Comment on Streak's Sin Post

I originally wrote this as a comment on Streak's Blog, specifically his post, Streak's Blog: Sin. I felt bad that it was so long so I posted it here instead.

Streak
Excellent post. Ahhhh. Sin, sin, sin. Ain't it a great topic! The problem is, whatever your take on sin, Jesus wasn't too big on anyone sitting around figuring out who ELSE was doing it (Or how can you say to your neighbour, “Let me take the speck out of your eye”, while the log is in your own eye?) I love your comment that the sinless churchgoer. My recent church experience has been so refreshing. Church has once again become for me a lifeboat for sinners. Man, it's a great place to be! You look around the room at all the wounded people who are so glad to be there to fellowship with other world weary travelers. There's no time for judgement- we don't even want to mention the word because we're so glad to know we're going to miss it that we don't want to mention it too loudly unless maybe you want to hear the story, too. Matt 7:47 says, "Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little." Does this mean there isn't right and wrong? Of course not, but a healthy view of what's our job and what's God's would go a long way toward bringing a little peace and healing to a road-weary world. Remember "Come to me all you who are weary...."?

Well, regarding sexuality, there's an excellent article that directly addresses this issue. It also is quite informative about Biblical interpretation, Biblical sexual attitudes, and the role of modern discovery informing our theology. Wink's not exactly a darling of the Fundies so hopefully this won't prompt any flames from passing anonypussies. Anyway, I think it's one of the best articles I've read on a responsible Biblical interpretation of sexual orientation. It's long so I've posted a couple tidbits:

Homosexuality and the Bible by Walter Wink

The punishment for adultery was death by stoning for both the man and the woman (Deut. 22:22), but here adultery is defined by the marital status of the woman. In the Old Testament, a man could not commit adultery against his own wife; he could only commit adultery against another man by sexually using the other's wife. And a bride who is found not to be a virgin is to be stoned to death (Deut. 22:13-21), but male virginity at marriage is never even mentioned. It is one of the curiosities of the current debate on sexuality that adultery, which creates far more social havoc, is considered less "sinful" than homosexual activity. Perhaps this is because there are far more adulterers in our churches. Yet no one, to my knowledge, is calling for their stoning, despite the clear command of Scripture. And we ordain adulterers.

Approached from the point of view of love rather than that of law, the issue is at once transformed. Now the question is not "What is permitted?" but rather "What does it mean to love my homosexual neighbor?" Approached from the point of view of faith rather than works, the question ceases to be "What constitutes a breach of divine law in the sexual realm?" and becomes instead "What constitutes integrity before the God revealed in the cosmic lover, Jesus Christ?" Approached from the point of view of the Spirit rather than the letter, the question ceases to be "What does Scripture command?" and becomes "What is the Word that the Spirit speaks to the churches now, in the light of Scripture, tradition, theology, and, yes, psychology, genetics, anthropology, and biology?" We can't continue to build ethics on the basis of bad science.

In a little-remembered statement, Jesus said, "Why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?" (Luke 12:57 NRSV). Such sovereign freedom strikes terror in the hearts of many Christians; they would rather be under law and be told what is right.

Oil spill

The largest oil spill since they started keeping track just happened on Alaska's north slope. This according to the Anchorage Daily News. Try searching CNN or the New York Times- you won't find the story, at least not as of 6am Sunday morning. The funny thing is that I found it here on Aljazeera first. Anyway, I was struck by this quote:

Richard Fineberg, a former state oil analyst, said it is too early to determine environment consequences, but said the area, near the start of the trans-Alaska pipeline, does not match the popular image of the state.

"That area is not pristine. It's industrial," he said.

I guess since it's been industrialized an oil spill is no big deal environmentally. Makes me real sorry we haven't started drilling in ANWR already. Sorry, but any talk of "minimal impact" to the environment by drilling is just rediculous. Drilling is just the first part. Obviously there's an ongoing threat any time you are transporting oil- whether it's by pipeline or by tanker. Exxon STILL hasn't fulfilled their responsibilities in Prince William Sound. Any insinuation that big oil is environmentally sensitive is just a bad joke.

Immoral Budget

Miguel De La Torre has an excellent article at EthicsDaily.com. He articulates well why the current budget proposal is immoral. Here's a couple lines:

I am left to conclude that this budget is immoral and unethical, because Bush is selling the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals.

Cringing in My Seat

I watched a good bit of the funeral for Coretta Scott King yesterday. I taped it on CSPAN in order to be able to watch the whole thing. While sitting in a cafe yesterday eating lunch I looked up to see George Bush speaking. I know that this was not a typical funeral by any means and that there are probably a number of reasons he was standing there, but I really feel like it was an obscene few minutes. At a time when family, friends, and the nation are mourning her passing, I think that Bush speaking anything but words of repentance at her funeral was appalling. Having to sit and listen to the man who is working against the King vision and philosophy in his actions, leadership, and policies at every level of his presidency is just obscene. This is the person who is building a legacy daily of disdain for nonviolent or negotiated resolution to conflct. He PREFERS using violence to achieve his ends. Read the 6 Principles of Nonviolence and the 6 Steps of Nonviolence at The King Center. King advocated a war on poverty- Bush is leading a war on the poor. The most honest, honorable thing for him to have said would have been, "I must respectfully refuse. I represent all that Mrs. King devoted her life to change. It would disrespect her memory for me to say anything more."

What the world needs now......

I've been off of the blog for a while. Circumstances haven't allowed much posting other than posting comments on some other blogs. I do read quite a bit but just haven't wanted to take the time to form much into coherent thoughts. Anyway, the more of us reading and letting each other in on our findings the better off we are. That said, here's a sobering article from the Jerusalem Post courtesy of Guerrilla News' entitled "U.S Evangelicals to launch 'Christian AIPAC". These people aren't kidding around, and their influence will be felt. Here's an exerpt:

"Every state in the Union, every congressional district" will be accounted for, Hagee says. Board members comprise an evangelical who's who, including Jerry Falwell, Benny Hinn, Jack Hayford, George Morrison, Rod Parsley and Steven Strang. Televangelist Pat Robertson is to attend the summit, but is not on the board.

Please see my previous post for more details on the "theology" and strategy that this reflects. These groups are NOT pro-Jewish or pro-Israel in any benevolent sense. They see Israel as a key piece on the chessboard as they maneuver world events toward what they believe will be the necessary conditions for the rapture, second coming of Christ, etc.... They are NOT pro-peace. Quite the opposite. They are well funded (wouldn't THAT be an interesting paper trail!) This has the potential for lots of discussion. As time allows......

Geeeeez- enough already!

This started as a comment on Streak's Blog. Read his whole post- he does a nice recap of the issues for the last few days, especially since the Daily Show is on reruns:-). Bush is finally clarifying things in He's-the-president-that's-why fashion. I'm a little curious why all the fuss over continuing the patriot act- Bush can just continue doing what he wants- because he's the president! Is it just me, or does it seem that far fetched for him to use this same reasoning to convince himself and others that any lengths would be justified to avoid changing presidents during a shooting war? Say, last year? Maybe in Ohio?

On Intelligent Design issues- I'm so relieved that polls about Americans' beliefs about creation and ID are being used by pundits to justify teaching it in school. This will look particularly impressive historically, like the Ptolemy/church thing- church dogma tied to scientific theory has such an impressive track record. Polls, it seems, can reflect public opinion, but for a while now science isn't very democratic. Truth and verifiable science don't seem to care much what the public consensus is at the time. I must admit, though, I'm experiencing guilty hopes that the anti-evolution folks are right- the whole germ theory thing is really a pain. Think of how much we'll save on antibiotics - bacteria can't evolve so there's no need for new antibiotics to combat resistant strains. I guess my cold last week was really just sin messing with my balance of earth, air, fire and water.

My belief about God isn't threatened by evolution. A personal relationship with the Creator isn't dependent on making sure the Bible is literally true. I think we have to be careful how much our faith depends on a document that isn't a science treatise. Do we have a faith in a personal God or is our faith in book so long as it is held to be factually, historically, and scientifically accurate? Finally, one of the beauties of America is our (for at least some of us, anyway) belief that just because I believe a certain way, doesn't mean that I can impose it on you. If I'm studying math, I want a mathemetician teaching me. If it's science, then a scientist. Keep the fundamentalist theologians in the Bible colleges.

American "Rapture"

This Vanity Fair article is a must-read for everyone interested in strong forces influencing our politics and foreign policy. It does an excellent job of tying together so many events, people, and efforts that have been going on for most if not all of my lifetime. It is not a rant against any particular side and doesn't get into personalities or name-calling. It is a great piece of journalism. It is LONG but read the whole thing. I hesitate to pull out a particular part to highlight, but here's one anyway. Again, a MUST READ.

With right-wing groups expanding at such a dizzying pace, LaHaye helped to found the Council for National Policy (C.N.P.) as a low-profile but powerful coalition of billionaire industrialists, fundamentalist preachers, and right-wing tacticians. Funded by Hunt and Davis, among others, the organization set out to create a coherent and disciplined strategy for the New Right.
Though its membership is secret, the rolls have reportedly included Falwell and Pat Robertson; top right-wing political strategists Richard Viguerie, Ralph Reed, and Paul Weyrich; Republican senators Jesse Helms and Lauch Faircloth (both of North Carolina), Don Nickles (Oklahoma), and Trent Lott (Mississippi); and Republican representatives Dick Armey and Tom DeLay (both of Texas). The late Rousas John Rushdoony, the right-wing theologian who hoped to reconfigure the American legal system in accordance with biblical law, was said to be a member, as was John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute, who was co-counsel to Paula Jones in her lawsuit against Bill Clinton.
"Ronald Reagan, both George Bushes, senators and Cabinet members—you name it. There's nobody who hasn't been here at least once," says Falwell, who confirms that he is a member. "It is a group of four or five hundred of the biggest conservative guns in the country."
The C.N.P. has access to the highest powers in the land. In 1999, George W. Bush courted evangelical support for his presidential candidacy by giving a speech before the council, the transcript of which remains a highly guarded secret. And since the start of his presidency, Falwell says, the C.N.P. has enjoyed regular access to the Oval Office. "Within the council is a smaller group called the Arlington Group," says Falwell. "We talk to each other daily and meet in Washington probably twice a month. We often call the White House and talk to Karl Rove while we are meeting. Everyone takes our calls." According to The Wall Street Journal, two high-ranking Texas judges who spoke to the Arlington Group in October at the suggestion of Karl Rove allegedly assured its members that Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Will Campbell - Here's one to admire

To Streak and others of us who are constantly on the lookout for real Christians amongst the crowds of impersonators, look no further than here.