America's New Economic Creed

America's new economic creed: 

To those who have been given much, more will be added. 
Those who have done without will do with less.

Thanks to the Center for American Progress for the chart.

Another Good Reason to Boycott Walmart

The Arkansas Times has posted a story entitled "Who's Your Sugar Daddy?" that calls attention to the substantial financial resources that the Walton Family Foundation has been contributing to promote vouchers for religious schools.  The article makes it clear that Walton's  have an agenda that is hostile to public schools:

The Waltons and other super-rich Arkansans have for some time assailed the state's public schools and encouraged the formation of more charter schools.  They're cheered on by the state's largest newspaper, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, whose publisher, Walter Hussman, is another antagonist of public schools and teachers' unions.  The Walton Family Foundation also has a senior officer, Naccaman Williams, in a place where he regularly influences school policy in Arkansas as chairman of the state Board of Education.  He has said he sees no conflict in acting on school-choice matters the board considers.

Cadets Faking Fundamentalist Christian Faith at Air Force Academy

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation has sent a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates demanding that results of a recent survey at the Air Force Academy be released to the public and asking the Defense Department conduct an investigation of cult-like religious activities at the Academy.

The letter contends that the religio-political atmosphere at the Academy has prompted more than 100 cadets to pretend to be fundamentalist Christians:

There now exists, according to a United States Air Force Academy cadet who recently wrote to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF; www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org), an “underground” group of over one hundred Academy cadets who, in order to maintain good standing among their USAF Academy peers and superiors, are actually pretending to be fundamentalist Christians. They leave Bibles, Christian literature, and Christian music CDs lying around their rooms; they attend fundamentalist Christian Bible studies; they feign devoutness at the Academy’s weekly “Special Programs in Religious Education” (SPIRE) programs. They do whatever they have to do to play the role of the “right kind” of Christian cadets, in constant fear of being “outed.”

In the long run, the activities of the aggressively evangelistic Christians who have been in charge of the Airforce Academy will do nothing but undermine genuine faith.   Real faith is not the product of a coercive and oppressive atmosphere.

Baptist Historians Reaffirm Liberty of Conscience as a Baptist Distinctive

As CBF North Carolina contemplates changing its "foundational statements" to eliminate the freedom of individual conscience as foundational to Baptist identity, 14 Baptist historians in the "Baptist Classics Seminar Group" of the Baptist History and Heritage Society have reaffirmed liberty of conscience as a Baptist distinctive.

Their statement offers representative quotations from Sions Groans for the Distressed (1661) which is available for free download from Google Books from the volume Tracts on Liberty of Conscience and Persecution 1614-1661 (pp. 343ff), and from The Second London Confession of Faith (1677) which is available for free download from Google Books from the volume Baptist Confessions of Faith (pp. 215ff).

Their statement concludes:

In our tradition we find both the personal and communal elements of biblical faith; we find a believer’s church that preserves a place for unfettered individual conscience.

As historians of the Baptist story, we pledge anew our commitment to the vibrant Baptist witness of freedom that is responsive to the authoritative Scriptures and under the Lordship of Christ. We pledge anew our commitment to the relevance of Baptist identity for the twenty-first century.

AU Asks IRS to Investigate Fairview Baptist Church in Edmond

The national office of Americans United for Separation of Church and State has written a letter to the Internal Revenue Service asking the agency to investigate Fairview Baptist Church in Edmond, OK for violations of the tax code.

In violation of U.S. law, AU contends that Fairview Baptist Church, through its pastor Paul Blair, officially endorsed Oklahoma gubernatorial candidate Mary Fallin when the congregation permitted and applauded his endorsement of the candidate from the pulpit last Sunday.

All tax-exempt 501(c)3 non-profit organizations are prohibited by law from endorsing political candidates.

Guess Who's Living in a Banana Republic

The chart below provides the actual wealth distibution for a country with economic disparaties worthy of a banana republic.  The estimated wealth distribution is what a representative sample of the people in the country think is the wealth distribution within their country.  The ideal wealth distribution is what the same people think would be an ideal distribution for wealth within their country.

Guess which country they are talking about.  Hint:  It's not in Latin America.

The fourth and fifth percentiles are too small to register on the "Actual" line.  Each percentile represents 20% of the population within the country.  The fourth percentile represents 0.2% and the fifth percentile represent 0.1% of the wealth within the country.

Source:  a report by Michael Norton of the Harvard Business School and Dan Ariely of Duke University.

I wonder how many of the megachurches are targeting their ministries toward the fourth and fifth quintiles? 

Where would Jesus focus his ministry?

Unfair Teacher Evaluations Destroying Lives

Rigoberto Ruelas, Jr. was a victim of the Manufactured Crisis in our Public Schools.

News reports indicate that Ruelas, a 5th grade teacher in a gang-ridden, low-income, predominantly Spanish speaking neighborhood in Southeast Los Angeles, committed suicide after he grew despondent when newspapers listed him as a "less effective teacher" based on his students' test scores.  Ruelas was shocked and angry that he would be judged solely on the test scores of his students.

Parents, colleagues and former students say that, in reality, Ruelas was a mentor to youth tempted to join gangs and a tireless booster that kids could make it to college.

Rather than assisting and rewarding the teachers who have the fortitude and life skills to work with the most difficult students under the most adverse conditions, we are publicly ridiculing and belittling them.

Will Americans ever learn to start measuring progress from the place where children start?

Paul Blair Endorses Candidate from Pulpit, Taunts IRS

David Stockman on the Folly of the Bush Tax Cuts

NPR's Guy Raz interviewed David Stockman, the Reagan administration's director of the Office of Management and Budget, about the GOP's "Pledge to America."  Stockman found much to criticize in John Boehner's plan saying "the plan just doesn't measure up." 

He also came out solidly against extending any of the Bush era tax cuts:

RAZ: David Stockman, let me ask you about the idea of making the Bush tax cuts permanent. Some economic analysts have said that if you do that, that by the year 2020, the government wouldn't have enough money to spend on anything except for Medicare, Social Security and defense if it's lucky. Do you think that sounds about right?

Mr. STOCKMAN: Yes, I do. We couldn't afford the Bush tax cuts when they were put in in 2001, 2003. Now, we're - eight years later, we're trillions in additional debt later, we're two unfinanced wars later, we're a trillion dollars of stimulus spending later, 800 billion of TARP, so it's pretty obvious if we couldn't afford them back then, in no way, shape or form can we even dream about affording them now.

RAZ: Do you think President Obama is being honest with the voters?

Mr. STOCKMAN: No, I don't think he is at all. I think when he said no taxes on the middle-class or on anyone below 250,000, he was being totally disingenuous. That's most of the people in the country. Sure, there...

RAZ: You're saying he has to raise their taxes as well?

Mr. STOCKMAN: Sure, absolutely. He should tell them, we're going to raise all your taxes because that's the only way we can support all these programs that I want to keep. He's for, you know, everything we have in the budget today, and a lot of it is meritorious and a lot of isn't. This president who ran on the ticket that I, you know, change you can believe in. I'm going to tell you -tell it to you like it is, can possible take that no tax pledge and then support all of this spending and all of this stimulus, just doesn't add up.

RAZ: Are you worried?

Mr. STOCKMAN: Yes, I'm very worried about it because I thought it would never come to this. When I was in the White House in the Budget Office in the early '80s, we had the deficit breakout, 100 billion or 200 billion. Admittedly, the economy was smaller then, but it was still four or 5 percent of GDP.

Here we are today with a deficit that's 10 percent of GDP and it doesn't look like there's any prospect that it's going to decline at any time soon or any willingness to even acknowledge the problem and address it. The idea that the economy is weak, and so we have to wait two or three years, is just an excuse.

The economy is weak because of our irresponsible fiscal and monetary policies over the last 10, 20 or even 30 years. And it's going to keep getting weaker unless we face up to the problem. So, yes, it's the chicken and egg. If we cut spending and raise taxes, it may slow down the economy even more, but that's unfortunately the choice that we face.

Baptist Joint Committee Stands Tall Against Pulpit Sunday Scheme

Both Brent Walker, Executive Director, and Hollyn Hollman, General Counsel, at the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty have taken prominent stands against the Alliance Defense Fund's scheme to enlist preachers to engage in partisan politics in their pulpits.

Brent labelled the attempt "unnecessary, divisive and corrosive" during a panel discussion on "God and Caesar:  Church and State Issues" at Furman University yesterday.

Hollyn has an essay on "Why the Campaign for Politics in the Pulpit is a Bad Idea" that is featured on the front page of the Huffington Post today.  Holly's essay provides  a very  readable and succinct rationale for the wisdom of the laws that the ADF is flaunting.

Dan Schultz Interviews Walter Brueggemann

Dan Schultz, aka "Pastor Dan" co-founder of the Street Prophets weblog, has a valuable interview with Old Testament scholar Walter Brueggemann on the Religion Dispatches website.

The bulk of the interview discusses the taxonomy of scripts that Brueggemann developed in his Counterscript speech.  Schultz appropriated Brueggemann's taxonomy and expands on it in his recently released book Changing the Script.  The interview also touches on themes found in Brueggemann's latest book Journey to the Common Good.

Since the thought of Stanley Hauerwas and John Yoder has been very influential among Bapist communitarians, Brueggemann's critique of Hauerwas and Yoder caught my eye:

Dan: . . . Let me ask first, you said you had some sympathies with that post-liberal project. Do you tend toward that Hauerwas and Yoder stream of alternative witness within the church?

Walter: Yup, yup, I'm very much influenced by that. What I learned from Doug Hall...a Canadian Reformed theologian. What he said was that the Hauerwas line calls you to withdraw from society. And Doug said that for Reformed people, withdrawal from society is correct, but it's a first move and the second move that Hauerwas does not make, is to move back into society with transformative energy. So disengagement and re-engagement, and I think it's right for our Reformed tradition.

Dan: Right. It's absolutely fascinating how—just to do the intellectual history for a moment—how that comes out of that kind of Swiss and lower German reformation, and not Lutheranism. But it persists and it comes through the Evangelical and Reformed Church, among other places—and the Congregationalists pick up on it in their own way.

It's funny to me, because I think Hauerwas would resist that idea of withdrawing from society very much. He'd say, "No, no, we're not withdrawing, we're engaging in a different way."

Walter: But insofar as he appeals to the Mennonite tradition of Yoder, it is to some extent a withdrawal: we don't participate in the political process. I understand, you maintain another kind of presence, but yeah.

Roger Williams on "Soul Freedom" vs. "Christian Nation"

Religion Dispatches has published an outstanding interview with Bill Leonard that explores the legacy of Roger Williams with under the title "'Soul Freedom' versus 'Christian Nation'."   Becky Garrison asks:

How do you think Williams’ would respond to the current assertion made by some religious conservatives that the United States is a “Christian” country?

He thought that the ideology of “Christian nation” was the worst kind of idolatry. and denied the idea on the spot, suggesting that there are no Christian nations, only Christian people, bound to Christ by repentance and faith, not by nationality. He rejected the idea that the state should privilege any single religious voice. At the same time, he was an unabashed sectarian, fighting over theological fine points with anyone who came along including the Quakers. He did not hesitate to disagree with those whose religious views differed from his own, but he was willing for them to be his neighbors.

Williams is known for coining the term “soul liberty.” How does this concept inform the formation of the First Amendment?

I’d prefer to speak of liberty of conscience that, from Williams’ perspective begins with the idea of uncoerced faith. Williams is no secularist. He was a person of faith, highly sectarian faith, that put great emphasis on the sovereignty of God as the center of the universe. Williams and other sectarians of his time—especially Baptists—believed that the church is to be composed of believers only—those who can claim an experience of grace in their hearts. Efforts to thwart divine activity in drawing people to faith—to usurp the work of the Spirit by enforcing certain faith perspectives—were human creations that were unacceptable. God alone is judge of conscience, and therefore neither state nor established church can (in terms of salvation) judge the conscience of the heretic (the people they think believe the wrong things) or the atheist (the people who believe nothing at all).

Conscience should be free under God to act on its own without state sanctions. Such secular sanctions destroyed or undermined faith, rather than enhance it. Williams anticipates religious pluralism on the basis of uncoerced faith, not secularism, years before John Locke’s more secular approach to such questions.

Questions About North Carolina CBF's Proposed Foundational Statements

A reporter who is working on an article for a Christian Magazine sent me a list of questions about CBF North Carolina's proposed revisions to its foundational statements and asked for my response. Below are the questions and my responses. I'll post a link to the reporter's story when it becomes available.

1. What are the key issues / questions involved in this proposal?

In my opinion, the key issue being addressed by CBFNC’s new foundational statements is the issue of authority. It is yet another example of a post-modern legitimacy crisis – this time working itself out within the moderate Baptist movement.

Like the fundamentalists in the SBC, communitarians within CBF are primarily concerned to set “parameters” for the interpretation of scripture.

Would the proposed statement take the CBF in North Carolina in a more creedal direction?

Yes. The inclusion of the Apostle’s Creed within the foundational statements makes that obvious. Until 2000, all Baptists offered "confessions of faith" instead of creeds. “Creeds” are considered binding upon the consciences of those within a communion . “Confessions” are considered a consensus of the beliefs of the community at a moment in time, -- and not binding upon the consciences of those within the communion.

Until 2000, all Baptists were greatly concerned to protect the liberty of each person’s conscience. Conscience was understood as the heart and soul of an individual -– the depths of being from which a person answers the summons to relationship with God and responds to the guidance of the Holy Spirit in his/her daily life.

In 2000 SBC fundamentalists eliminated liberty of conscience from the Baptist Faith and Message (BFM) statement. They also elevated the Bible over Jesus and codified a narrow range of approved “parameters” for interpreting scripture. Then they made this binding upon all employees of the convention –- terminating missionaries and professors who refused to sign it.

Now in 2010 CBF communitarians in North Carolina are proposing to eliminate liberty of conscience (i.e., Priesthood of the Believer) from their statement of beliefs. CBF communitarians do not exalt the Bible over Jesus and they remain open to a broader range of interpretations of scripture. Their efforts to enforce uniformity of interpretation have a lighter touch than fundamentalists. Nevertheless, their emphasis on community is designed to set parameters on liberty of conscience within moderate Baptist life.

2. It seems that the tension of holding to denominational distinctives vs. modernizing them is at play here, along with questions over the best way to interpret Scripture (individual vs. collective wisdom; priesthood of all believers vs. creeds, etc.). Would you agree with that assessment?

No. I do not view this as an attempt to modernize Baptist beliefs. Liberty of conscience is basic to Baptist beliefs. To eliminate it is to make us indistinguishable from other mainline Christian denominations.

For evidence, just look at the emphasis on “community” that is prevalent in the creeds, confessions and rhetoric of all the other mainline denominations. Then look for any evidence of “liberty of conscience” in their creeds, confessions and rhetoric.

3. Is it accurate to say that the proposed new statement would include creeds?

Yes. See answer to question # 1.

remove soul competency?

Yes. The phrases “priesthood of the believer” and the phrase “soul competency” are often used synonymously with the traditional Baptist emphasis on “liberty of conscience.” In one way or another, each phrase is based on the personal and individual nature of the “born again” salvation experience. Baptists become Christians one-at-a-time as each believer responds personally to the gospel. Baptism -- the rite that symbolizes the individual’s entry into the community of faith -- follows the individual’s personal response to the gospel and a profession of faith. Baptists relate to God personally -– without clergy, priests, saints, etc. serving as mediators between them and God.

North Carolina CBF’s original founding documents summarize the traditional Baptist emphasis on the individual and on liberty of conscience under the heading of the “Priesthood of All Believers:”

We affirm the freedom and right of every Christian to interpret and apply scripture under the leadership of the Holy Spirit. We affirm the freedom and responsibility of every person to relate directly to God without the imposition of creed, the control of clergy or the interference of government.

The proposed revision of these documents deletes the emphasis on the individual and on liberty of conscience. These are replaced with an emphasis on the priority and authority of the community:

3. We confess that the Christian faith is best understood and experienced within the community of God’s people who are called to be priests to one another.

and diminish church autonomy?

Yes and No. Article four preserves church autonomy:

4. We confess that under the Lordship of Christ each congregation is free and responsible to discern the mind of Christ and to order its common life accordingly.

Article five could present a threat to the continued autonomy of the congregation if the church chooses to surrender its autonomy as it seeks unity with others:

5. We confess that through the Holy Spirit we experience interdependence with other believers and congregations who follow Christ, and we seek the unity of the church for which he prayed.

Autonomous churches are free to use their autonomy to surrender their autonomy.

4. How significant is this discussion in CBF circles beyond North Carolina?

Beyond North Carolina, I am not aware of much formal discussion about this. The influence of communitarians has been increasing in CBF circles over the past decade. I suspect that it will spread more rapidly if North Carolina adopts the new statement.

5. Any other comments or insight?

See my recent essay about this on Ethics Daily.

U.S. May Receive One Hundred Thousand Palestinian Refugees

Haaretz is reporting that former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert revealed that the Bush administration offered to receive up to 100,000 Palestinian refugees as part of a framework for peace in the Middle East:

Former prime minister Ehud Olmert said Sunday that the Bush administration had assured him that the United States would be willing to absorb some 100,000 Palestinian refugees immediately as American citizens, should Israel reach a permanent settlement with the Palestinian Authority.

The former premier told a Geneva Initiative conference in Tel Aviv that during negotiations with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in 2008 he had offered a solution to the refugee problem that would have been in line with the Arab League peace plan and promised that any measures would be the result of a coordinated agreement.

The Bush administration had offered this American contribution to the refugee problem as part of what would be a framework of international compensation, he said.

You've got to give the Bush administration credit for offering a helpful suggestion in regard to the problem of resettling the Palestinian refugees. However, if the Obama administration makes the same offer I am fairly certain that the GOP will disown the idea.

A Chart Worth More Than a Thousand Words

Thanks to Allison Kilkenny for calling my attention to this chart.

Burleson Says NAMB Head Lacks Statesmanship

Wade Burleson, author of Hardball Religion and blogger at the Grace and Truth to You weblog, has commented on Kevin Ezell's disparaging remarks about bloggers.

Burleson speaks with grace, conviction and maturity.  It is a shame that most current SBC leaders can only muster one of those attributes.

First Baptist Swansea Preparing for 350th Celebration

The First Baptist Church of Swansea, Massachusetts -- the First Baptist Church established in Massachusetts -- is preparing for their 350th anniversary in 2013. 

As part of their celebration they plan to publish documents from the church's founding.

The church is the third oldest surviving church in America.

What Would Roger Williams Do?

Charles Randall Paul and John W. Morehead have an outstanding essay entitled "I Believe You're Wrong: The Trouble with Tolerance" posted at Religion Dispatches. They ask how Roger Williams would respond to the erection of an Islamic Center near ground zero in New York City:

So what would Williams do about the current conflict over building a Muslim community center and mosque near the World Trade Center? More than likely he would welcome the arrival of yet another venue where, after listening carefully to his opponents, he would be afforded the opportunity to persuasively preach his form of religion to anyone who didn’t get it right (that is, everyone but him). He would be less likely to think of the nearby crime scene as a beachhead for Islam, than as a place where—yet again in the name of a higher “good”—humans were willing to shed the blood of their fellows. He would have remembered all the bloodshed in the name of Christ during his lifetime and shaken his head at the impotence of force when it comes to changing the human heart. In short he would have made the case that religious freedom of expression and practice are more important than trying to avoid offending the feelings of his fellow citizens. He would have carried a sign in front of the mosque:

I will die for the freedom of these Muslim citizens to build their church here, and I will work my whole life to engage and persuade them that Christianity is the only true path to salvation.

Jeffers Misunderstands Marital Customs

A number of people have asked for a response to attacks on Islam by the pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas.

First, let me make it clear that I am not an apologist for Islam. I am an apologist for the Christian faith. In my mind, that means we should be meticulous about being charitable, equitable, just and fair in relationships with others -- particularly with those with whom we differ.

Despite his disclaimers, Dr. Jeffers insists on blaming all Islam for the acts of a few extremists. He begins by saying "Islam does incite violence."

There is no doubt that verses of the Koran could well be interpreted to incite violence. The same is true of verses of the Bible. There is no doubt that throughout the centuries and into the present day some Islamic leaders have incited violence in the name of their faith. The same has been true of some Christian leaders throughout the centuries and into the present day.

I doubt that Jeffers and the members of First Baptist Dallas believe that the critics of Christianity are justified in saying that "Christianity incites violence." They should give no more credibility to similar accusations against Islam.

Second, the bulk of Jeffress' indictment of Islam stems from marriage customs. He arouses the indignation of his audience with examples of marriage rites involving children. Rites that were not uncommon throughout the ancient world and are still in practice in some underdeveloped places in the modern world.

Jeffers neglects to mention that under Jewish law the minimum age for marriage for women is 12 years old. Nor does he note that the traditional age given for Mary's betrothal to Joseph was 14 years of age and that Joseph is traditionally assumed to have been considerably older than his bride.

Is similar indignation in order for the Holy Spirit's use of Mary? Or, might it be wise to give some consideration to the average life expectancy of the era and the marital customs of the culture and time?

No Room for Prophets in CBF North Carolina

Cooperative Baptists in North Carolina are revising their “foundational statements” to delete traditional references to liberty of conscience and “soul competency” and assert the priority and authority of the community in matters of faith. Like the fundamentalists in the Southern Baptist Convention, communitarians within the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship are determined to effect change within Baptist churches by redefining the traditional Baptist understanding of the “priesthood of the believer.”

Fundamentalists redefined “priesthood of the believer” to mean “submission to pastoral authority.” Communitarians are redefining “priesthood of the believer” to mean “submission to the authority of your church.”

Both are weary of the conflict of interpretations that are inevitable when finite and fallible human beings are passionate about reading scripture and living faithfully in accord with a revelation whose meaning is inexhaustible.

Both believe they are authorized to replace the Holy Spirit in the mind and heart of the believer. Fundamentalists replace the Holy Spirit with the authority of the pastor. Communitarians replace the Holy Spirit with the authority of the community. Either the pastor or your community serves to legitimate or delegitimate interpretations of scripture.

Neither fundamentalists nor communitarians make allowances for human imperfections. In the real world, both pastors and church communities often oppose valid interpretations of scripture and legitimate movements of God’s Spirit. That is why Baptists, historically, have been the Christian faith’s staunchest advocates for “liberty of conscience” or “soul competency.” Baptists, at their best, have always left room for the “prophets” – those who seem to be born out of due time because they are responding to a divine summons to serve the community in ways that challenge its consensus.

In my mind, it was a divine summons that led John Smyth to separate from the church of England and to adopt believer’s baptism. It was a divine summons that led Thomas Helwys to separate from John Smyth and return to England to start the First Baptist church in England. It was a divine summons that led Roger Williams to break with the state church in Boston and start the First Baptist Church in America. It was a divine summons that led John Leland in his struggle for religious liberty and his opposition to slavery. And, in more recent days, it was a divine summons that led Cecil Sherman, Daniel Vestal and others to form the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.

If there is anything common to all these instances, it is that none of them were examples of submission to the prevailing opinion in their own community of faith. All of them are examples of submission to the authority of an inner voice that speaks in the heart and mind and conscience. In one way or another, all of them are examples of people who were constrained to obey God rather than men. All of them recognized that they would appear before the judgment seat of Christ and that when they appear there, they would all stand alone. No parents, no friends, no teachers, no pastors, no churches, and no denominations will be there to make excuses for them, -- and, they won’t be able to use any of these to make excuses for themselves.

Baptists, at their best, also realize that just as we are all called to be priests to each other, we are all also called to be prophets to one another. The Holy Spirit has been poured out on all of us. We all must learn to interpret scriptures and discern the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Our church community plays a prominent role in helping us develop these abilities, but our primarily accountability is not to our community. Paul tells us,“We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ.” (2 Cor. 5:10) When we appear there, we will all stand alone. Christ will know how many times He spoke to our hearts and minds and consciences through the voice of the Holy Spirit. He will also know how many times we listened and heeded His voice, -- and, he will know how many times we turned away and followed a different voice.

This individual and personal accountability before God is why liberty of conscience should always be held inviolable. It is inviolable for two reasons. First, because no human being or community interprets the voice of God infallibly – whether that voice is communicated through scriptures, through the community, or through a still, small voice at the heart of your being. Second, because everyone is personally responsible for learning to listen to God’s voice and to interpret it for themselves.