Tag Archives: eric hoffer

The Wannabe Inquisitors: Christian Trolls

dyer-hanging1

Friends of Padre Steve’s World

Just a short post today, I have spent most of the day over at the Naval Medical Center, getting my initial evaluation for Traumatic Brain Injury and Concussive Syndrome and new hearing aids to help with Tinnitus and speech processing disorder.

But, another day, another religious troll. This one not the typical Evangelical, or even more traditionalist Roman or conservative Catholic type. This one claimed to be Eastern Orthodox and had to bluntly confront me on my heresy. Of course that had to do with women clergy and homosexuals, which seem to be for many of these guys, and for that matter all of my trolls have been guys, the big issue is that they always focus on these things when calling me a heretic. They never call me a heretic for the things that the Church Fathers all condemned as heretical, like my very orthodox doctrine of God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit. Nor can they say that any of my beliefs conflict with the Creeds or Councils, or are not enunciated by at least some of the Church Fathers. Instead they jump on women in ministry and gays.

My personal feeling is that thought they cloak their reasons in their theology is the fact that they cannot handle women in any kind of authority position and that, and the issue of homosexuality makes them question their own manhood, or possibly lack thereof. I love what Barbara Tuchman wrote about male theologians. “Theology being the work of males, original sin was traced to the female.” That really is why male dominated, and often mysoginistic religions reject women as priests, bishops, ministers, Imams, or Rabbis.

After a couple of exchanges this gentleman referred to the statement that the “Orthodox Church IS the Church, is true and correct in EVERYTHING it teaches….” (His emphasis)

Such appeals to absolute truth being contained in any one religion or denomination neither impress or frighten me. I went through that stage of faith, and frankly it’s a free country. I know lots of other people  that would disagree with the man, including the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church which still holds its 1054 excommunication of the Orthodox as binding, despite the good intentions of Pope John Paul II and Pope Francis. But if such certitude comforts this man, good on him.

What I don’t understand though is how this man and others like him have a compulsive need to troll the internet, find someone that they find lacking, call them a heretic and get upset when the person that they assaulted takes umbrage. I don’t get that. I have no need to go to anyone’s site just to tell them how wrong I think that are. But then maybe such people do this because they lack the official backing of the government to enforce their religious beliefs on others.

I have a live and let live attitude. I don’t think that anyone or any church, denomination, sect or religion has a monopoly on truth. I quite agree with the late Father Henri Nouwen who said:

“Theological formation is the gradual and often painful discovery of God’s incomprehensibility. You can be competent in many things, but you cannot be competent in God.”

I no longer make absolute truth claims. I believe, but I doubt and question, some days more the latter than the former. So when people like this come at me I try not to waste much time on them, though I did defend myself. This man proved again Eric Hoffer’s magnificent thoughts:

“A doctrine insulates the devout not only against the realities around them but also against their own selves. The fanatical believer is not conscious of his envy, malice, pettiness and dishonesty. There is a wall of words between his consciousness and his real self.”

The good thing is that in this country, men like this are unable to enforce their doctrine on other citizens through the police power of the government. Such as the case in Russia where Vladimir Putin’s crusades against women, the LGBT community as well as other smaller Christian denominations and Jews are rooted in the state religion of Russian Orthodoxy. This is a fact and it is a reminder that such people and such systems do exist, and if they ever, in whatever form gained control of the government in this country they would do the same. We see this at the state level where a number of states are attempting to establish Christianity as the State religion, or at the minimum give Christianity precedence over any other religion.

These Wannabe American inquisitors love Putin, and many actually go to Russia to cheer on his actions.

Hopefully things never come to that here. But you never know. As Captain Jean Luc Picard (Patrick Stewart) said in the Star Trek the Next Generation episode The Drumhead:

“We think we’ve come so far. Torture of heretics, burning of witches it’s all ancient history. Then – before you can blink an eye – suddenly it threatens to start all over again.”

Have a great night,

Peace

Padre Steve+

 

2 Comments

Filed under christian life, faith, Military, News and current events, Religion

#Je Suis Charlie and the Conservative Christian Absence of Empathy

biblestudy

The horrific terrorist murders and the butchery committed by radical Islamist agains the staff of the French satire paper Charlie Hebdo has brought much comment and discussion. I wrote about it yesterday and pointed out that a leading figure of the Catholic part of the American Religious Right, Bill Donohue of the Catholic League, took the time to let everyone in his audience know that the cartoonists had brought the attacks on themselves. How? Well they insulted the prophet Mohammed. While Donohue gave lip-service that killing the journalist was wrong, he blamed the victims. 

Of course Donohue doesn’t give a damn about Moslem feelings, he is only looking for an excuse to excoriate anyone who would also dare to make satire of his rigid faith, even Pope Francis. But then Donohue will unite his cause, the destruction of secular democracy and pluralism with what Peter Kreeft described as an Ecumenical Jihad where Catholics, conservative Protestants, especially Evangelicals, Orthodox Christians, Jews and Moslems would fight secularism. You see for “true believers” like Donohue, and many leaders and pundits of the Christian right the current enemy is secular democracy, because it alone stands against theocracy of every kind.

Eric Hoffer wrote in his book The True Believer 

“The impression somehow prevails that the true believer, particularly the religious individual, is a humble person. The truth is the surrendering and humbling of the self breed pride and arrogance. The true believer is apt to see himself as one of the chosen, the salt of the earth, the light of the world, a prince disguised in meekness, who is destined to inherit the earth and the kingdom of heaven too. He who is not of his faith is evil; he who will not listen will perish.”

Last night I complemented a friend of mine, a conservative Christian theologian and pastor who defended the rights of the journalists of Charlie Hebdo on his Facebook page. That post elicited a lot of commentary and I voiced my opinion supporting my friend and told my story. My story includes being, taunted, ridiculed, threatened with physical harm and even death by people who profess to be Christians on this site and on Facebook. I have to say that it interesting to note that I have never been threatened by a Moslem, Jew, Wiccan, Buddhist, Hindu or secularist of any kind, just Christians.

So when I see people like Bill Donohue, and other pundits, preachers and politicians of the Religious Right blame the victims who were killed by radical religionists (this time Moslems) I get nervous.

I guess I shouldn’t have even entered the conversation, but I felt that defending my friend’s post was the right thing to do. That was a mistake, for once again I found myself ambushed by a conservative Christian who listened to nothing that I said, mocked and belittled me and when I stood up for myself condemned me. It didn’t matter that I had been threatened even with death by alleged Christians, I was told that “blasphemers against Christianity have nothing to fear in the West.” When I said that I didn’t blaspheme I was met with derision. When I told my story and told her that since she didn’t know me to shut up, of course I was told by her: Not very Christian to tell people you don’t agree with to shut up.” Of course she had already for all intents and purposes told me to shut up without using those words. 

I am sorry, but I would rather have a completely secular society than to deal with theocratic religionists of any kind, Christian, Moslem, Jew, in any way. I totally agree with Eric Hoffer about true believers, they are dangerous and they will stoop to anything to silence dissent, even terrorism and murder.

It is true in the west just is it is true in places like Iraq where Sunni and Shia Moslems kill each other with abandon. I remember secular Iraqi Moslem Army officers telling me how they wished they had Christian priests like me to care for their soldiers because they did not trust the Sunni and Shia Mullahs who had helped destroy that country after we Americans did our part in 2003.

So if that offends any religionist of any sect, even people who profess with they lips to be my Christian brother or sister but could’t care if I lived or die, I don’t care, the truth matters more.

But then maybe I do, care too much…

But, when I think of it, Eric Hoffer was right. To this lady and many conservative Christians I am evil, because I will not toe their line and put up with their bullshit. Perhaps I will meet this lady in heaven or hell and we can have a bar fight.

But I am a realist. I do know that the external threat if Islamic radicals is a danger, but sadly, I felt safer on Iraqi bases with small groups of Americans than I do today among most conservative American Christians. The Iraqi military men that I knew, Sunni and Shia were much more welcoming of dialogue, relationships and capable of empathy than the vast majority of those who call themselves conservative Christians. Likewise, most of them had a more sincere faith in Jesus than many who I see in this country who use Jesus and the Christian faith as a wedge issue to promote their political power and position.

Gustave Gilbert, the American Army Jewish psychologist who worked with the major German war criminals at Nuremberg said that “evil was the absence of empathy.” Sadly, empathy is a quality that many, if not most const conservative American Christians have. Frankly, life was easier before I learned to feel compassion and have empathy for those who I thought were the enemies of God. When you honestly believe that you are the elect, that you are a “true believer” and all others are suspect, life is easy and Eric Hoffer nailed it.

So I need to have some beer and calm down, maybe watch a movie.

Have a nice night.

Peace

Padre Steve+

 

 

 

 

7 Comments

Filed under christian life, civil rights, faith, News and current events, Religion, Tour in Iraq

First They Came: Why I Defend the Gay Community

pink-triangle-armband

The Pink Triangle: The Nazi Symbol of Anti-Gay Persecution

Friends of Padre Steve’s World,

Those who have been reading for this site the past few days know that I have been very passionately speaking out on the behalf of Gays and Lesbians.

Thus, I am sure that there are some Christians that marvel that another Christian, and a Navy Chaplain with a strong conservative petigree to boot would defend the rights of Gays, Lesbians and others that they disapprove. However, at this point in my life I can do no other. If I do not speak up I would be culpable of the same crimes that German Christians, clergy and military officers did when they said nothing when the Jews, Gays and others were persecuted, imprisoned and murdered by the Nazi regime.

In the early 1900s the Jews of Germany were making progress, gaining entrance into government, the military and the political process. Germany in those days was a haven for Jews, especially Eastern European Jews who had to live with open persecution and pogroms sanctioned by Czarist Russia and other eastern European states. German Jews in that era were preeminent scientists, physicians and had entered the government and military. The Germany Armaments Minister Walther Rathenau who helped keep the German military in the war through his immense talents was Jewish, as was the commanding officer who recommended the young Corporal Adolf Hitler for the award of the Iron Cross First Class in 1918. However, when Germany was defeated in the First World War, Jews took much of the blame, and conservative German Christians were at the forefront well before anyone knew the name of Adolf Hitler.

450px-Berlin_Pink_Triangle

Memorial to the Gay Victims of Nazi Terror 

Of course, they were a minority, and many were Socialists and in the search for villains after the defeat and the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm II, the Jews were high on the hit list, especially for conservative Christians of both the Protestant and Catholic faiths who saw their dreams die at the end of the war.

Much is the same for the LGBT community in the United States. Conservative Christians blame Gays for all the social ills and maladies that German Christians did the Jews, Socialists and yes, German homosexuals did in the 1920s. If you actually bother to read the writing of the German right wing and conservatives of that era you will find language that is startlingly similar to the language used by conservative American Christians use today against Gays, liberal Jews, progressives and yes Moslems as well. It is an amazing study if you have the integrity and interest to bother to read it instead of listening to the pundits, politicians and especially the political preachers of the American right. However, if you don’t it matters not, because after all “God hates the gays” so why shouldn’t you?

But then wasn’t that what the German Christians who allied themselves to Hitler did concerning the Jews? After all the Jews were “Christ killers.” Hitler, Goering, Goebbels and all the leading Nazis said so. But today if there is a natural disaster in the United States who is to blame? The Gays of course, and almost every conservative political preacher in America agrees. Pat Robertson, Franklin Graham, Robert Jeffress, James Robison, John Hagee and even soon to be repeat presidential candidate Mike Huckabee all agree that it is all the Gays fault. Just like Hitler, Goering, Goebbels and others said of the Jews in Germany. Get rid of the Gays and voila, problem solved.

Since most of these preachers, pundits and politicians believe that Gays are destined for Hell and are the enemies of God, it is only a matter of time before they not only endorse legal restrictions and persecution, but endorse genocide. If fact some have, Scott Lively and others have actually went to Africa and campaigned for “Kill the Gays” bills in Uganda. They actually promote legislation in other countries that would make it legal not just to ensure that Gays have second or third rate citizenship, but to imprison and execute them. Given the chance they would do so here.

You see, every mass movement of religious and nationalist hate needs a scapegoat. For the German right it was the Jews, for the modern American right it is the Gays. As Eric Hoffer wrote: “Hatred is the most accessible and comprehensive of all the unifying agents. Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a god, but never without a belief in a devil.” To the German Right in the 1920s and 1930s the Jews were the Devil, to many conservative American Christians the Gays are the Devil.

holocaust-1-1024x682

Men Convicted of Homosexuality with the Upside Down Pink Triangle in a Concentration Camp

You see it is just a short jump from thoughts, to words to actions. Those who embrace the hatred of Gays, just as those who embraced the hatred of the Jews are just a little ways from thoughts, to words to actions. Believe me, with a Congress that now has a sizable number of people who honestly believe that the Gays are the enemy, not just of them but of God, that actions may well follow. That being said I think that the tide of history is going the other direction, but that does not mean that such people are not dangerous should they ever be in a place to enforce their religious and ideological beliefs on others.

Mahatma Gandhi wrote:

“Your beliefs become your thoughts,
Your thoughts become your words,
Your words become your actions,
Your actions become your habits,
Your habits become your values,
Your values become your destiny.”

That is why as a white, male, Christian, Navy Chaplain and priest I must speak out against such hatred and support the rights of the LGBT community. I have to speak out, as do other Christians. As Martin Niemoller, a naval hero of the First World War and conservative German pastor who initially supported Hitler noted:

In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me –
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Sadly, today, most conservative American Christians don’t understand this profound political philosophy. Likewise, they, like Martin Niemoller and others throughout history, will find that some of the people that they support will turn on them once they no longer need their votes or political support.

That my friends is a fact and why anyone should beware of any religious leader or politician who turns any minority group into a Devil should be feared, because they do mean business, and their ruthlessness is only concealed by the veneer of religion and law.

Peace

Padre Steve+

3 Comments

Filed under History, LGBT issues, nazi germany, Political Commentary, Religion

An Exercise in Exceptions: “Absolute” Truth, Faith and Justice

dyer-hanging1

“Religion carries two sorts of people in two entirely opposite directions: the mild and gentle people it carries towards mercy and justice; the persecuting people it carries into fiendish sadistic cruelty…” Alfred North Whitehead 

Those who follow my writings know how much I struggle with faith and doubt on a daily basis. I believe, but as the man told Jesus when he asked Jesus to heal his child “I believe, help my unbelief.” I no longer believe in the “absolute truths” that I once believed. Of course to some this makes me a heretic or worse. That being said, I have faith in a God I cannot see. I have faith in a God who clothes himself in human weakness and allows himself to be killed as a state criminal.

That being said I see many of my fellow Christians, not to mention those of other faiths who attempt to use their interpretation of what they believe are absolute truths and attempt to impose them on others. Using their houses of worship they indoctrinate believers into believing the “truth” including the judgment on non-believers.

I remember going through classes in my previous denomination which were entitled “The Government of God” and utilized Robert Bork’s book Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline as its primary text. Obviously the class had little to do with faith, but was a tool by which we were indoctrinated to believe the political-religious ideology of our church leaders. There were several more texts, which basically echoed Bork’s thought, but they were taught in a manner is if they were as important as the often contradictory Biblical tests or the writings of the church Fathers, the great saints, scholastics or Protestant Reformers. It was an exercise in political indoctrination based on religious ideology. At the time I had no idea that what the church leaders were appealing to was nothing more than a variation on Christian Dominionism. 

Such ideology is incredibly dangerous because when people in power take it to heart and act upon it, all pretense of fairness, justice and integrity is lost. Those who are simply different are persecuted, those who do not tow a particular party or religious line are suspect, and the innocent are presumed guilty. It has happened throughout human history in every corner of the world, and it still goes on today.

I ended up rejecting that view of faith and life after coming home from Iraq, and for voicing my disagreement on a number of issues was asked to leave that denomination in 2010.

I believe again, but my doubts are real. But even more I have a belief in justice, and I believe that that justice itself cannot be built on absolutes. As Captain Jean Luc Picard (Patrick Stewart) noted in the Star Trek the Next Generation episode Justice: 

“I don’t know how to communicate this, or even if it is possible. But the question of justice has concerned me greatly of late. And I say to any creature who may be listening, there can be no justice so long as laws are absolute. Even life itself is an exercise in exceptions.”

I have found that as Picard said, “that life itself is an exercise in exceptions.”  We all make them, and the Bible and the history of the church is full of them. So I have a hard time with those who claim an absolute certitude in beliefs that are built on faith and treat them as fact, despite the fact that they are not provable. Dietrich Bonhoeffer noted the problem well when he talked of this problem and described the dilemma of so many believers:

“Man no longer lives in the beginning–he has lost the beginning. Now he finds he is in the middle, knowing neither the end nor the beginning, and yet knowing that he is in the middle, coming from the beginning and going towards the end. He sees that his life is determined by these two facets, of which he knows only that he does not know them”

Even so believers of all faiths wrap themselves in the certitude of their faith. They espouse doctrines that at best are humanity’s best attempts to describe a God that is infinitely bigger and more complex than they believe. The contest then becomes not about God himself, but the manner that the human being who interprets God espouses as incontrovertible doctrine. Eric Hoffer wrote:

“A doctrine insulates the devout not only against the realities around them but also against their own selves. The fanatical believer is not conscious of his envy, malice, pettiness and dishonesty. There is a wall of words between his consciousness and his real self.”

That certitude and the belief that we absolutely know the mind of a God who claims that we cannot know is the height of arrogance and it ensures that when we speak in terms of absolutes that we do not understand God, nor do we believe in justice, because as Captain Picard so wisely noted “life itself is an exercise in exceptions.” Even the most devout of believers make exceptions, simply because they are human and can’t avoid it, unless they are sociopaths.

Henri Nouwen wrote something very profound that all who claim to know God’s absolute will or truth need to consider. Nouwen wrote: “Theological formation is the gradual and often painful discovery of God’s incomprehensibility. You can be competent in many things, but you cannot be competent in God.”

The fact is that no one can be competent in God, and that those who claim to are either hopelessly deluded b their ignorance, or worse, are evil men masquerading as good. Those who pro port to know absolutes and want to use the Bible or any other religious text as some sort of rule book that they alone can interpret need to ask themselves this question, posed by Commander Riker to Captain Picard when he talked about absolutes and life: “When has justice ever been as simple as a rulebook?” 

Sadly too many people, Christians, Moslems, Jews, Hindus, and others apply their own misconceptions and prejudices to their scriptures and use them as a weapon of temporal and divine judgement on all who they oppose. However, as history, life and even our scriptures testify, that none of us can absolutely claim to know the absolutes of God. As Captain Picard noted “life itself is an exercise in exceptions.” 

Thus our human justice, as feeble as it often is must take this into account: It takes true wisdom to know when and how to make these exceptions, wisdom based on reason, grace and mercy. Justice, is to apply the law in fairness and equity, knowing that even our best attempts can be misguided and if based on emotion, hatred, racism or vengeance all clothed in the language of righteousness can be more evil than any evil it is supposed to correct.

Does it matter if we are doing it the sake of law and order, or for love of country, or to defend the faith; if at the heart of it what we call justice, or moral absolutes is nothing more than the implementation of an agenda to crush the powerless under our heel and promote even more injustice? If we lean toward the view that we are implementing the absolute law and will of God then we had better be sure, as Nouwen so well noted we can be competent in many things, but we cannot, as much as we deceive ourselves, be competent in God.

But we see it all too often, religious people and others misusing faith to condemn those they do not understand or with whom they disagree. As Patrick Stewart playing Captain Jean Luc Picard noted in the Start Trek Next Generation episode The Drumhead:

“We think we’ve come so far. Torture of heretics, burning of witches it’s all ancient history. Then – before you can blink an eye – suddenly it threatens to start all over again.”

Peace

Padre Steve+

2 Comments

Filed under civil rights, ethics, faith, laws and legislation, philosophy, Religion

UPDATE: It Depends on What Your Definition of “Christian” Is…

10570298_10152872503382059_5058681841617456899_n

This article was updated Sunday 23 November to clear up some grammar issues, and in doing so I have provided some updates to let you know what is currently happening, and to better enhance my arguments.

My friends, last week I had something occur that was so troublesome that I had to report it to certain Federal law enforcement authorities as well as a nationally known advocate for religious liberty issues.

Since the Feds are still doing their investigation I have to wait to post the article. I spoke with and I am in contact with the head of that group. Like me he is waiting to see what the investigators report. As things stand right now I expect that it may be sometime in December before I can publish in any detail what happened.

Conceivably this could end up getting some media attention because it involves a military member, civilian or contractor working for a military command that deals with IT issues. It is an organization which has been accused of hacking people and organizations across the political spectrum. Stupidly the individual did not think that I could look up his IP address and in this case track it down to the exact base, command and building where it originated.

The individual used the government network to post demeaning and harassing posts about my religious beliefs on this site under a pseudonym. What they said,their pseudonym and e-mail moniker left no doubt that they are some kind of politically minded and motivated right wing Christian intent on shouting down their opposition.

I cannot go into any more detail but it is troubling. If the comments had come from a civilian network I would blow it off as the work of a crackpot. The person may be a crackpot, but I figure that based on where this message originated it was someone working for the military who has a Top Secret security clearance. Why such a person would be attacking me, a senior Navy Chaplain and combat vet about my religious beliefs from a military network is beyond me.

But then maybe It all depends on what your definition of being a “Christian” is, and based on the religious-political hyperbole of the Christian Right, I don’t think I am a Christian anymore. But then being a “Christian” really does depend on what your definition of being a Christian “is” to use the words of former President Bill Clinton.

I am not a Christian if it means…

Elevating your interpretation of the Bible over Jesus…

Using your interpretation of scripture to damn other people to Hell or anywhere else, including Mississippi, even if there are equally valid interpretations from other Christian sources…

Elevating partisan political issues above the commands of Jesus…

Being more concerned with maintaining your political power than caring about people…

Demonizing anyone that disagrees with whatever pet doctrine that you hold dear, even if that doctrine was condemned by other Christians throughout history to be heretical…

Accuse others of the most horrible, unbelievable and false conspiracies and then claim that God told you to do it…

Claim a right or privilege for yourself based on your Christian Faith, and the use the police power of the state to enforce it, all the while denying the same rights to others…

When you are criticized by the very people that you condemn to Hell, or use economic boycotts against, or use the power of the state to condemn claim that you are now the victim of persecution…

The funny thing this is not new.

Such behavior by Christians goes back over a millennium.

In 1054 the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox split over one word in the Nicene Creed that described the precedence of the Holy Spirit.

The Protestant Reformers elevated their interpretation of scripture over the Roman Catholic instance on scripture being interpreted through Church Tradition and the theology of Thomas Aquinas.

The Radical Reformers insisted on believer’s  or adult baptism over infant baptism…

Early Pentecostals, as well as some today, insisted that unless one had been baptized in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of “speaking in tongues” that you were not a Christian…

Sadly, the trend continues as every new Christian sect insists on its own version of “the truth” being absolute truth. History shows that nearly every time such religious absolutists gain control of a civil government that they either by legislation or fiat make their religious law the law of the land.

Among these various denominations and sects these doctrinal issues are still officially in place, even if many church members don’t understand. The only difference is now that many of these people, who I would say are sincere in their beliefs have come together under a political banner, condemning secularists, atheists, and other non-believers to ensure that the Christian franchise remains on top.

This was the whole intention of the Manhattan Declaration of a few years back. Throw aside centuries or actual theological and doctrinal differences in order to keep political power, yes that is the Christian way.

After the Emperor Constantine made Christianity the state religion of the empire a theological dispute between Trinitarian and Arian Christians became political. Whenever an Arian Emperor was in charge Trinitarians were persecuted, and when Trinitarian emperors were in power the payback was hell.

The Cathars in France were exterminated in military crusades by the Roman Catholics.

The early reformation led by John Huss in Czecheslovkia was not only condemned theologically but led to a series of wars as the Catholic Church and the Holy Roman Empire sought to suppress it.

Martin Luther united with the “anti-Christ” Roman Catholic Church to exterminate the “enthusiasts” and Anabaptists during the Peasant’s Revolt.

Ulrich Zwingli executed his former students who had become Anabaptist and been re-baptized to demonstrate their new faith by “re-baptizing” them until they drowned in the Rhine River.

John Calvin ran a religious theocracy in Geneva where any dissent was punishable as heresy. and his government routinely executed “heretics” who did not hold his truth.

The Roman Catholic Church ran the Inquisition in conjunction with with the Spanish crown, as well as other Catholic monarchies, condemning anyone who strayed from the Catholic faith to persecution, imprisonment and often death.

Of course there was the Thirty Years War in which nations with state religions, Protest or Catholic launched wars of brutal extermination against each other, wars which devastated Germany and which the ruins of castles along the Rhine testify to even today.

The Anglican Church in conjunction with the British crown made Catholicism an act punishable by death, and persecuted other dissenters from the state church including early English Baptists, and the Calvinist dissenters who eventually came to the new colonies as the Pilgrims and Puritans….

The Puritans in the Massachusetts Bay Colony had the exclusive rights to the franchise, and persecuted early Baptists and Quakers often executing them, and in the case of female dissenters accusing them of witchcraft…

Sadly many in the Christian Right under the sway of a Neo-Calvinist political theology called “Seven Mountains” or Christian Dominionism are working at the local, state and federal level in this country to institute a theocracy in this country, with them, like their Puritan and Genevan ancestors having the franchise….

I could go on as there are plenty of other examples that I will not cite here. However, forgetting doctrine and even forgetting Jesus to keep power is nothing new for Christians.

Be assured that if all the groups that the now supposedly politically unified Christians now oppose were wiped out and no longer existed, that these same people would start fighting each other again to gain the exclusive franchise of a state religion. That is the unalterable nature of humanity. That is the unalterable nature of religion, that is the unalterable nature of life.

If you are a “true believer” in any of these Christian traditions you may disagree with me. But in your heart you know that I am right because you know that you are right, and if you are right then no one else is. Thus your power and status must be maintained regardless of the cost. That my friends is the nature of the political Christianity which is more grounded in politics and power than it is in Jesus. Eric Hoffer wrote about people that he called the “True Believers”:

“A doctrine insulates the devout not only against the realities around them but also against their own selves. The fanatical believer is not conscious of his envy, malice, pettiness and dishonesty. There is a wall of words between his consciousness and his real self.”

Disagree with with me if you want, but since I paid a lot more attention to church history, systematic theology and philosophy in seminary than most people do I can whip this stuff out without even looking at my notes.

The fact is that once an external enemy is defeated, those within the politically motivated Christian churches turn on themselves. Christians of different denominations or are different must also be defeated, humiliated and destroyed.

That my friends is the truth of history. That is the ever present witness of supposed Christians who value their political power, their economic position, and their place and status above all others. Alliances between various Christian sects are almost always temporary, never once have Christian sects who have united to face down what they think is an existential threat to themselves  have maintained their unity after the threat is eliminated.

And so it is… For such people it is not about a truth, nor is it about really about faith, nor is it about love. Those are ruses used to justify the naked brutal power and domination that they strive to achieve. Power and domination that is only satisfied when the ones seeking it have eliminated all opposition, even that of former allies.

That is why I say that it is all about “what your definition of Christian is.” 

So if my belief and trust in Jesus is not enough for the true believers… I am okay with that.

If the fact that I am baptized, confirmed and even ordained is not enough for the true believers… I am okay with that.

If the fact that I have had a “born again” experience where faith in Christ became real is not enough… I am okay with that.

If my belief which is grounded in scripture, tradition and reason is not enough for the true believers is not enough… I am okay with that.

If I do not use the name of Jesus to bludgeon non-believers and  if I do not ally myself to the Christian true believers who seek their political power and are willing to make temporary alliances with  those that they despise in the process…. I am okay with that.

If all of that means that I am not a Christian…

Then I am not… and I am okay with that.

I guess that if valuing the rights of Christians above all others and forcing others to follow whatever version of the Christianity is allowed by the state means to some to be a Christian then I am not a Christian… and I am okay with that.

If being a hateful, self righteous person who despise all that do not believe like them,mor do not meet their slitmus test of what it is to be a Christian then I am not a Christian… and I am okay with that too.

If those are the things that are now what are the marks of being a Christian, then I do not want to be one… I am okay with that.  I would rather follow Jesus than be labeled that kind of Christian.

After all, in the end it is about what God thinks, and not what your definition , or my definition of what being a Christian is.

I guess that Bill Clinton was really on target when he said that it all “depends on what your definition of is is” especially for politically minded Christians. People who have sold their souls to maintain political power but who don’t give a wit Jesus. Who don’t care about what their churches actually teach until they eliminate external opposition; and who then can concentrate on eliminating  the “heretical” Christians who were at one time their allies.

That is the ugly truth of “Christian” history.

Condemn me if you want. But before you do please take a look at history, especially the history of other Christians who once they eliminated external threats persecuted other Christians that did not believe just like them.

As far as me, I am now no longer on the defensive. I am taking the offensive against people who value their privilege, power and place in society more than they do the simple command of Jesus. That command of Jesus, to love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself matters more than political power.

As far as me, I will fight and protect the rights of the same people that condemn me to Hell. I do this  because as an American who believes deeply in the ethos of our Declaration of Independence says that “all men are created equal” and because of my office and oath to the Constitution that am demands that I defend them.

I am obligated to give them the protections and freedom that they refuse to give others. That being said, when they decide to mock me, attack me or threaten me using government equipment on taxpayer time, I will not play the victim. I will use every legal and moral option available to me to expose those that do for what they are.

So I cannot say anymore about what is happening regarding what I mentioned up front, but I will update you when I can.

You cannot believe how much that I want to expose those that attack me using the freedom that I by my service and oath strive to protect. But at some point I will.

Peace

Padre Steve+

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6 Comments

Filed under christian life, faith, History, philosophy, Political Commentary, Religion

We Were Warned about American Religious Extremists

Barry Goldwater - Preachers

It is ironic that back in the late 1970s and early 1980s that most of us were blind to the motivation and goals of the religious right. I can say that back then as a politically conservative Republican and evangelical Christian while I was all for the God and country stuff I really was not impressed by either Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority or Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition.

In fact back then it was laughable to think that the leaders of the movement whose words and actions seemed almost ludicrous. But times have changed and they are now a major force in the Tea Party and Republican Party. However, back then I think I can safely say that most people did not take these men too seriously, much less the lesser knowns of the Christian Dominion or Reconstruction movements, the New Apostolic movement, or Global Apostolic Network which is now such a force in the Tea Party and the Republican Party.

Since these people practically own that party today and honestly believe that they should use it as a political means to achieve their theocratic ideal, it is important not to forget that they were not always so powerful and that most of us misjudged them and their movement in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s.

Back in the late 1970s such people were considered a fringe movement and not taken seriously by most mainline Republicans or liberal Democrats. They were simply a conservative special interest group.

However back then and until 2010 I belonged to churches whose leaders and members took the message of such people quite seriously, and while I might have had reservations about the legitimacy of their message in therms of scripture, reason or tradition, I said nothing. Sadly, I can empathize with Martin Niemoller who countenanced the rise of Hitler only to realize his mistake too late.

But there were those who warned us about this movement. Chief among them was not a liberal or progressive, but a man who epitomized conservative orthodoxy in the Republican Party for decades, the late Senator Barry Goldwater.

Goldwater was certainly a conservative, but he was in favor of many things scorned by his successors in the GOP including a woman’s right to choose, women’s rights, gay rights, and other progressive ideas as he matured from right wing Presidential candidate to the voice of reason and moderation in the Republican Party as he ended his Senate career.

Goldwater may have had his flaws and many progressives rightly criticize his stance on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but unlike so many politicians Goldwater was able to grow in his beliefs and change as he grew older. Today Goldwater would not be welcome in the GOP or the Tea Party movement, and though an Episcopalian would be labeled as something less than a Christian by many so called conservative Christians.

Goldwater was perhaps the last true “conservative.” He was consistent and rational and had no problem taking on religious extremists in his own party, who he realized were growing in both influence and power. He said in the Senate in 1981:

“There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in ‘A,’ ‘B,’ ‘C,’ and ‘D.’ Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of ‘conservatism.’ ” Barry Goldwater 
(1909-1998) US Senator (R-Arizona) Source: Congressional Record, September 16, 1981

Sadly there are no leaders, elected or appointed, in the Republican Party today or the Tea Party movement willing to confront the American Christian equivalent of the Taliban.

After he left the Senate he continued to battle people that he labeled “extremists.” Responding to claims that the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition were the “new conservatism” Goldwater said:

“Well, I’ve spent quite a number of years carrying the flag of the ‘Old Conservatism.’  And I can say with conviction that the religious issues of these groups have little or nothing to do with conservative or liberal politics.  The uncompromising position of these groups is a divisive element that could tear apart the very spirit of our representative system, if they gain sufficient strength.” 

Goldwater also noted something that most of us missed back in 1981, he said in the same address:

“Being a conservative in America traditionally has meant that one holds a deep, abiding respect for the Constitution.  We conservatives believe sincerely in the integrity of the Constitution.  We treasure the freedoms that document protects. . .  “By maintaining the separation of church and state,” he explained, “the United States has avoided the intolerance which has so divided the rest of the world with religious wars . . .  Can any of us refute the wisdom of Madison and the other framers?  Can anyone look at the carnage in Iran, the bloodshed in Northern Ireland, or the bombs bursting in Lebanon and yet question the dangers of injecting religious issues into the affairs of state?” 

Of course Goldwater was right. Most politicians, regardless of their party are tempted to court religious groups assuming that they are basically benign. Unfortunately that is not always the case. The radical leaders who I have written about the past few nights do not care about the Constitution, nor do they even care about the integrity of Scripture, the Creeds or the Councils, and to whom reason is considered an abomination, but very few people understand this, assuming that religious people are basically good. Philosopher Eric Hoffer, a contemporary of Goldwater wrote:

“The impression somehow prevails that the true believer, particularly the religious individual, is a humble person. The truth is the surrendering and humbling of the self breed pride and arrogance. The true believer is apt to see himself as one of the chosen, the salt of the earth, the light of the world, a prince disguised in meekness, who is destined to inherit the earth and the kingdom of heaven too. He who is not of his faith is evil; he who will not listen will perish.”

Goldwater understood this and warned:

“The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others, unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy.  They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives. . .  We have succeeded for 205 years in keeping the affairs of state separate from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and we mustn’t stop now. To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of conservatism and the values upon which the framers built this democratic republic.”

Like Goldwater I have grown in my appreciation for basic civil liberties and the rights of others. Despite the fact that I am a Christian, I cannot countenance the evil machinations of those leading the politically motivated preachers, pundits and politicians who seek to run roughshod over the intent of those who authored the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and even the Gettysburg Address. Those that follow them thinking that they are being taught ideas that are either Christian or part of the American political ideal have been deceived and hopefully will realize it before these leaders drive them and the country over the cliff of religious intolerance and ultimately oppression.

In 1994 Goldwater wrote:

“I am a conservative Republican, but I believe in democracy and the separation of church and state.  The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please as long as they don’t hurt anyone else in the process.”

One does not have to agree with Goldwater on all that he believed.  His economic policies were much akin to Social Darwinism and his 1964 campaign and opposition to the civil rights movement were heavily tainted by racism, so much that baseball great and civil rights pioneer, Jackie Robinson, a longstanding Republican was threatened at the GOP 1964 National Convention where Goldwater was nominated as the GOP Presidential nominee. Those things being said Goldwater did change over time on a number of important civil rights issues and was absolutely correct about the nature and purpose of the leadership of the Religious Right, they seek as Gary North, one of their most eloquent ideologues noted: “The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise…” 

I spent over 30 years of my life as a Republican before leaving the party in disgust following my return from Iraq in 2008, largely due to the influence of the political preachers that now seem to own the GOP. Pat robertson knew the opportunity the Religious Right had in the early 1990s and his words are still gospel to many religious conservatives. Robertson noted: “With the apathy that exists today, a well organized minority can influence the selection of candidates to an astonishing degree.”

Goldwater spoke of Robertson and others late in life noting: “When you say ‘radical right’ today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.”

In that respect Barry Goldwater was a prophet. Goldwater realized the danger and was not hesitant to speak up against men that he knew would destroy the fabric of the country. Since Goldwater is dead, I will say it. These people are dangerous, extremely un-Christian and downright un-American in their approach to government. Their Orwellian doublespeak about “their” religious rights is a facade that they want to use to enforce their own brand of religious intolerance is well documented. 

Well that is all for tonight and until people wake up you can kiss it goodbye.

Peace

Padre Steve+

 

 

9 Comments

Filed under christian life, civil rights, faith, Political Commentary

The Absence of Empathy Among Conservative Christians

valuesvoterssummit

“Evil, I think, is the absence of empathy.” Captain Gustave Gilbert at Nuremberg

Since coming back from Munich on Friday night I have been catching up on the news and I was nearly overwhelmed with the amount of vitriol, hatred and intolerance coming out of the Values Voters Summit. The summit is an annual gathering of right wing political hacks who specialize promoting fear in the hearts of conservative Christians by fostering a nearly pathological culture of victimhood and persecution, in which they are the victims because others are being granted the same rights and privileges that they have enjoyed since this country was founded. Prominent among all of the speakers was a lack of empathy for anyone who did not hold their views, and those views are reflected in the latest Pew Survey on Religion in America where only 55% of consistent conservatives believe empathy is a value to be taught to their children.

 

Being that I am a historian as well as a theologian know all too well. The consequences for the church when such leaders promote such intolerance under the veil of being the victims reminds me of what occurred in Weimar Germany less than a century ago. At that time, conservative German Christians, feeling their privileged status that they had enjoyed under the reign of the Kaiser and other local monarchs being threatened took refuge in various right-wing political parties and organizations, many of which entered alliances with Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers Party.

vatican46_35

 

The leaders of those groups preached how they were being persecuted by the now secular government which had many Socialists in it. Feeling threatened by the rights now afforded to others, including socialists and communists, but in particular those provided to Jews they used a similar strategy to smear anyone that did not hold their perverted views of church and state. They felt that they were the victims; the victims of a “stab in the back,” which caused Germany’s defeat and the collapse of the Empire.

 

War hero and pastor Martin Niemöller was representative of those that took the bait. After the war Niemöller who after Hitler came to power and he realized what was happening spoke out and was sent to the concentration camp noted:

 

War hero and pastor Martin Niemöller was representative of those that took the bait. After the war Niemöller who after Hitler came to power and he realized what was happening spoke out and was sent to the concentration camp noted:

“I find myself wondering about that too. I wonder about it as much as I regret it. Still, it is true that Hitler betrayed me. I had an audience with him, as a representative of the Protestant Church, shortly before he became Chancellor, in 1932. Hitler promised me on his word of honor, to protect the Church, and not to issue any anti-Church laws. He also agreed not to allow pogroms against the Jews, assuring me as follows: ‘There will be restrictions against the Jews, but there will be no ghettos, no pogroms, in Germany. I really believed given the widespread anti-Semitism in Germany, at that time—that Jews should avoid aspiring to Government positions or seats in the Reichstag. There were many Jews, especially among the Zionists, who took a similar stand. Hitler’s assurance satisfied me at the time. On the other hand, I hated the growing atheistic movement, which was fostered and promoted by the Social Democrats and the Communists. Their hostility toward the Church made me pin my hopes on Hitler for a while. I am paying for that mistake now; and not me alone, but thousands of other persons like me.”

Realizing the danger of how Christians were giving their support to such parties and the implicit demands of some for a theocracy Bonhoeffer in the Bethel Confession wrote:

“every attempt to establish a visible theocracy on earth by the church as a infraction in the order of secular authority. This makes the gospel into a law. The church cannot protect or sustain life on earth. This remains the office of secular authority.”

But this is the same nonsense being promoted by Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Matt Staver, Tony Perkins, Laura Ingraham, Bryan Fischer, Ted Cruz and a host of others. Sadly, this vision of theocracy is very much in vogue in many churches and among conservative Christians in general no-matter what their denomination. Thomas Jefferson would be appalled by this. He wrote of the effects of clergy in political power:

“The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man.”

dyer-hanging1

Much of the thought behind the movement is from Gary North who posits a version of Christianity much like that of Calvin’s Geneva, and the Massachusetts Bay Colony know as Christian Dominionism or Reconstructionism. All of these leaders proclaim their desire to protect religious liberty, but for them religious liberty is a one way street, it only applies to them and the state should ensure that it does not apply to others. North wrote:

“We must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.”

North also wrote:

“The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church’s public marks of the covenant–baptism and holy communion–must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel.”

The scary thing for me is just how similar North’s words as well as those of others to the Nazi Aryan Laws against the Jews. Please know that I am not claiming these people are Nazis by any means. That being said, I think that their ignorance of history, the Constitution, American jurisprudence which is charged by fear-mongering and vitriolic hatred of those not like them opens the door to much evil. Note how similar North’s comments parallel the Aryan Paragraph:

“A citizen of the Reich is that subject only who is of German or kindred blood and who, through his conduct, shows that he is both desirous and fit to serve the German people and Reich faithfully.” and that “A Jew cannot be a citizen of the Reich. He has no right to vote in political affairs and he cannot occupy public office.”

While much of their vitriol is directed against Moslems, who because of acts committed by Islamic terrorist extremists are all targets of allegedly “Christian rage” like that of Timothy Rollins of The American Partisan who wrote:

“this can best be done by enacting the Great Muslim Purge from our military and other national security apparatuses. These people need to be removed from every security post, even to be completely removed from all levels of government employment, be it federal, state, county, city or other municipality. This applies especially to universities….” 

Westminster Seminary graduate Doug Giles who writes for the Townhall.com website who wrote on one of his commentaries:

“Please note: If Christ wasn’t cool with irrigating irate Islamicists for facts, I must admit, I would still have to green light our boys getting data from enemy combatants 007 style. Stick a fire hose up their tailpipe and turn it on full blast. I don’t care. I’m not as holy as most of you super saints or as evolved as some of you progressive atheists purport to be. Security beats spirituality in this scenario, as far as I’m concerned.”

Or who can forget that lovable darling of the Christian Right Sarah Palin who told the NRA convention that “waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists.”

For me to read and listen to people who claim to be Christians show such little regard for other human beings is frightening. Personally, I am frightened because I know the history of Christians when they not only hold control of their churches but the government. The persecution, torture and murder of heretics and unbelievers, the place of privilege given to the elect and the second rate status of non-Christians in their countries; not to mention the wars of extermination blessed as “holy” by the Church, such as the 30 Years War, the Crusades not to mention the numerous other wars blessed by the church. St Bernard of Clairvaux who told those going off to fight the First Crusade:

“The knight of Christ, I say, may strike with confidence and succumb more confidently. When he strikes, he does service to Christ, and to himself when he succumbs. Nor does he bear the sword in vain. He is God’s minister in the punishment of evil doers and the praise of well doers. Surely, if he kills an evil doer, he is not a man-killer, but, if I may put it, an evil-killer. Clearly he is reckoned the avenger of Christ against evildoers, and the defender of Christians.”

But it is not just Moslems that feel the wrath of the Christian Holy Warriors, but Atheists, agnostics, the LGBT community, other non-Christian religions including the Jews, though most deny the latter due to their beliefs about the role of Israel in the end times. Christians can behave as badly as the those committed to the Islamic State or ISIL. Our history has nothing to commend us, for when we as Christians “hold the franchise” to quote Gary North, we are more than capable of committing some of the most heinous acts imaginable.

thomasjefferson

 

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

“Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.”

Philosopher Eric Hoffer wrote something that we should very much keep in mid when we read or hear about the antics of those speaking at the Values Voters Summit and others like them:

“The impression somehow prevails that the true believer, particularly the religious individual, is a humble person. The truth is the surrendering and humbling of the self breed pride and arrogance. The true believer is apt to see himself as one of the chosen, the salt of the earth, the light of the world, a prince disguised in meekness, who is destined to inherit the earth and the kingdom of heaven too. He who is not of his faith is evil; he who will not listen will perish.”

Sadly, most if not all of the leaders of this movement of theocratic, liberty denying Christians are so immersed in themselves and narcissistic that they cannot comprehend this. Perpetually the victim they misapply scripture to justify their perceived victimhood. Such should not be the case, and Bonhoeffer reminds us of the mark of true Christian faith in a sermon where he said:

“Christianity stands or falls with its revolutionary protest against violence, arbitrariness and pride of power and with its plea for the weak. Christians are doing too little to make these points clear rather than too much. Christendom adjusts itself far too easily to the worship of power. Christians should give more offense, shock the world far more, than they are doing now. Christian should take a stronger stand in favor of the weak rather than considering first the possible right of the strong.”

Captain Gustave Gilbert who served as the Army Psychologist for the defendants ant the Nuremberg major War Crimes trials wrote of his experience with them in words that at least to me could apply to these supposedly Christian leaders:

“In my work with the defendants (at the Nuremberg Trails 1945-1949) I was searching for the nature of evil and I now think I have come close to defining it. A lack of empathy. It’s the one characteristic that connects all the defendants, a genuine incapacity to feel with their fellow men. Evil, I think, is the absence of empathy.”

Sadly we have come to the point where many people who profess to be Christians have no empathy, or for that matter any real love for those different than them. History shows this time and time again. Christians who have political power and the “right to the franchise” have behaved little differently than the terrorist thugs of ISIL and I can say with certitude based on the words and legislative efforts of the people who dominated the Values Voters Summit, that they too would behave no differently. As I walked on the Odeonsplatz and went to the Feldherrnhalle in Munich where Hitler’s Beer Hall Putsch came to an end I could not help but think of what might have happened had Christians during the Weimar Republic not gravitated and become politically captive to the right wing of German politics and for many the Nazi Party.

The right of religious liberty for all is far to important to be left to those that would claim it for themselves and deny it to others. As Jefferson wrote the Virginia Baptists in 1808:

“Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person’s life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the “wall of separation between church and state,” therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.”

With that I wish you a good night,

Peace

Padre Steve+

1 Comment

Filed under civil rights, faith, History, laws and legislation, Political Commentary, Religion

Prepare for a Long and Brutal Ideological War Against the Islamic State

“This war differs from other wars, in this particular: We are not fighting armies but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war.” William Tecumseh Sherman

Note: Please know, I have been to war, I have seen its devastation and heartache and I came back changed from the experience. I hate it. That being said, despite being a progressive who hates war, I am also a realist. I am not one that finds any romance or glory in war, but I know that sometimes it becomes unavoidable. In the past few articles I have written about the nature of war, the kind of war we are now engaged in with ISIL and some of the ethical and moral compromises that could easily be made in such a war. Thus what I write here is a continuation of those thoughts and I encourage you to look at those articles. 

President Obama came into office as a President determined to end the wars that the United States was engaged in and usher in an era of peace. That did not happen. The genie of war and chaos that was unleashed when President Bush stopped pursuing Al Qaeda and attacked Saddam Hussein’s Iraq refused to go back into its bottle. The new and more violent terrorist groups spawned from the loins of Al Qaeda in Iraq are now the dogs of war that have been unleashed on the region, threatening all of the peoples there.

This menace to the people of the region as well as to the West, known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is different than Al Qaeda.  It is a terrorist group to be sure, but it is also an embryonic state which is conquering territory, subduing people, butchering its enemies and murdering innocents in cold blood. They boast in their atrocities and believe what they are doing is blessed by their God. They have grown up and been nurtured by a culture of victimhood which they believe that past or present oppression justifies their actions. Eric Hoffer wrote something that is quite poignant if we are to understand the mindset of ISIL:

“It is doubtful if the oppressed ever fight for freedom. They fight for pride and power — power to oppress others. The oppressed want above all to imitate their oppressors; they want to retaliate.”

The leaders and fighters of ISIL are people of the 12th Century living in the 21st Century. Prisoners of their doctrine they are incapable of negotiation, seeing it as only weakness and a way to impose their will on those unable to, or unwilling to resist them. Hoffer described their mindset well in his book  The True Believer:

“A doctrine insulates the devout not only against the realities around them but also against their own selves. The fanatical believer is not conscious of his envy, malice, pettiness and dishonesty. There is a wall of words between his consciousness and his real self.”

Thus this war will be something different, something that we in the West do not want to comprehend. We want any war to be neat, fast and comparatively bloodless, but this will not be the case in the war against ISIL. Such wars may be possible against traditional nation states with weak militaries. But to believe that it can be with ISIL is wrong headed and dangerous because it ignores the nature of that group. Carl Von Clausewitz noted that:

“Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat the enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed: war is such a dangerous business that the mistakes which come from kindness are the very worst.”

Ultimately, despite the fact that I almost always counsel that war should be avoided and peaceful solutions found to resolve conflict, there are times that wars must be fought. If ISIL was a true nation-state with a conventional understanding of diplomacy and the relationship between nations it would be conceivable that the United Nations or perhaps the Arab League could help broker a deal. But ISIL is neither your father’s terrorist organization, nor a real nation-state. It is a hybrid which is not driven by realpolitik but rather a fanatical religious belief in their cause.  This allows them to dispense with diplomatic niceties and allows them no compromise with those they believe are the enemies of their God; including other Moslems.

Their war has been raging for some time in both Syria and Iraq. What they are doing is further destroying the mosaic of peoples who are part of the Arab heritage in both countries. The atrocities committed by ISIL against Shi’ite Moslems, secular Sunnis, Yidazi and Christians have been displayed around the world. Mass executions, beheadings and the destruction of historic sites which are important parts of the Christian, Moslem and Jewish heritage are only part of their crimes.

Some of those images inflamed people in the West, but it was the images of American and British hostages being beheaded amid dire threats to kill others and bring vengeance on the Western Infidels that finally got our attention.  The only condition for peace given by ISIL to those it considers the enemy is “convert or die.”  Whether we like it or not, war is now unavoidable. President Obama, the “peace President,” and some of his peers in Western Europe have reluctantly decided to fight ISIL and are now gaining international support for their efforts, even in the Arab world.

Some politicians and pundits seem to think that this will be easy, simply destroy ISIL where they stand. But that belief is illusory. ISIL and its sympathizers may seem to be concentrated in Iraq and Syria, which is enough of a problem for us, but their supporters, financial supporters and sympathizers are world wide. Interestingly Pope Francis noted that:“Even today, after the second failure of another world war, perhaps one can speak of a third war, one fought piecemeal, with crimes, massacres, destruction….”

That being said there is a warning that all must remember about this war. It is at its heart ideological, and it will be long and brutal and very importantly, the Islamic State believes that it can and will win it.

Winston Churchill said:

“Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events…. Always remember, however sure you are that you could easily win, that there would not be a war if the other man did not think he also had a chance.”

Thus in this war we cannot waver, and we must believe in our ideals of freedom, justice, equality and the value of a single human life. We must do this even though our practice of them often makes a mockery of them. But they are still ideals that are worth fighting for, because without them we lose something of our already flawed humanity. Carl Clausewitz recognized this and wrote:

“If the mind is to emerge unscathed from this relentless struggle with the unforeseen, two qualities are indispensable: first, an intellect that, even in the darkest hour, retains some glimmerings of the inner light which leads to truth; and second, the courage to follow this faint light wherever it may lead.”

It was said by Barbara Tuchman that “War is the unfolding of miscalculations.” For over a century the leaders of the West as well as Arab leaders throughout the region have miscalculated far too many times, and what is going on now is the tragic and bloody result of all of those miscalculations. The suffering and the human cost will be great.

Pray my friends for peace, but remember reality, peace is not possible when the kind of religious extremism that motivates ISIL is the driving force. That kind of ideology cannot be negotiated with, it has to be defeated.

It has been a long time since we in the West have had to wage that kind of war and it will come at some cost to our psyche and it will take some getting used to, if you can ever get used to the evil, the carnage, the suffering and the devastation that is the essence of war. As William Tecumseh Sherman said “War is Hell.”

Peace

Padre Steve+

5 Comments

Filed under ethics, Foreign Policy, History, history, middle east, Military, Religion, War on Terrorism

The Fallacy of Reductionist Fundamentalism: You Cannot be Competent in God

galaxy_universe-normal1

Today is a day for something a bit more theological in nature. A couple of days ago I wrote about the dangers of reductionist fundamentalism. One of the issues that fundamentalists of all stripes wrestle with is the issue of certitude. For them life has to be bounded by certainty. For them, whether in the matter of origins, or how life came about, in the matter of faith and morals, how life is lived in the present; or how the world ends, life must be certain. In fact, fundamentalism in all its forms inculcates believers that there is only one way of thinking, one way of knowing, one way of understanding things that are unknowable. 

Because of this need for certitude, Christians, Moslems, Jews and others of various persuasions have attempted to define the beginning and the end, as well as to dictate what is acceptable to believe, or acceptable behavior. However, this actually says more about their insecurity than reflects the strength of their beliefs. I can speak to this need for certitude from a Christian point of view, and from my study of other faiths make what I think is informed commentary.

But for people who supposedly believe in God, the reality is that in presuming certitude in what we think that we know  is actually a denial of faith. Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote that “a God who would let us prove his existence is an idol.” Bonhoeffer was right, not only do those that presume to know exactly how creation came about, how the universe will end or say with unrequited certitude what constitutes proper belief or behavior in the eyes of God make an idol of their God, they also, whether they intend to or not, put themselves in the place of God.

According to the writer of the Book of Hebrews, “faith is the essence of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen.” That writer, who I think is Priscilla (see Acts Priscilla and Aquila) understood that faith was not the same as empirical knowledge, otherwise it would not be faith. To understand faith in a modern sense it means that faith is something that we admittedly cannot prove. That is why it is faith.

I am admittedly a skeptic. I am. Christian, I do believe, but I doubt as much as I believe. In fact for nearly two years I lived as an agnostic, a priest praying that God still existed, thus is believe but even now doubt. That being said I have seen things that cannot be explained by science or anything rational, and there are physicians that I have worked with that can attest to those things. That being said I think there are a lot of events claimed by some as “miraculous” that are explainable and are not miraculous at all.

The fact is, whether it it about creation and the questions of origins, an exact definition by which to judge absolute truth for living or belief, or the manner of how creation will end; every single statement of such absolutes is contradicted by the fact that we live as Bonhoeffer wrote, and I like to call “the uncomfortable middle. Bonhoeffer wrote in his book Creation, Fall and Temptation that:

“Man no longer lives in the beginning–he has lost the beginning. Now he finds he is in the middle, knowing neither the end nor the beginning, and yet knowing that he is in the middle, coming from the beginning and going towards the end. He sees that his life is determined by these two facets, of which he knows only that he does not know them.”  

The reality for Christians is that we have to admit is that our belief is rooted in our faith, faith which is given to us through the witness of very imperfect people influenced by their own culture, history, traditions as well as limitations in terms of scientific knowledge. Even scripture does not make the claim to be inerrant, though some Christian Fundamentalist make that claim. Because of that, the Bible cannot be understood like the Koran or other texts which make the claim to be the infallible compendium of faith delivered by an angel or dictated by God himself. The Bible, of we actually believe it, is a Divine-human collaboration so symbolic of the relationship that God has with his people, often confusing and contradictory yet inspiring. As Hans Kung so rightly wrote:

“Christians are confident that there is a living God and that in the future of this God will also maintain their believing community in life and in truth. Their confidence is based on the promise given with Jesus of Nazareth: he himself is the promise in which God’s fidelity to his people can be read.” 

Does that mean that we fully comprehend the nature of Christ, or the doctrinal formulation of the Hypostatic Union which defines Christ as being fully human and fully God? Or does it mean that we fully comprehend or understand the doctrine of the Trinity encapsulated in either the Nicene or Athanasian Creed? Certainly not, none of those doctrines are provable by science, or for that manner even history, for there were and are people who consider themselves Christians who do not believe and who reject those doctrinal formulations. Thus for Christians to attempt to argue such matters as fact to those who do not believe is not productive at all. We must understand that faith in the living Christ is not in a doctrine but  a promise that we believe, by faith, is given given by God through Jesus of Nazareth.

The real fact of the matter is that fixed doctrines are much more comfortable than living with difficult questions or honestly examining the contradictions that exist within Scripture, history and tradition. The fact is this makes many people uncomfortable and thus the retreat into the fortress of fixed and immutable doctrine found in the various incarnations of Fundamentalism.

The fact is the world is not a safe place, and our best knowledge is always being challenged by new discoveries many of which make people nervous and uncomfortable, especially people who need the safety of certitude. So in reaction “true believers” become even more strident and sometimes even violent when confronted with issues that question immutable doctrine.

I wish it were otherwise but Christianity cannot get away unscathed by such criticism. At various points in our history we have had individuals, churches and Church controlled governments persecute and kill those that have challenged their particular orthodoxy. Since Christian fundamentalists are human they like others have the capacity for violence if they feel threatened, or the cause is “holy” enough. Our history is full of sordid tales of the ignorance of some Christians masquerading as absolute truth and crushing any opposition. Doctrinal certitude is comforting. It is as Eric Hoffer wrote:

“A doctrine insulates the devout not only against the realities around them but also against their own selves. The fanatical believer is not conscious of his envy, malice, pettiness and dishonesty. There is a wall of words between his consciousness and his real self.”

This is the magnetic attraction of fundamentalism in all of its forms, not just Christian fundamentalism.  Yet for me there is a comfort in knowing that no matter how hard and fast we want to be certain of our doctrines, that God has the last say in the matter in the beginning and the end.

But there some Christians who now faced with the eloquence of men like Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye who make legitimate challenges respond in the most uncouth and ignorant manners. The sad thing is that their response reveals more about them and their uncertainty and insecurity than it does the faith that they boldly proclaim.

themiddle1

Our doctrines, the way we interpret Scripture and the way we understand God are limited by our humanity and the fact that no matter how clever we think we are that our doctrines are at best expressions of faith. We were not there in the beginning  and we will not be present at the end, at least in this mortal state. We do live in the uncomfortable middle. Our faith is not science, nor is it proof. That is why it is called faith, even in our scriptures where as Paul the Apostle says “If Christ is not raised your faith is worthless”  and we “are to be pitied among men.” (1 Cor. 15:17-18)

We are to always seek clarity and understanding. However it is possible that such understanding and the seeking of truth, be it spiritual, historical, scientific or ethical could well upset our doctrines about God and that is not heresy, it is an admission that God will not allow us to put hi m in our theological box. As Henri Nouwen wrote: “Theological formation is the gradual and often painful discovery of God’s incomprehensibility. You can be competent in many things, but you cannot be competent in God.”

With that I will close for tonight.

Peace

Padre Steve+

Leave a comment

Filed under christian life, faith, philosophy, Religion

The Dangers of the Reductionist Religion of Fundamentalism

IMG_1915.JPG

My friends, today will be a busy day so I wanted to share a few thoughts about religious fundamentalism in it’s various forms. Now I want to say up front this is not an attack on God or people that believe it God, or in what God they choose to believe in for either their eternal salvation or just getting through life. Instead it is some observations about fundamentalist, or absolutist belief systems that allow no room for doubt or that any other view of God might have some measure of truth and how some groups use political, police and military power, even terror to impose those views on others.

It occurred to me a few years back that many Christians, among them Evangelicals, certain Reformed types, Fundamentalists, and even some conservative Roman Catholics practice a reductionist form of the Christian faith. It is a form that woefully short changes those that embrace it. Now I am speaking very general terms right now and the subject probably needs to be fleshed out some for each particular form. I probably will do that sometime soon, but let me continue.

What I have observed is that the richness, the history, the intellectual achievements, and the diverseness of the Christian experience, whether it that of the mystics like Hildegarde of Bingen, the patristic theologians such as Basil, Origen or Gregory of Nyssia, the scholastics such as Anselm of Canterbury who penned a philosophy that I much admire, “faith seeking understanding” the reformers such as Martin Luther, those of the awakenings such as John and Charles Wesley, the humanists such as Erasmus of Rotterdam, those of the enlightenment such as Schleiermacher, and Kierkegaard, the Neo-Orthodox of the early part of the Twentieth Century like Karl Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Emil Brunner and Paul Tillich, or the Catholic reformers leading up to and following Vatican II like Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Hans Kung, Yves Congar, Bernhard Haring, and Andrew Greeley, and the Theologians of Hope led by Jurgen Moltmann.

This list is certainly not exclusive by any means. However, the one common thing about these men was that they understood their faith in the context of the society, history, culture and learning of their day. They used reason informed by faith and wrestled with subjects that are for the most part denied to the reductionists of Christian Fundamentalism. The fact is that most fundamentalists of any stripe tend to disregard history, science, philosophy and other disciplines that seek to interpret the world and instead place their own understanding of God, their scriptures or creeds above all others. Various groups of Christians, Jews, Moslems, Buddhists, Hindus and other religions all do this, even some Atheists and other Secularists are not immune. It is a reality of many people’s need for certitude in a world that is full of too many troubles and contradictions.

Christian fundamentalism in its various forms reduces the faith to a small set of absolute principles from which no deviation is allowed. As I mentioned there are different forms of this, but in a sense adherents to any version of Christian Fundamentalism treat the Bible, their Statement of Faith, catechism or Creed as a sort of “tech manual” that provides quick solutions to those that “know the truth.”

By this I mean is that when there is a really difficult question that requires critical thinking, reasoning and nuance, instead of wrestling with it they throw out a Bible verse or a credal type statement to shut down the person asking the question. I think I remember the classic line that I heard when I was in high school: “Jesus is the answer, what was the question?” The sad thing was this was not a joke, the person who said it meant it.

Now I admit for some people a simple faith works well, that is human nature, but when religious leaders present the faith in such reductionist and absolute terms they impoverish their followers and end up driving off those who ask the hard questions. These are questions which cannot be answered by the shibboleths thrown out by these leaders because they are not easy, and defy attempts to simplify them. This is because they often deal with existential matters and the mysteries of human life and nature.

The fundamentalism in all it’s forms reduces life to a dualism in which one is either on God’s side (that is whoever’s God) or not in which all life’s questions are resolved by faith or religion. I would dare say that most of people’s most difficult questions, issues and needs are not religious at all and that is why so many people reject fundamentalism, either because they see the fallacies inherent in such inflexible systems of belief, or because they experience disappointment in those groups when the ideal of God presented, either as individuals or the community does not match reality.

As for as what people believe as individuals or within their religious communities that does not bother me one bit, even if I disagree with them. I fact I think the discussion of religion should be allowed in the public square. However, I believe that to discussion should include everyone, not just which religious group has the most power in government or influence in society.

The problem that I see is when such groups, regardless of what God they believe in decide to impose their beliefs on others through the power of the government, and for that matter even use their beliefs to silence others in the public square. The danger is when any such group decides it is superior, that it’s leaders have a lock on the truth, are “anointed” or whatever term they call it, hear directly from God, authoritatively speak for God and then use that to suppress dissenters or control unbelievers through the power of the state, of in the case of the new Islamic State, the power of military conquest and terror.

In fact the leaders and followers of such groups almost practice a form of Gnosticism, where if you have the right understanding of “the truth” you are superior to those that do not. Since God is the ultimate trump card in any argument those who believe they have the direct line are the most dangerous.

In spirit, this reductionist understanding of faith is ultimately destructive and when people take it to its logical end use it to justify the most heinous crimes against their fellow human beings. What we see with the Islamic State is really no different than other fundamentalist religions with absolute control of their society do to unbelievers. The ultimate choice for those under their rule, is to “convert or die.”

Christians have done this numerous times since Christianity became the state religion of the Empire under Constantine, and Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants have all exercised that option. One only has to look at the persecution of various Protestants by Roman Catholics, the persecution of the Anabaptists by Catholic and Protestant State Churches, the burning of heretics and witches, even in Colonial America, and the persecution of Catholic immigrants from Europe by American Protestants in the 1800s, not to mention the pogroms conducted against the Jews in Europe, the Holocaust, or the extermination of Native Americans in the name of the Christian God.

Moslems have done this too throughout history and in the present,where the Islamic State and other groups like it, Boko Haram, Al Shabab, and Hezbollah among them practice it in its worst form.

It is also part of the earliest forms of Judaism in the conquest of Canaan where God’s command, to put it in the modern vernacular was “kill them all and let God sort them out later.” In fact I remember scandalizing my Old Testament class in seminary by blurting that out. But when I read supposedly Christian apologists defending the legitimacy of what even they refer to as genocide it sickens me.

Likewise it was fascinating thing for me this week was to hear the star of the Duck Dynasty Phil Robertson, a Christian fundamentalist explain that “convert or die” was the choice that the people in the Islamic State should be offered. Others have said similar things and not just in regard to Islamic radicals.

Again, I have no problem who need to believe in a God of absolutes, some people need that and it is a free country. But I think that such beliefs shortchange and deprive them of the richness of faith, life and the mystery of God and faith, even the great mystery of the Christian faith that we proclaim in the celebration of the Eucharist “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.” The mystery of God who became man, or as Anselm of Canterbury wrote “cur Deus homo” “Why God Man?” or what Christians call the Incarnation, is central to the the Christian faith.  Like creation and the eschaton is a mystery, as Bonhoeffer wrote and we would be so wise to remember:

“Man no longer lives in the beginning–he has lost the beginning. Now he finds he is in the middle, knowing neither the end nor the beginning, and yet knowing that he is in the middle, coming from the beginning and going towards the end. He sees that his life is determined by these two facets, of which he knows only that he does not know them.”

The fact is that no matter what we say, we do not know and when we make absolutist claims based on our scriptures we have to remember that they as well are shrouded in mystery, but then Eric Hoffer noted “We can be absolutely certain only about things we do not understand.”

The mystery associated with the Canon of Scripture, includes the authorship as well as the contents of scripture. Since we don’t have the original autographs of any book of the Bible, or for that matter any major religions scriptures there is a certain mystery associated with the scriptures. We believe them by faith, just as we do in the existence of God. The reality is that in many cases we don’t know who the actual authors were and even as to when some of them were written.

This might make the Christian Canon of scriptures as well as those of other major religions sources of inspiration, spirituality, sources of good advice, lessons and ethics; but not absolute truth and fact in matters of history, science or anything else we might want them to be. The fact is we believe in God by faith, and we trust scriptural accounts by faith.

However, for those who must claim the Bible as absolute there is a need to prove it, and that need brings about the controversies of “inerrancy” that are part and parcel of Protestant fundamentalism as well as the absolutist claims of others in regards to their scriptures. Sadly, for many, their absolutist understandings of scripture or creedal claims are dogma to be defended to the death and to force upon others, rather than mysteries by which we experience the love and grace of God.

The problem is that such beliefs, even if they are from antagonistic or competing groups are all variations on a theme. They are all variations of the same species of religion, religion that must control or suppress dissenters at all costs, and if given the chance to use the police and military power of the state to succeed when dialogue fails. The only differences these religions have, besides the God that they believe is right, is the matter of degree with which they apply those beliefs. For some they are quite happy with keeping such matters in house and leave outsiders alone. But there are others in every major religion who have a need to impose their beliefs on others using any means necessary, including special privileges for themselves that no other groups get as well as to use the state to persecute, terrorize against or conquer by brute military force those who do not believe.

That is why the Islamic State must be defeated and why we must be ever vigilant at home to such beliefs, no matter what religious group utters them. Sadly the reality is that there are Americans as well as those in Western Europe and other countries

Now I am sure that I have offended some today, but that was not the intention. I believe in a person’s right to believe in anything they chose to believe or not to believe and to defend those rights, while at the same time defending others from anyone that wants to use the state to impose those beliefs on others.

Have a great night,

Peace.

Padre Steve+

1 Comment

Filed under faith, History, Loose thoughts and musings, philosophy, Political Commentary, Religion