Update on the letter: Kudos to the NAE

Evangelical Body Stays the Course on Global Warming

Rebuffing Christian radio commentator James C. Dobson, the board of directors of the National Association of Evangelicals reaffirmed its position that environmental protection, which it calls "creation care," is an important moral issue.

Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family, and two dozen other conservative Christian leaders, including Gary L. Bauer, Tony Perkins and Paul M. Weyrich, sent the board a letter this month denouncing the association's vice president, the Rev. Richard Cizik, for urging attention to global warming.

The letter argued that evangelicals are divided on whether climate change is a real problem, and it said that "Cizik and others are using the global warming controversy to shift the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time," such as abortion and same-sex marriage.

If Cizik "cannot be trusted to articulate the views of American evangelicals on environmental issues, then we respectfully suggest that he be encouraged to resign his position with the NAE," the letter concluded.

he Rev. Leith Anderson, the association's president, said Saturday that the board did not respond to the letter during a two-day meeting that ended Friday in Minneapolis. But, he said, the board reaffirmed a 2004 position paper, "For the Health of the Nations," that outlined seven areas of civic responsibility for evangelicals, including creation care along with religious freedom, nurturing the family, sanctity of life, compassion for the poor, human rights and restraining violence.

On Friday, the association's board approved a 12-page statement on terrorism and torture. Anderson said that Cizik gave a report to the board on his work in Washington as vice president for governmental affairs and that there was no effort to reprimand him. "I think there was a lot of support from me, from the executive committee and from the board for Rich Cizik," said Anderson.

(Article Source: By (AND) - www.andnetwork.com)

Conservative Christians... you baffle me

So James Dobson and the conservative evangelical crew have written a little letter about Rich C. at the NAE. Read the letter here. Seriously, read it. It's very fascinating. It gives me a strange sense that history is unfolding in my midst when I read it. Indeed, a major change is taking place, and it's impossible to guess what the outcome will be.

I've met the head of the NAE before. It was as part of a group that focuses on helping American Christians find ways to alleviate the suffering of people in poverty. I was and continue to be, all about that. I was proud of him for being involved. A powerful Christian leader in DC could be doing a lot of things other than spending time on helping the poor. That was good to see.

I've been to meetings on Capitol Hill. One time at a meeting in a Senate office building, I was approached about Christians in leadership being part of the solution on climate change. Very little was being done. Ever since then, I've been happy to hear whenever more is being done.

But the most fascinating part of the letter is this... and I have to thank Sojourners in DC for highlighting this letter and this portion in particular.

They wrote:

"... we have observed that Cizik and others are using the global warming controversy to shift the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time, notably the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage and the teaching of sexual abstinence and morality to our children."

Oh... my... God. They did not really write that, did they?!

The great moral issues of our day are (very narrowly defined) sanctify of human life (ABORTION), the integrity of marriage (NO GAY LOVE) and the teaching of sexual abstinence and morality (SEX IS PLAIN BAAAD!)

Sometimes it's hard to believe how different Christians can be from each other, because I wear the CHRIST nametag too but I feel like I have almost nothing in common with these misguided freaks.

The sanctity of life... how about defining that as it relates to issues like Iraq, Afghanistan, poverty, Hurricane Katrina victims still living in squalor, inner cities abandoned because of racism, the horrible travesty of public education in thousands of U.S. cities...

The integrity of marriage? Cool, if you're excited about that, if you've found the One, then cool. But Jesus did not harp on this. He mentioned it once. He also mentioned selling all your possessions once. Who has the hardened heart?

Teaching our kids sexual abstinence and morality? Again, what in the world is this preoccupation with SEX? How about we teach our kids love, tolerance, patience, integrity, honesty, generosity. These things don't making loving Jesus impossible or even compromised. They make loving Jesus real and tangible.

Ugh. The whole thing is disgusting. I am so tired of powerful Christians intimidating each other. I am tired of ideologies being used as a heavy vehicle for rolling over and smashing other people. (A moderate Democrat or Republican is often mercilessly berated by their own party.)

Anyway, I guess that's a whole 'nother conversation... I just find this letter very telling and very disturbing. Dobson is probably planning a coup as we speak.

Are love and faith the same?

I hope you don't mind, Philip, but what you wrote was so wonderful... I've never heard 'love' and 'faith' defined like this. You should be writing my blog! lol So I pulled your comment off the post below and put it here for all to enjoy:

I don't know how different love and faith actually are. Love seems to be (according to a list of authors and speakers listed later) an authentic approach toward another in which you are transformed, while leaving that other as is - in other words, not internally likening it to yourself or otherwise denying its individuality. It's an "internal" experience which requires some sort of response or reaction - even when you have no idea how to react.

Love at its core is both relational and personal. It only arises in relationship to another, but it's still ultimately you who loves, no matter the response (encouragement or otherwise) of the other. Even if the object hurts you or otherwise refuses your response, it is still your responsibility to love.

NB: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "RESPONSIBILITY" AND "DUTY". You have no duty of any kind to stay in an abusive relationship of any kind or continue to love when such an attachment can kill you - in that sense that no one can force you to act otherwise apart from your consent, you're free. The flip side is that you are responsible to the relationship - it is your response to that other person which is ultimate.

Faith seems to be similar - approaching life/god/reality in a way that leaves you transformed and open to new possibility. It too requires a response which at any given time you might not be capable of performing, but the call must lead you on. It is the direct encounter with and responsibility to the Ultimate, and not mental assent to some creedal statement. No guarantee things will turn out right, and the probability that things will go badly and it might well be your own damn fault Yet you continue blindly into the unfolding world, listening ahead for the one who saves you from your finitude.

...writing this, I felt way too many influences. Levinas, McLaren, Buber, Krishnamurti, Gene, B. Katie, the gospels, a whole lot of Buddhist teachers and a little bit of Derrida. I can't say that a single thing above is even original, or accurate, or even internally consistent...especially since my experience at loving and at faith is virtually nil. They seem like smart people, though.

Random note: Don't look up what "pistis" means in Lithuanian. And if you do, don't read 1 Corinthians or Luke (or the other gospels, or Acts, or any letter besides 2 John) with that meaning in place of the word "faith" in translation.

(Credit, All of It, Due to One Philip S.)

Celebrate the U2-charist

The Church of England is celebrating the U2-charist to encounter the Lord this year. I'm sure some of you would ridicule that (yes, you know who you are), but hey, more power to them.

Oh yeah, this is why capital punishment sucks

I've been deeply disturbed by the whole hanging of Saddam Hussein fiasco, but I couldn't really articulate why. I mean I know I am opposed to capital punishment, aligning myself either as a super-liberal with Amnesty International or a super-conservative with the Catholic church (take your pick), but in the case of SADDAM? Why oppose it?

Thank you, Shane Claiborne, for saying it so well:

Thursday, January 04, 2007

Shane Claiborne: Communicating Through a Noose

"What do you think of that man?" the old guy asked in a raspy voice as I settled in next to him on the plane. He pointed to the face of Saddam Hussein on the front of his newspaper with a headline story of the looming execution. I gathered myself, and prepared for what could turn out to be a rather chatty plane ride. I replied gently, "I think that man needs some love." And the rather boisterous gentleman sat still, perhaps not exactly the response he predicted. Then he said pensively, "Hmmmm. I think you're right..." And finally, he whispered in a forlorn tone, "And it is hard to communicate love through a noose."

Sometimes we just need permission to say, "It's not okay to kill someone to show everyone how much we hate killing." As Christian artist Derek Webb sings, " Peace by way of war is like purity by way of fornication. It's like saying murder is wrong and showing them by way of execution." I am encouraged by how many Christians I hear voicing an alternative to the myth of redemptive violence in light of the recent killing of Saddam, folks who love Jesus and have the unsettling feeling that Jesus loves evildoers so much he died for them, for us. I have heard many evangelicals who see Saddam's execution as the ultimate act of hopelessness and faithlessness – after all it is humanity stepping in to make the final judgment, that this human created in God's image is beyond redemption. And for those who believe in hell, executing someone who may not yet know of the love and grace of Christ is doubly offensive.

It is rather scandalous to think that we have a God who loves murderers and terrorists like Saul of Tarsus, Osama bin Laden, or Sadaam Hussein – but that is the "good news" isn't it? It's the old eye for an eye thing that gets us. But the more I've studied the Hebrew Scriptures the more I am convinced that this was just a boundary for people who lashed back. As the young exodus people are trying to discover a new way of living outside the empire, God made sure there were some boundaries, like if someone breaks your are, you cannot go back and break their arm and their leg. If someone kills hundreds of your people, you cannot kill 160,000 of theirs.

We've learned the eye for an eye thing all too well. A shock and awe bombing leads to a shock and awe beheading. A Pearl Harbor leads to a Hiroshima. A murder leads to an execution. A rude look leads to a cold shoulder. An eye for an eye we have indeed heard before and learned its logic all too well. But Jesus comes declaring in his State of the Union Sermon on the Mount address (Matthew 5): "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,'" but there is a another way. No wonder Jesus wept over Jerusalem because the people "did not know the things that make for peace."

Gandhi and King used to say, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves the whole world blind" (and with dentures). The gospels tell the story of a group of people who have dragged forward an adulteress and are ready to stone her (this was the legal consequence). Jesus is asked for his support of this death penalty case. His response is this... "You are all adulterers. If you have looked at someone lustfully, you have committed adultery in your heart." And the people drop their stones and walk away with their heads bowed. We want to kill the murderers, and Jesus says to us: "You are all murderers. If you have called your neighbor 'Raca, Fool' you are guilty of murder in your heart." Again the stones drop. We are all murderers and adulterers and terrorists. And we are all precious.

When we have new eyes we can look into the faces of those we don't even like, and see the One we love. We can see God's image in everyone we encounter. As Henri Nouwen puts it: "In the face of the oppressed I recognize my own face and in the hands of the oppressor I recognize my own hands. Their flesh is my flesh, their blood is my blood, their pain is my pain, their smile is my smile." We are made of the same dust. We cry the same tears. No one is beyond redemption and no one is beyond repute. And that is when we are free to imagine a revolution that sets both the oppressed and the oppressors free. The world is starving for grace. And grace is hard to communicate with a noose.

Shane Claiborne is a founding partner of The Simple Way Community, a radical faith community that lives among and serves the homeless in Kensington, North Philadelphia. He is a Red Letter Christian and the author of The Irresistible Revolution.

I AM - Pure being... divine life inside

I'd like to get your reaction to this piece below. I have this on my ipod, and transcribed it so I could share it. It's from Eckhart Tolle's book called A New Earth. My personal response, just to lay this out there, is that it resonates very deeply and doesn't conflict with my understanding of God or of spirituality. In fact, it actually helps me understand things better - things like being, life, surrender, and peace. In some ways it is very profound, but once you get it, it's also very basic. Let me know your thoughts. Help me out brothers and sisters and make sure I don't stray too far new age. lol

From Descartes' error to Sartre's insight

The 17th century philosopher Descartes, regarded as the founder of modern philosophy, gave expression to this primary error with this famous diction which he saw as primary truth -

I THINK, THEREFORE I AM.

This was the answer he found to the question, "Is there anything I can know with absolute certainty?" He realized that the fact that he was always thinking was beyond doubt, and so he equated thinking with being... that is to say, identity (I AM) with thinking... Instead of the ultimate truth, he had found the root of the ego, but he didn't know that.

It took almost 300 years before another famous philosopher saw something in that statement that Descartes, as well as everybody else, had overlooked. His name was Jean Paul Sartre. He looked at Descarte's statement - I think, therefore I am - very deeply and suddenly realized, in his own words, "The consciousness that says 'I am' is not the consciousness that thinks." What did he mean by that?

When you're aware that you're thinking, that awareness is not part of thinking. It is a different dimension of consciousness. And it is that awareness that says, "I am." If there were nothing but thought in you, you wouldn't even know you're thinking. You would be like a dreamer who doesn't know he's dreaming. You would be as identified as every thought as the dreamer is with every image in the dream. Many people still live like that - like sleepwalkers, trapped in old, dysfunctional mindsets that continuously recreate the same nightmarish reality. When you know you're dreaming, you awake within the dream - another dimension of consciousness has come in. The implication of Sartre's insight is profound, but he himself was still too identified with thinking to realize the full significance of what he had discovered - an emerging new dimension of consciousness.

The Peace that Passes All Understanding

There are many accounts of people who experience that emerging new dimension of consciousness as a result of tragic loss in their lives. Some lost all of their possessions, others their childresns or spouse, their social position, reputation, or physical abilities. In some cases, through disaster or war, they lost all of these simultaneously and found themselves with nothing. We may call this a limit situation. Whatever they had identified with, whatever gave them their sense of self, had been taken away. Then suddenly and inexplicably, the anguish or intense fear they initially felt, gave way to a sacred sense of presence - the deep peace, serenity, and complete freedom from fear. This phenomenon must have been familiar to Saint Paul, who used the expression, "the peace of God which passes all understanding." It is indeed a peace that doesn't seem to make sense, and the people who experienced it ask themselves, "In the face of this, how can it be that I feel such peace?" The answer is simple once you realize what the ego is and how it works. When forms that you had identified with, that gave you your sense of self, collapse or are taken away, it can lead to a collapse of the ego, since ego is identification with a form. When there is nothing to identify with you anymore, who are you? When forms around you die or death approaches, your sense of beingness, of "I am," is freed from its entanglement with form. Spirit is released from its imprisonment in matter. You realize your essential identity as formless, as an old, pervasive presence, of being prior to all forms, all identifications. You realize your true identity as consciousness itself, rather than what consciousness had identified with. That's the peace of God. The ultimate truth of who you are is not "I am... this" or "I am... that." but "I am."

Not everybody who experiences great loss also experiences this awakening, this disidentification from form. Some immediately create a strong mental image or thought form, in which they see themselves as a victim, whether it be of circumstances, other people, an unjust fate, or God. This thought form and the emotions it creates such as anger, resentment, self-pity, and so on, they strongly identify with, and it immediately takes the place of all the other identifications that have collapsed through the loss. In other words, the ego quickly finds a new form. The fact that this new form is a deeply unhappy one doesn't concern the ego too much as long as it has an identity, good or bad. In fact, this new ego will be more contracted, more rigid and impenetrable than the old one. Whenever tragic loss occurs, you either resist or you yield. Some people become bitter or deeply resentful. Others become compassionate, wise, and loving. Yielding means inner acceptance of what is - you're open to life. Resistance is an inner contraction, a hardening of the shell of the ego - you're closed. Whatever action you take in a state of inner resistance, which we may also call negativity, will create more outer resistance, and the universe will not be on your side. Life will not be helpful. If the shutters are closed, sunlight cannot come in. When you yield internally - when you surrender - the new dimension of consciousness opens up. If action is possible or necessary, your action will be in alignment with the whole and supported by creative intelligence - the unconditioned consciousness which, in a state of inner openness, you become one with. Circumstances and people then become helpful, cooperative. Coincidences happen. If no action is possible, you rest in the peace and inner stillness that come with surrender. You rest in God.