How Wade Burleson has Changed

Wade Burleson's blog entry today briefly describes how his thinking has changed over the past few years. Here's a change that I find most noteworthy:

Though I love doctrine as much, if not more, than I ever have loved it, I have absolutely zero interest in convincing people that I am "right" in my beliefs. I am always ready to give an answer for what I believe, but I'd rather people know that I love them and I have zero need to let them know I disagree with them.

If all Baptists could agree with this, there would be few divisions among us.

I would still feel the need, at times, to let others -- especially non-Baptists -- know that I do not agree with all the actions taken and pronouncements made by the leadership of the denomination.

Another Echo from the Radical Christian Right

Currently, there is a wave of discussion on the internet and over the airwaves about the Manhattan Declaration which is yet another echo from the sound chambers of the radical Christian right.

The signatories of the Manhattan Declaration are a Who’s Who of the Radical Christian Right in America. It was no surprise to see Richard Land, Jimmy Draper, Al Mohler, Bob Reccord and Daniel Akin along with Gary Bauer, Chuck Colson, James Dobson, Jonathan Falwell, Harry Jackson, Marvin Olasky, Tony Perkins, Alan Sears, Mark Tooley, George Weigel and nine Catholic archbishops. It was a surprise to see Robert Sloan’s signature on this list. I thought he would have had the wisdom to steer clear from aligning himself with such a blatant effort to fan the flames of cultural conflagration.

In my mind, there's something about Jesus' injunction to "let your yea be yea, and your nay be nay" (Matt. 5:37) that is applicable beyond oath-taking situations and confirms the truth that "anything beyond these is of the evil one." Christians have no business embellishing the truth and twisting it for political purposes and that is what the Manhattan Declaration does from beginning to end.

Nowhere does the Bible state that human beings are stamped with the image of God at the moment of conception. Theologians have been debating what the ancients called "ensoulment" for millennia without resolving the issue. There are good reasons for believing that "ensoulment" occurs at the moment of conception. There are equally good reasons for believing that consciousness is an essential component of the image of God. Before the biological substrate for consciousness develops -– sometime between 13 and 24 weeks -– it is reasonable to question whether the imago dei exists within the forming body. The answer to this question has enormous implications for the morality of not only abortion but also contraception and stem cell research. It deserves to be openly discussed and honestly debated, not stonewalled.

The Manhattan Declaration presumes that no honest debate exists over the inception of the image of God. It also strongly implies that those who disagree with their declaration sanction infanticide, euthanasia and Nazi death camps. It is dishonest for these signees to act as though their understanding of this issue is infallible and as though they are the sole possessors of faith, logic, truth and reason.

They give the same dishonest and disrespectful treatment to those who support homosexual unions. Their ability to proclaim biblical convictions from their pulpits are protected by the First Amendment. As long as the First Amendment is enforced, no law will ever be upheld that forces Christian ministers to perform gay marriages against their will. That same First Amendment, however, would also prohibit Christians from making the law conform to the bible and thereby prohibit the civil union of homosexuals. Homosexuals have an equal right to the same religious freedom and liberty of conscience that Christians enjoy.

I suspect that many of the signers of the Manhattan Declaration fully understand the implications of the First Amendment in relation to their opposition to homosexual unions. That's why some of them believe that our pluralistic democracy is heresy and hope to replace it with a Christian theocracy ruled by their interpretation of biblical law. That's also why their declaration carefully defines both religious liberty and conscience in exclusively biblical terms. Presupposed throughout the Manhattan Declaration is the belief that only Christians are assured the right to religious liberty. It is hard to find any evidence of even the slightest recognition that someone could conscientiously disagree with either their faith or their interpretation of the bible.

Those with consciences formed differently than those of the signers may well perceive that the purported call of conscience issued by the Manhattan Declaration is but another echo from the ever so gradually emptying chambers of the radical Christian right.

How Oklahomans Will Benefit from Health Care Reform

HHS has released information on the effect that proposed healthcare legislation will have on Oklahoma:

• 639,000 residents who do not currently have insurance and 142,000 residents who have nongroup insurance could get affordable coverage through the health insurance exchange.

• 319,000 residents could qualify for premium tax credits to help them purchase health coverage.

• 575,000 seniors would receive free preventive services.

• 102,000 seniors would have their brand-name drug costs in the Medicare Part D “doughnut hole” halved.

• 45,600 small businesses could be helped by a small business tax credit to make premiums more affordable.

These look like good reasons to support the legislation.

Americans United Opposes Christian Prison in Oklahoma

The legal department for Americans United for Separation of Church and State has sent a letter to corrections officials in Oklahoma warning them that the proposed "Christian prison" in Wakita cannot be supported with public funds.

In a press release today, AU Executive Director Barry Lynn said,

"It is wrong for government to take taxpayers" money and spend it on religious indoctrination," Lynn said. "That's a violation of the fundamental rights of every American.

"I strongly believe that inmates should have access to religious services of their own choosing," he continued, "but government should never favor one faith over others or coerce inmates to participate in religion."

Not a Country for Young Men or Young Women

Here are a couple quotes from an article on Alternet that shows that this is not a country for young men or young women:

In September, the unemployment rate for people between the ages of 16 and 24 hovered morosely at 18.1 percent, nearly double the national average for that month. At the same time, the actual employment rate for 16- to 24-year-olds dropped to a startling 46 percent, the grimmest such figure on record since 1948, the year the government began keeping track. Taken together, this same group of young people has lost more than 2.5 million jobs since the economy began deflating in December 2007, roughly one-third of all the jobs lost, making them the hardest-hit age group of the recession. . .

Between 1975 and 2005, for instance, the typical annual income for workers between the ages of 25 and 34 decreased across all educational brackets, with the exception of women with bachelor's degrees. Men without a high school diploma suffered most, their annual income plummeting by 34.2 percent, while men with a high school diploma or the equivalent earned the runner-up slot, with an income drop of 28.5 percent. As for women, those with less than a high school diploma, as well as those possessing just a diploma, lost less ground than their male counterparts; but then again, they're still doing worse than before and, perhaps more to the point, they still fare significantly worse than men their age.

Threats to Democracy and Civility

Currently there are a number of genuine domestic threats to our democracy and civic dialogue.

Foremost among them are those neoconservatives and others who believe that public discussion has become an empty formality in our democracy. In their eyes, the idea of openness and discussion has become outmoded.

In actuality, there are a number of reasons for that position. First, small and exclusive committees and coalitions are making key decisions behind closed doors and then "framing" the language they use to describe the issues in ways that conceal the effects of their decisions. Second, corporate interests and special interest groups are unduly influencing committees and key decision makers through lobbyists, campaign donations, and other favors. Third, the press and mass media have become subject to corporate and special interests that are using them to "manufacture consent" to further private interests.

Another threat to democracy and civility comes from those who believe that pluralistic democracy is heresy. Adherents of Christian Reconstructionism would replace democracy with a Christian theocracy. R. J. Rushdoony, the founder of Christian Reconstructionism, opposed pluralistic democracy because:

"In the name of toleration, the believer is asked to associate on a common level of total acceptance with the atheist, the pervert, the criminal, and the adherents of other religions."
-- Institutes of Biblical Law, p. 294.

They have embarked on a long term project to restore America to the rule of biblical law as practiced by the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1630.

A broader movement, heavily influenced by Christian Reconstructionists, are the Dominionists who believe that conservative Christians are commanded to take control of civil government and, ultimately, to exercise dominion over all the earth.

The largest group threatening pluralistic democracy and civility are the Christian Nationalists. They believe that Christianity was the established religion of America until 1962 when the Supreme Court kicked God out of the public schools and established a religion of secular humanism by separating church and state. They are determined to have Christianity declared the established religion of our nation.

A more insidious threat comes from those who are actively working to takeover churches and the public square with the intention to undermine and/or exclude progressive voices from civil dialogue.

A number of philanthropists and corporations, believing that public discussion is a threat to their private interests, have funded an ever growing number of think tanks, political and media entities, publishing houses, colleges, universities, and law schools. These entitites are already playing a significant role in public life. A good example of this threat is the Institute for Religion and Democracy.

Finally, there are some who are deliberately working to manipulate and dominate the public dialogue. They are destroying civil conversation in the process. The consolidation of corporate media, the venom of talk radio, and the clamor of both the right-wing and the left-wing noise machines have completely overwhelmed all principled dialogue between opposing perspectives.

At this moment, more than anything else, we are in dire need of what Martin Marty has called a convicted civility:

"People who are civil often do not have very strong convictions, and people who have strong convictions often aren't very civil. What we need to cultivate is convicted civility."

It is time for those committed to pluralistic democracy and civil discussion as a means of governing to stand up and defend their convictions.