, forgiving always - and replace it with the easy work of politics - the promise that this policy or plan will bring about a sort of spiritual nirvana.

That is what unites Obama and Dobson. That they take those politics in different directions is incidental.

Sunday, June 22, 2008

Seeing The Bright Side Of Four-Dollar Gas: In his autobiography, Surprised By Joy, C.S. Lewis writes:

I number it among my blessings that my father had no car, while yet most of my friends had, and sometimes took me for a drive. This meant that all these distant objects could be visited just enough to clothe them with memories and not impossible desires, while yet they remained ordinarily as inaccessible as the Moon. The deadly power of rushing about wherever I pleased had not been given me. I measured distance by the standard of man, man walking on his two feet, not by the standard of the internal combustion engine. I had not been allowed to deflower the very idea of distance; in return I possessed "infinite riches" in what would have been to motorists "a little room." The truest and most horrible claim made for modern transport is that it "annihilates space." It does. It annihilates one of the most glorious gifts we have been given. It is a vile inflation which lowers the value of distance, so that a modern boy travels a hundred miles with less sense of liberation and pilgrimage and adventure than his grandfather got from traveling ten. Of course if a man hates space and wants it to be annihilated, that is another matter. Why not creep into his coffin at once? There is little enough space there.

Published in 1955, and from a northern latitude.

Wednesday, March 26, 2008:

Religious Fumblings On Marriage: In mid-December, blogger Andrew Sullivan called for Mike Huckabee to confirm whether he stands by his support for a 1998 USA Today ad that included the following:

"A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ."

Huckabee signed the ad, along with other leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention.

Within the last week or so, I came across an interesting passage in Henry Chadwick's book, The Early Church (pages 58-59 of Penguin's paperback edition):

Christianity [in its first few centuries] seems to have been especially successful among women. It was often through the wives that it penetrated the upper classes of society in the first instance. Christians believed in the equality of men and women before God, and found in the New Testament commands that husbands should treat their wives with such considerations and love as Christ manifested for his Church. Christian teaching about the sanctity of marriage offered a powerful safeguard to married women. The Christian sex ethic differed from the conventional standards of pagan society in that it regarded unchastity in a husband as no less serious a breach of loyalty and trust than unfaithfulness in a wife.

So here, as in so many cases in the New Testament, we find much needed context for Jesus' teachings. This illustrates the importance of understanding the state of the culture at the time Jesus entered history -- before we apply those teachings to our modern culture.

I can't speak for the intended (or imagined) purpose behind the Southern Baptist Convention's full-page ad in USA Today. But it left Andrew Sullivan (in my opinion, a fair-minded observer of religious news and views) with the impression that it was a Christian-sponsored attack on the role of women in our society.

The very Gospel that liberated women in one culture has now been packaged in a way that seems to force them back into a less-than-equal societal (even Christian!) role today.

In fairness, in my one-on-one conversations with Christians who approve of the USA Today ad, they are quick to point out that the ad goes on to explain a man's role in marriage as characterized by that of Christ's -- specifically, his role as suffering servant for the Church.

A fair point! But I would also say that the Christian teaching on the man's role in marriage needs no 1st century cultural context before it can be accurately understood by modern readers.

The same can't be said for the Christian teaching regarding wives.

Moral to the story? A secular newpaper is a poor forum for publishing bare-boned, hit-and-run excerpts from a broader theology. Especially when, in the case of Christian marriage, most Christians need a healthy dose of contextual background provided before they can fully understand the teaching themselves!

Thursday, Feb. 28, 2008:

Winter Daydream: Living in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area, where the temperature reached 90 degrees a couple of days ago (before a cold front -- thankfully -- blew through later in the day), I'm in no hurry to say goodbye to the cooler weather of winter.

But when I come across a story like this in The New York Times, I can't deny there's a part of me ready to fast forward to the outdoor swimming season. And, as a lover of natural pools, like Barton Springs in Austin, I'm not surprised that surfing pics of the saltwater rock pools of Sidney, Australia, has been my choice of time-waste in the last 48 hours.

My favs? How about: The Ross Jones Memorial Pool. The Newcastle Bogey Hole. And... the Whale Beach Rock Pool. (Make sure to click on the pics for larger versions...!)

Tuesday, Feb. 19, 2008

Disasters and God: Hurricane Katrina. The 2005 Tsunami. 9/11. The Virginia Tech Shootings. When large scale, disastrous events transpire, whether they are natural or human in origin, the mainstream media usually seek explanations from religious people for how a merciful, loving God--if He is indeed all that merciful and loving--allows such pain and suffering.

Depending on which religious leader you ask, you may discover that these events are judgments against sinful cultures; or that they are cleansing agents for the world; or that they are catalysts whose purpose is to thrust charities and giving hearts into the limelight.

If you're like me, these explanations aren't too satisfying. At the least, they seem incomplete or insufficient. And maybe they're on the wrong track altogether.

So I'm going to refer you Rev. Greg Boyd of Woodland Hills Church in St. Paul, Minnesota. This was Greg's first sermon of 2005, and it was delivered in response to the devastating tsunami that had just hit shorelines throughout the Indian Ocean. The sermon is titled "Being the Kingdom in a Groaning Creation," and you'll find it at the top of this link.

You can listen to it on an mp3 player, on your computer; or you can burn it to a CD. For those of you with iPod FM transmitters, I've taken this sermon and turned up its volume. My file will be easier to hear via an iPod transmitter on your car radio.

After hearing Greg's explanation for disasters in God's creation, I was finally able to step back and say, "Now that makes sense." If only The New York Times would set aside some op-ed space for Greg after a tragic event.

I hope you'll take the time to give Greg Boyd a listen.

Older Posts:

Brave Sir Blogger at Blogspot: My archives are now at Blogspot.com. In fact, I'm mirroring the entire blog there.

The direct link is:
http://coffeeshoptimes.blogspot.com